Thursday, November 17, 2011

Taking the Baton---Kinda

I involved myself in a couple of discussions over at Stan's blog (Winging It) and came up again against Dan, who doesn't always get his comment published over there. In two different posts, I posted a comment that drew a response from Dan. Not believing it certain that Stan would publish Dan's responses, Dan decided to post them on the previous post at this blog. Since I've activated comment moderation, they've been staged until now.

What I've decided to do, since there are now two, is to post Dan's comments in the comments section under this post. To get the full effect of the conversation that led to these comments, interested readers can find the earlier of the two here. I will handle this one first. Then, the second one comes from here, and you'll find Dan's comment will suggest he's got his undies in a bunch. Reading the links will help understand if the comments don't make sense by themselves. Plus, Stan's perspectives are worth a read anyway. In any case, enjoy.

122 comments:

Marshall Art said...

Following is Dan's comment from the first link:
-----------------------------------
Marshall, since Stan is probably not going to post any more of my responses to your comments on his blog, I'll offer it here, if you wish to deal with it...

The more this goes on, the more it seems that Dan is convinced that we cannot be convinced of what the truth of anything about God and His Will is or can be. Isn't that a bit contradictory, or is he also uncertain as to his conviction on that score as well? What's more, he insists that we are obliged to be uncertain as well.

1. I have not said that we cannot be convinced of anything about God and God's will. I did not say it. I don't believe it. I'm convinced of many things.

2. I have not insisted that you are obliged to be certain. I don't think it. I didn't say it.

3. The post was on objective reasoning. My only point was to make a statement on which I thought we should all be able to agree easily, because the statement itself is objectively and obviously true.

The statement:

1. There ARE objective truths out there - Truths that are objectively "right," whether we know it or not.

2. HOWEVER, our arguments - our opinions, our guesses, our suspicions - about Truth, THOSE are subjective by definition, unless we have some way of demonstrating/testing/showing the Truth...

"in the realm of sensible experience
independent of individual thought and
perceptible by all observers"

So, IF you can make an objective argument for something as simple as "God is love," (a point on which I imagine we agree), then all you have to do is demonstrate it by giving your objective argument.

It does not exist.

And there's no shame in admitting that our subjective opinions on topics ARE indeed, subjective. Admitting such is just admitting to reality. It isn't saying that objective truths don't exist, it's just saying OUR subjective arguments about God are, indeed, OUR subjective arguments.

We should be able to agree on this, but if not, then just demonstrate to me by giving me an objective argument to support your point.

Marshall Art said...

First off, to be clear, this stuff...

"The more this goes on...he insists that we are obliged to be uncertain as well."

...was the comment of mine to which he is responding.

What follows is my response to that:

1. To say our opinions, interpretations or what have you are subjective implies a that we are limited in what we can know. If I say there is a tree in front of my house, that is not subjective as I know there is a tree there and can prove it. The same for God's Will. We can read it plainly in Scripture, for that is what Scripture is for, to inform us of God.

2. If you insist that we can only offer subjective opinions or understandings of God's will, that implies to me that you doubt the certainty of my claims about what God's Will is.

3. This one simply leads to what follows it: the statement. So,

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed, I think. But it is muddied by your example. No argument for "God is love"? Seems pretty simple to prove given how He gave us His only begotten to be a sacrifice for our sins. Can't get too much more objective than that.

What is really the issue here is what exactly is that which you believe is only a subjective opinion? When I speak of the sinfulness of homosexuality, Lev 18:22 is my proof. Are you suggesting that I need to prove that God actually handed down that prohibition rather than some alternative, such as ancient Jews just throwing it out as a commandment of God's, when perhaps it wasn't?

This all seems to come back to the issue of just what you truly think of Scripture and just how much God actually had to do with what is written in it. I happen to believe that it's an accurate rendering of how God wants us to live, including do's and don'ts for us today that have not changed since the days of Leviticus. That is, rules. If one believes the Bible is God-breathed, there is little trouble understanding objective truth. To put it another way, if one so believes, there is little we can't easily understand. I don't need to guess or suspect or form an opinion. If that red sign at the end of the street says "STOP", it's meaning is pretty clear because I can read and I know what the word means. Same with Scripture.

Marshall Art said...

The following is where Dan's panties seem to be riding up on him. This time I highlighted my words in bold. From the second link:
------------------------------------
I'll post this here and at Marshall's, as I expect you won't allow me to defend myself against these lies and twisting of my words...

But then, you simply replace God's written mandates and prohibitions with a list of your own rules adjusted for your sensibilities.

Bullshit. Strawman. Not my words. Not my position.

Nothing too definitive.

Bullshit. Strawman. Not my words. Not my position.

Nothing too specific.

Bullshit. Strawman. Not my words. Not my position.

You don't much care for how God wants us to represent goodness, but instead prefer your own sense of goodness.

Very much Bullshit straight from your mouth to God's ears, little man. Strawman. Not my words. Not my position.

This way makes room for any behavior so long as it matches your ideas of "lives, behaviors and actions that are motivated by the good, the pure, the love, the grace, the true, the just..."

Bullshit. Strawman. Not my words. Not my position.

At the same time, behaviors you don't like, like going to war to ward off despotic dictators who seek to dominate though murder and oppression, this you abhor regardless of whether or not goodness, purity, love, grace, truth and justice motivates the action against the despot.

Bullshit. Strawman. Not my words. Not my position.

You NEED subjectivity in your interpretations in order to believe as you do. A self-less objective reading won't get you there.

Bullshit. Strawman. Not my words. Not my position.

But to you, one lacks grace for merely holding to the Biblical truth regarding a given behavior.

Bullshit. Strawman. Not my words. Not my position.

To argue for that truth and insist that it still applies, is to lack grace.

Bullshit. Strawman. Not my words. Not my position.

So, Marshall, do you have anything to put out of your mouth that ISN'T excrement? Do you have any thoughts on my actual positions or are you just preferring to make up shit from your own brains using your own reasoning and fight THAT strawman?

If so, beat up your strawman all you want, my brother. If you'd ever like to talk about my positions, you know where to reach me.

Marshall Art said...

Not exactly the "grace" of which Dan so often speaks of so highly.

For the first emboldened comment, I was referring to your comments stated thusly:

"that we are to live lives of Grace, Love and Justice;
That we are NOT to harm innocent folk;
That we are to especially watch out for the least of these;
That we are to be respectful, kind, compassionate, considerate;
That we are NOT to be slanderous, gossipy or unkind..."


...as if that isn't legalistic to so insist. Yet, when we bring up Levitical prohibitions your friends gleefully ignore, WE'RE being legalistic. Above is your list of rules, Dan, the ones you prefer as more important than all of God's "other" rules. You say EXACTLY what I said you're saying by your continual defaulting to lists like the one above while minimizing the importance of plainly stated rules of Leviticus 18.

For the second two emboldened bits, to "live lives of Grace, Love and Justice" is pretty ambiguous. Lev 18:22 is plain and unmistakable (except to enablers).

For the next two, these are supported by damn near every comment and post you've ever published, smaller man, and is plainly evident in the two posts to which I've linked.

What the hell, your every response is crap, Dan. You are trying to dance around the clear implications of your position by insisting I produce exact matches of my comments in yours. Well, it doesn't work that way. You'd do better by trying to show how I'm mistaken rather than wetting your pants and pretending I've erected a straw man. You can say it's not your words. You can say it's not your position. But to many, like Stan, Neil, Bubba, Eric, Doug, Craig, Mark and a few others, it is a fairly perfect understanding of what your position is in practice.

Craig said...

Marshall,

You really should embrace grace.

How is it that everyone you mentioned in your second comment, plus Alan and GKS (at times) all have the same interpretation of Dan's position. Are we all wrong, or has Dan not explained his position with enough clarity to bring understanding?

Marshall Art said...

I tried embracing Grace once, and my wife got pissed.

As for your question, I'd say it's the latter. But I don't know that Alan and/or GKS belongs in that group because I believe they side with Dan on most things. They certainly don't side with me.

Craig said...

Most of the time Alan and GKS do side with Dan, but on several occasions (especially with Alan and Calvin) they'll go after Dan also.

I still can't help but wonder if he just isn't doing a very good job of communicating. It seems odd that this many people would all come to the same conclusion based on what Dan has written over the years.

Anyway, just embrace grace. Grace, Grace, Grace.

All you need is grace (all together now).

4simpsons said...

Dan seems to think that there aren't good reasons to take his arguments seriously. I agree with him on that one point, so I ignore all his other points.

I'm tempted to encourage others to do the same, but Marshall and Stan do a great public service. They wipe out Dan's illogical, anti-biblical arguments and keep him from spending as much time posing as a Bible-believer at sites that aren't on to his charade.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Not exactly the "grace" of which Dan so often speaks of so highly.


I suppose you're referring here to my calling your distortions of my positions "bullshit."

I have pointed out before that nearly every time (or at least many times) you say "Dan thinks..." and give your impression of what I think, you are nearly always wrong. You repeatedly misunderstand and misrepresent my actual positions.

I have pointed this out to you and yet it has continued. I have suggested that you back up and try ASKING, "Dan, when you say X, it sounds like TO ME that you're saying Y, could you clarify...?" and I could respond to your understanding of my position.

All of this has been to naught, as we can see you STILL misrepresent my position.

So, I used stronger language and imagery, HOPING to get across to you the ugliness of your misrepresentations.

Marshall, when you say my position is X - and that is a MISrepresentation of my position - it is very much like you spewing chunks of bovine excrement OUT of your mouth and right to God's ears and the ears of the world, and NO ONE want to have BS spewed in their ears. It's ugly, it's gross, it's graceless and tacky.

There is nothing graceless in calling a false representation a false representation, nor of using more extreme language to do so when it's a repeated pattern.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Yet, when we bring up Levitical prohibitions your friends gleefully ignore, WE'RE being legalistic.

This is a false representation of what we do (ie, we do not "gleefully ignore" these passages, rather, we strive prayerfully to read them in context and we seek God's will).

And when you try to force ancient laws in a modern situation, when you make up laws against something that God has not made up laws against, and when these laws lack in love and grace, it IS legalism, my friend.

Marshall...

For the second two emboldened bits, to "live lives of Grace, Love and Justice" is pretty ambiguous.

At times, life is ambiguous, my friend. Is driving cars that damage the air and sicken people and contribute to millions of deaths a year, is THAT a behavior that is lacking in love and justice? But what if it's not anyone's INTENT to harm anyone, does that make a difference?

It can be hard for people to say. One could make the argument either way.

For one example.

Nonetheless, I don't think it's TOO ambivalent to say, "I'm striving by God's grace to live a life of Grace, Love and Justice."

Am I taking something that belongs to someone else? Well, clearly, that is lacking in these qualities. Am I causing harm to some innocent bystander? Well clearly, that can be lacking in these qualities. Am I butting in to someone else's business where it's NONE of my business? Well that certainly can be lacking in these qualities.

To say "live lives of grace, love and justice" may be ambiguous, but not unreasonably so.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

You are trying to dance around the clear implications of your position by insisting I produce exact matches of my comments in yours.

No, I'm not. I'm telling you UN-ambiguously and OBJECTIVELY, "These are NOT my positions." And, being "me," I am in a pretty good position to be able to authoritatively tell you if this is or isn't my position.

What about this is hard to understand, Marshall?

When you claim falsely that we "gleefully ignore" points in the Bible, that IS FALSE. Objectively so. No one in my group is ignoring anything.

Where you seem to have the biggest problem is wrapping around your head the concept that people can reasonably disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of the bible. We do, Marshall, you'll have to get over that.

Dan Trabue said...

I must say that I am saddened that you have felt compelled to join the great conservative masses of blog comment blocking. It makes communication more difficult. Perhaps once your troll has had time to go away, you'll move back to the more open approach to communication.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

For all Dan's claims of being such a great Christian, his comments are often full of foul language as well as personal attacks.

Dan's subjectivity always trumps what the BIble actually says.

John B said...

Dan always bugged me. He always reduced arguments down way beyond what we were discussing then try to apply it to the discussion.

For example when discussing samesex marriage, he'd try to get me to agree that love is a good thing. I'd agree love is a good thing then he would make his case and claim we agree.

I almost wish he would return to my blog, I had asked him to move on. Too much of a hassle.

4simpsons said...

"I tried embracing Grace once, and my wife got pissed."

Thanks for the laugh!

Craig said...

Oh Marshall,

You nasty conservative comment blocker you.

Oh wait, you don't block comments, do you?

Dan Trabue said...

Wow, look at all the grace and love going out for me!

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

For all Dan's claims of being such a great Christian, his comments are often full of foul language as well as personal attacks.

1. Never made a claim to be a great Christian, just a serious one.

2. Glenn are you of the camp that believes that referring to bovine excrement is foul, but spreading false statements, gossiping and demonizing others is somehow NOT "foul language"? Speaking for myself, I'd much rather see a Christian say four letter words than to see them spread rumors and false reports.

Tell me Glenn, can we agree on that much?

[What are the odds I'll get no answer to that question?]

John B,...

He always reduced arguments down way beyond what we were discussing then try to apply it to the discussion...

...I'd agree love is a good thing then he would make his case and claim we agree.


John, it appears you have widely missed my point. I begin with general truths to confirm that we agree on the general truths. From there, I would try to pare it down to see where we part ways. I never tried to claim that we agreed on points we didn't. If you thought that, then I apologize the misunderstanding, for you clearly misunderstood me.

Mark said...

Dan spews, "Dan, when you say X, it sounds like TO ME that you're saying Y, could you clarify...?"

OK, Dan, I'll play.

Dan, when you say "God blesses (the oxymoronic) gay marriage", it sounds to me like you are saying God didn't REALLY say, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Could you clarify?

John B said...

Actually Dan,

"I begin with general truths"

That's actually your problem. You begin with the "general truth" that God is above all else, loving. And from that you conclude that the Old Testament accounts of God ordering Israel to lay waste to corrupt societies as just stories meant to help us understand a larger concept.

Any text that has God commanding something you consider unloving you chalk up to hyperbole and metaphor.

Since the Bible doesn't explicitly say "even loving committed homosexual relationships are sin" you take the passages that just say homosexual sex is a sin, and say "well it just says homosexual sex, not all homosexual sex".

You take the Bible as seriously as I take my daughter telling me she saw a dinosaur in her closet.

Dan Trabue said...

So, that said, if anyone has any points to make about my actual positions, I'd be glad to listen to them.

If this is just to be a gossip fest where we make up stuff about me, building strawmen to tear them down, well, I'd suggest that is contrary to sound Christian teaching, but do as you will, my brothers.

I'd prefer letting us reason together, respectfully and with the grace of God.

To deal with some of Marshall's comments on what I actually said...

1. To say our opinions, interpretations or what have you are subjective implies a that we are limited in what we can know. If I say there is a tree in front of my house, that is not subjective as I know there is a tree there and can prove it. The same for God's Will. We can read it plainly in Scripture, for that is what Scripture is for, to inform us of God.

Marshall, we ARE limited in what we can know. We do not have infinite wisdom. I can safely and objectively say that neither you nor I are unlimited in our knowledge.

As to your tree and Bible example, the difference is, we can all see, feel, taste, measure a tree. It IS objectively there, given the normal English definition of objective.

But the Bible requires interpretation. You read passage 1 and conclude A. I read passage 1 and conclude Not A. We can't objectively both be right, and the reason is, we have used our subjective opinions, unique to us, to interpret that passage.

Are you suggesting that your reading of the Bible is a Perfect and Unmistaken interpretation and you can't be wrong? And, even so, if it's YOUR interpretation, how can it be objective, observable to all?

I don't see how this is in any way controversial or questionable.

2. If you insist that we can only offer subjective opinions or understandings of God's will, that implies to me that you doubt the certainty of my claims about what God's Will is.

Well, I don't have an opinion about YOUR certainty. You may well be certain (ie, have a certain feeling inside your self) about some things. But your "certainty" (ie, the feeling) does not correspond with demonstrably objective support.

You and I may well be certain, for instance, that there is a God, but our certainty does not mean we have anything OBJECTIVE to which we can point to support our feelings of certainty. Our feelings of certainty ARE SUBJECTIVE.

Since they are tied to and unique to us (and not observable to all), in what possible sense could it NOT be subjective?

Dan Trabue said...

I had said (and this WAS/IS my point)...

HOWEVER, our arguments - our opinions, our guesses, our suspicions - about Truth, THOSE are subjective by definition, unless we have some way of demonstrating/testing/showing the Truth...

"in the realm of sensible experience
independent of individual thought and
perceptible by all observers"


To which Marshall replied...

Agreed, I think. But it is muddied by your example. No argument for "God is love"? Seems pretty simple to prove given how He gave us His only begotten to be a sacrifice for our sins. Can't get too much more objective than that.

My point, Marshall, is there is no OBJECTIVE argument for God is love.

Your "objective" "proof" is neither. You said, it's "pretty simple to prove, given how he gave his only begotten to be a sacrifice," is NOT an objective argument.

I'm still not sure that you all are getting my point. I'm saying YES, there is objective truth, BUT our ARGUMENTS for it are not always objective. As in this case, what OBJECTIVE evidence/"proof" would you bring to support our contention?

That "God sent his son..."? That is a SUBJECTIVE argument. We have no support...
in the "realm of sensible experience
independent of individual thought and
perceptible by all observers"

Thus, it is NOT an objective argument.

That is all I'm saying.

Marshall went on...

What is really the issue here is what exactly is that which you believe is only a subjective opinion? When I speak of the sinfulness of homosexuality, Lev 18:22 is my proof.

Lev 18 is a text. YOU THINK - IT IS YOUR OPINION, YOUR INTERPRETATION - that this text SUGGESTS that God would oppose a marriage union of gay folk. But YOUR OPINION and INTERPRETATION of what that text means, that is NOT objective, it is subjective, by definition.

You are making the claim (are you not?) that a passage in an ancient text (a text not universally accepted as evidence of anything) that says, "A man shall not lie with a man. If he does, kill him..." MEANS that God is opposed to gay folk marrying one another. That is YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the meaning of that text.

But it is not an objective understanding. It is not one that is

in the "realm of sensible experience
independent of individual thought and
perceptible by all observers"

Are we agreed on that much?

Or do you think that YOUR INTERPRETATION of that passage is The ONE RIGHT understanding, independent of individual thought (ie, everyone can agree to it) and perceptible by all observers? Obviously it isn't an objective understanding at least so far as that definition goes, right?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,

As a "Serious" Christian, using foul language is wrong, period. You saying you'd rather have bad language than gossip, etc, is a logic fallacy - both are wrong. That's like saying you'd rather have someone raped than murdered.

But you also imply that slander, etc was directed at you, which I have never seen. You claim it a lot to maintain victim status, even charging me with those things, yet it was all false charges.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,

Why is it that for thousands of years Jews and Christians understood that God abhorred homosexual behavior, but YOU have found that the Bible doesn't really say that, and that there is no objective way to read it? All the scholars for thousands of years are wrong, but Dan is correct?

"Did God really say?"

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

As a "Serious" Christian, using foul language is wrong, period.

And that is certainly an opinion, Glenn, and you are certainly welcome to have that opinion.

But God has not objectively told you that "foul language..."

And "foul language," defined how? The "naughty Seven" words in English language? Derivatives of those words? The clinical words associated with those "naughty Seven?" Who decides what is and isn't "foul," and did God tell them that or is that a cultural opinion?

The thing is, Glenn, you hold the position IN YOUR OPINION that saying "piss" (as Marshall did earlier) or "bullshit" as I said are "foul words." I hold the position that these are crude words, but not "wrong, period."

What makes your opinion on this matter the right one? Are you speaking for God or just yourself? If you presume to speak for God on this point, who died and made you God's spokesperson?

Do you get at the problem with your presumptions, here, my brother?

Glenn...

You saying you'd rather have bad language than gossip, etc, is a logic fallacy - both are wrong.

Says you.

Glenn...

But you also imply that slander, etc was directed at you, which I have never seen. You claim it a lot to maintain victim status

Here on this post, I have not referenced slander. I noted the objectively factual point that my positions have, in fact, been misrepresented.

For instance, you made the false claim that I engage in personal attacks when, as a matter of habit, I generally avoid doing that and have not done so here.

Pointing out someone's false witness is not a personal attack.

Do you have any thing I HAVE said that you'd like to address?

Dan Trabue said...

Mark respectfully asked...

when you say "God blesses (the oxymoronic) gay marriage", it sounds to me like you are saying God didn't REALLY say, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Could you clarify?


The text of the Bible contains passages where God is recorded as saying, "men shall not lie with men." and "don't cut the hair on the side of your head."

That text IS in the Bible and it IS attributed to God.

My position is that these rules are not universal moral prohibitions. "men shall not lie with men" seems pretty obviously to me to be referencing some specific, pagan practices specific to the people at that time. "don't cut your hair" also seems to be specifically directed to a specific people and a specific time.

Does that clarify?

Dan Trabue said...

John B...

You begin with the "general truth" that God is above all else, loving.

And that IS a good place to begin, would you not agree?

John B...

And from that you conclude that the Old Testament accounts of God ordering Israel to lay waste to corrupt societies as just stories meant to help us understand a larger concept.

That may well be one step along the way to making such a conclusion. It is not a direct leap, but IF God is a God perfect love and perfect justice, then it IS rather difficult to make the Truth claim that God sometimes commands us to kill innocent children.

Does that seem reasonable or unreasonable to you, John?

John...

Any text that has God commanding something you consider unloving you chalk up to hyperbole and metaphor.

I suppose I would say that any interpretation of any text that shows God as unloving or unjust, that this is probably a poor interpretation. Would you disagree, John?

In other words, if someone read the text, "Love your enemies," and they concluded that God was teaching him to have non-consensual sex with the enemy ("what better way to love them?" they reasoned), then I would argue that THEIR INTERPRETATION of the text is flawed.

Does that seem unreasonable?

I'm sure you could agree.

So, if you or someone else has reached THEIR INTERPRETATION of a passage and THEIR INTERPRETATION shows a god with characteristics don't match biblical and rational and moral characteristics of God, then I might reasonably question THEIR interpretation.

This seems reasonable to me, as a serious student of the Bible. Otherwise, you could have folk claiming all sorts of horrors in the name of "god."

John...

Since the Bible doesn't explicitly say "even loving committed homosexual relationships are sin" you take the passages that just say homosexual sex is a sin, and say "well it just says homosexual sex, not all homosexual sex".

That SEEMS TO ME to be the most logical and biblical explanation of the passage.

John...

You take the Bible as seriously as I take my daughter telling me she saw a dinosaur in her closet.

Really, John? Do you find personal attacks on a stranger on the internet to be a good way to conduct Christian conversations in a public forum? I would disagree.

Dan Trabue said...

Returning to Glenn's complaint about my "foul language..."

Glenn, here is what the Bible has to say about words, as it might relate to "foul language..."

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Ephesians 4

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

Colossians 3

And.... I think that's about it, unless I'm missing something.

So we have Paul's teaching not to let "corrupting" or "obscene" talk come out of your mouth. Now, I suppose that it is your intention to suggest that YOU BELIEVE that would include what we commonly call cuss words. But only the serious ones, probably. Therefore, I'm guessing that you would be okay with "poop" but not "shit" and Marshall's "piss" (which Neil found funny)? I guess you're okay with that one, and probably peepee?

"Screw" is okay (or not?) but "fuck" is not?

How about penis, dick, boner? All okay, not okay or a mix?

Let's take a guess here and say that Glenn thinks that poop, piss, peepee, penis and screw are all okay, if questionable, but dick, boner, fuck and shit are all NOT okay. To GLENN (I'm guessing, you tell me), these last four are all "foul," but not the others.

Now, I would ask, ON WHAT BASIS do you make this judgment? Has God provided you an objective and demonstrable list of words not to be used in good Christian circles? Or are you just using your own judgment as to what is and isn't "foul?"

And once you've answered that, I might ask, what makes you think your "foul words" are what are being nixed by Paul in this ban on "corrupting" and "obscene" talk? Maybe, but I doubt that to be a reasonable conclusion, biblically speaking.

After all, the Bible uses some of these words.

hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

and

Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts

God speaking in that last one. God is calling their solemn feasts bullshit which God will spread on their faces!

Bad God, you think?

Or do you think such coarse language might have its place? Like, for instance, when calling someone out for bearing false witness?

I think so, anyway.

You are welcome to your opinions on the matter, but if you're going to criticize those who use "foul language," I'd hope you'd at least be consistent about it and call Marshall and Neil out on it, too. Otherwise, you'll be acting a bit hypocritically, don't you think? Using your words in a "corrupting" manner, which, you know, Paul condemns...

And Glenn, at a guess, I would suppose if you look at Marshall's and my blogs, you'd find more "foul language" on Marshall's than on mine. I did a quick check and Marshall uses "damn" about three times on his blog while it only appears once on mine - AND I WAS QUOTING A CONSERVATIVE... (Mr. Sarah Palin).

Marshall Art said...

Due to a new job begun two weeks ago, I have less time than before. I'll address what I can.

I said:

"Not exactly the "grace" of which Dan so often speaks of so highly."

To which Dan replied:

"I suppose you're referring here to my calling your distortions of my positions "bullshit.""

Primarily, yes. A person of grace would find a more graceful way of expressing himself. "Bullshit" is coarse, to say the least. But I guess apparently it is OK if you have an excuse.
----------------------------------

"I have pointed out before that nearly every time (or at least many times) you say "Dan thinks..." and give your impression of what I think, you are nearly always wrong."

And I have pointed out that every time I say "Dan thinks...", or words to that effect, it is due to the inference provoked by your own words. You then insist I ask clarifying questions. Try this: regard "Dan thinks..." as the clarifying question and stop wasting time and keystrokes trying to dictate the rules of engagement.

Furthermore, I don't misrepresent you. As I've also stated, you simply don't like the way the implications of your words are reflected back to you. OR, as Craig suggested, you simply don't know how to properly express yourself. Neither is my problem.

"So, I used stronger language and imagery, HOPING to get across to you the ugliness of your misrepresentations."

Have you tried stomping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue? THAT would be akin to your cries of "Bullshit!" I would also suggest that they "ugliness" of our "misrepresentations" can't be helped if your representations are poor OR accurate.

"There is nothing graceless in calling a false representation a false representation, nor of using more extreme language to do so when it's a repeated pattern."

You mean like calling those who distort Scripture in order to indulge their sexual perversions, as well as those who enable them, sinners, or false Christians, or poor Christians or any of the other less than profane descriptions used over the years?

If you truly believe you are being misunderstood, then our words are only bullshit to YOUR ears, not God's, who we believe we represent far more accurately than you do. Assuming God sides with you is just as presumptuous as you believe we are when you accuse us of speaking for God.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"This is a false representation of what we do (ie, we do not "gleefully ignore" these passages, rather, we strive prayerfully to read them in context and we seek God's will)."

So are you saying that there was no joy among the homosexual community when some pro-homosexual enabler discovered that "loving, committed homosexual relationships" were NOT prohibited? (I know of at least one lesbian Biblical scholar that is honest enough to acknowledge absolutely no room for such an belief. I don't know if she carries on an intimate relationship, but I doubt that if she does she does so without some level of glee.)

What's more, you have yet to provide any support for the notion that Lev 18:22 refers only to pagan rituals and not the mere engagement in the behavior itself, which it does. Thus, you ignore what it plainly written and do so joyfully as you "celebrate" their "loving, godly families".

Thus, we aren't forcing ancient laws, unless you insist the same for murder and theft. But God plainly prohibited the behavior and never once gave any indication of any "loopholes" of the kind invented by self-serving people. As to making laws regarding marriage, we are looking to preserve that which God has instituted, that which best serves mankind and that which resists an agenda that must lead to similar opportunities for any kind of "marital" arrangement one can imagine. There's more going on than mere religion here, and to do the right thing can often lead to the cramping of styles. There's nothing graceless about that.

More later.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Have you tried stomping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue? THAT would be akin to your cries of "Bullshit!"

Marshall, do you think Jesus was wrong when he said, "BLIND GUIDES! FOOLS! SNAKES!..."?

Sometimes, repeated hypocrisy and arrogance earns a harsh response. I felt your repeated false accusations needed a strong and clear repudiation.

Don't like it? Then stop using "foul language" yourself. I don't find it graceless, so I shan't stop using it when I think it appropriate.

Does that seem reasonable?

Marshall...

I would also suggest that they "ugliness" of our "misrepresentations" can't be helped if your representations are poor OR accurate.

Folk coming from "my side" of arguments AND many coming from the non-religious side of things have had no problem understanding my words accurately. It seems to be a problem unique to SOME of those on the religious right, the more arrogant ones, it seems to me.

I AM striving to find ways to communicate my position so that such folk can understand them, but it's a little tricky when you all keep reaching conclusions that I have not made or suggested, and conclusions that I do not believe myself, in fact.

I AM striving to find that way. In the meantime, since the lot of you KEEP on having this problem, I would suggest it would be the better part of humility to begin asking "is this your position" rather than stating it.

Just a suggestion, IF you are interested in respectful and humble communication.

If you're just interested in demagoguery and demonization, then keep doing what you're doing and you'll be fine.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

you have yet to provide any support for the notion that Lev 18:22 refers only to pagan rituals and not the mere engagement in the behavior itself, which it does.

I have provided you MY REASONING multiple times. It's right there in the text and I've pointed it out to you.

You don't find it compelling apparently. Okay, don't believe it. I DO find it abundantly compelling -compelling enough that seemed obvious TO ME that it is speaking of practices in ritual pagan worship, and it seemed obvious to me EVEN WHEN I was a conservative Christian who did not WANT to believe contrary to my human traditions.

You find it compelling to think that this line "Men shall not sleep with men. If they do, kill them," is reflective of a generalized rule for all sorts of gay behaviors in all times. I find that to be not true to the bible.

What would you have me do? Go with what YOU find compelling but I DON'T find compelling, or go in the path that I believe the Holy Spirit is leading me and that seems the likeliest biblical and logical response? I will tell you what I will do, Marshall: Go with the path that I find most reasonable and biblical, regardless of what you think.

If you don't like it, well, I guess it's just too bad.

Mark said...

Actually, the word "piss" is in the Bible, to wit:

1 Samuel 25:22
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

1 Samuel 25:34
For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.


1 Kings 14:10
Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.

1 Kings 16:11
And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.

1 Kings 21:21
Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel,

2 Kings 9:8
For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel.

Basically, the passages refer to what distinguishes male from female.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan, Try reading Eph. 4:29 and then tell me it is just my subjective opinion. OH, wait, it is YOUR subjective opinion that the Bible doesn't mean what it says.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,

Oh, I see you found Eph.4:29 - you just selectively apply it.

God's context of using words is not the same as yours. But you don't seem to understand the Bible anyway.

By the way, "Damn" just means to condemn. I condemn ALL of your false teaching so I would damn your teachings.

Craig said...

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but ONLY such as is GOOD FOR BUILDING UP, as fits the occasion, THAT IT MAY GIVE GRACE to those who hear.

Ephesians 4



"Bullshit. Strawman"
"Bullshit. Strawman"
"Bullshit. Strawman"
"Bullshit. Strawman"
"Bullshit. Strawman"
"Bullshit. Strawman"
"Bullshit. Strawman"
"Bullshit. Strawman"
"Very much Bullshit straight from your mouth to God's ears, little man. Strawman"

" It is slimy and diabolical and excrement-filled."
"...is just bullshit of the most rotten and diabolical sort."
"“This is more of the arrogant mouth shit that some less mature (or just vainly arrogant) Christians spew instead of actual responses."


Any of those responses seem to be "good for building up" or "giv(ing) grace to all who hear"

It is probably not a great plan to cut/paste verses when they point out the fact that you are not following said verses.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan wants to reinterpret Lev. 18 in light of his pro-homosexual bias so as to give justification for his belief. However, the passage is quite plain that homosexual behavior is an abomination to God:

Chapter 18 starts with God saying, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. From this point God lists all sorts of sexual practices which were done in Egypt and Canaan, and which God found detestable. There are no other topics in this chapter; God just says don’t do any of these things because these are a reason why God is punishing the nations by having Israel drive the people out of the land. It was these practices which made the land unclean. The Scripture is very, very plain: God says all the listed sexual behaviors are an abomination to Him, and that those who practice these things are worthy of severe punishment.

Now here is the second passage: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Lev. 20:13

Notice the same strong verbiage God uses to explain His revulsion to such behavior; it is an abomination. Again, let’s look at the context.

Beginning at 20:10, God again lists numerous sexual practices which He forbids. And again, God gives the reason why at verse 23: And you shall not walk in the customs of the nations that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things and therefore I detested them. God said that the pagan lands where he was bringing them were detested - another strong word - because of these sexual practices.

Leviticus has many ceremonial laws and social order laws which are meant only for Israel as a way to set the nation up as holy - separated - to himself. Scripture tells us these laws were just for Israel (Deut. 4:7-8; Lev. 27:34; Ps. 147:19-20, et al). However, in His discussion about sexual practices He found abhorrent, God says these are behaviors that those outside of Israel are even disallowed, and because they practice such abominations they are being destroyed.

The point is, that the Leviticus passages aren’t just relegated to some ancient prohibition for some people. These passages speak of these sexual practices as something that God detests among people no matter when or where.

There are some claims by those promoting homosexuality that we misunderstand these passages. They say that it is only about homosexual behavior in conjunction with idolatry. But this leaves a problem: Does God then condemn incest, adultery and bestiality ONLY if they are done in conjunction with idolatry - that at any other time they are okay?

Jim said...

All readers of this blog are invited to read and comment on a new post on my blog about American Exceptionalism.

My blog is According to My Sources

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Any of those responses seem to be "good for building up" or "giv(ing) grace to all who hear"

The point of calling falsehoods BS is not grace, but more the calling out of religious hypocrisy, arrogance in the manner of Jesus calling the pharisees blind guides, fools and snakes.

Do you think that Jesus and the other prophets who used harsh language at times when dealing with arrogance and oppression? I doubt that you do.

Craig...

It is probably not a great plan to cut/paste verses when they point out the fact that you are not following said verses.

Brother Craig, I strive to follow such verses and, based on our exchanges in this crowd, I feel I do at least as well as those who'd call obvious orthodox Christians "not Christian," and refer to piss and damn.

But I suppose striving to denigrate those who use "foul language" is limited to only those one disagrees with. I'd hate to believe that such hypocrisy is so blatant in your lives, my friends, but that's where the evidence is pointing.

Glenn, in your graceless arrogance and hypocrisy, you still condemn me for doing what you won't condemn your fellow conservatives of, and I do it less. And you didn't answer, WHO gets to decide what "foul language" is? Are you the arbiter of the good words and bad ones?

Do you mind if I don't pay much attention to your hunches, if you're not even going to try to defend them?

Marshall Art said...

Responding in a shotgun-type manner.


Dan,

Regarding your last comment to me of Nov 18, 9:29PM.

"I have provided you MY REASONING multiple times. It's right there in the text and I've pointed it out to you."

No, actually, you haven't. Once you referred me to your friend and his six part series on inclusiveness, where he used all the exhaustively refuted arguments in favor of "loving, committed homosexual relationships". But like him, there has been no direct connection between what you believe and how you got there. You might recall how in grade school, when you answered 52 when asked what was 1924 divided by 37, your teacher wasn't satisfied because you didn't show your work. In the same manner, you haven't shown your work here. Nowhere in Lev 18 does it say anything about pagan rituals, aside from sacrificing one's kids to Molech. But that doesn't imply that the whole chapter is one of prohibiting pagan worship or ritualistic practices. THAT is covered by "Thou shalt have no other gods before thee." To put it another way, had the Egyptians and Canaanites already lived exactly as the Jews were now expected to, except that they worshiped false gods, these prohibitions would still be in effect because they were in and of themselves detestable to God. Notice how God never prohibits sex between loving committed opposite sex couples, but restricts it to when (only marriage) and with whom (one's wife/husband). There is nothing to show that "practices" refers to rituals, but only custom. That is, what was common for the Egyptians and Canaanites.

It is from this list of prohibitions that our "human traditions" originate. To reject these "human traditions" is to reject the Will of God who instituted them.

"...it seemed obvious to me EVEN WHEN I was a conservative Christian..."

Please stop saying this. You were NEVER a conservative nor a conservative Christian. Your statements regarding either do not reflect in the least what it means to be either. That you might have regarded homosexual behavior as sinful means only that you accepted what you were told. That you might have voted for right-wing politicians means no more. Neither confirms a true understanding, but your comments these days confirms you never had one.

more...

Marshall Art said...

"You find it compelling to think that this line "Men shall not sleep with men. If they do, kill them," is reflective of a generalized rule for all sorts of gay behaviors in all times. I find that to be not true to the bible."

It's not that I find it compelling, but instructive. That is because despite your preference, the fact is that it is indeed reflective of God's attitude toward perverting His intentions for human sexuality. So are all the other sexual sins listed in Lev 18. Another point you fail to grasp or refuse to acknowledge. It is what all these verses are teaching, but into which you and the activists insist on forcing loopholes. More illogical is the idea that this is not true to the Bible when from the Bible is where we learn this.

"What would you have me do? Go with what YOU find compelling but I DON'T find compelling, or go in the path that I believe the Holy Spirit is leading me and that seems the likeliest biblical and logical response?"

Well, it would be nice if you could supply something that demonstrates reason and logic. That would suggest the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What you have now suggests a vastly different guide entirely. Not one you should be following.
---------------------------------

Regarding hypocrisy, I shouldn't have to point out that among the lot of us, only you continually default to this plea for grace in discourse. It's a constant refrain. In essence, what you're doing is calling us hypocrites for pointing out your hypocrisy. I've never kept score, but I wouldn't debate over which of us uses the word "asshole" more. But between the two of us, who insists on grace the most?

Then, as Stan pointed out in a recent post at his blog, you justify it for yourself. You have a reason so it's OK to use language clearly lacking in grace. That's funny. I certainly feel I have a reason when I refer to someone acting like an asshole. I even back it up with that reason. But I don't pretend I am otherwise so insistent on grace. If a pretense of piety and sanctimony were so important to me, I'd go the extra mile and restrict my language, finding alternative ways to get my point across. What the hell? It can't be more of a burden that trying to justify conflicting behaviors.

"I must say that I am saddened that you have felt compelled to join the great conservative masses of blog comment blocking. It makes communication more difficult."

No shit (oops!). As was mentioned, I have not blocked anyone except those who abuse the welcome to engage in serious discussion. Such action IS indeed a conservative trait, because unlike the other side, conservatives do not tolerate ongoing bad behavior. However, I have been totally blocked by your aforementioned friend, another psuedo-sanctimonious distorter whose demeanor cracks when his false beliefs are exposed. AND, little Geoffie is none to welcoming, preferring to regard my comments as unworthy of serious response. Ron, at A Conscious Outpost, also refuses to defend his positions or explain why I am mistaken. As for you, of those right-wingers of whom I am aware, they have limited their exchanges with you due to YOUR style of debate, YOUR insistence on what is or isn't acceptable in doing so, which inhibits real discussion of the issues between you. I'm simply not as fussy.

Marshall Art said...

"Folk coming from "my side" of arguments AND many coming from the non-religious side of things have had no problem understanding my words accurately. It seems to be a problem unique to SOME of those on the religious right, the more arrogant ones, it seems to me."

Folk from YOUR SIDE are far too happy to lie to themselves. I have no problem believing they understand you perfectly because of the same reasons I believe you hold the positions you do. It allows for more freedom to believe what they want about their own selves. It's all part of the "agree to disagree" nonsense that makes any discussion totally worthless. The religious right are not willing to reject truth for convenience or personal profit. The religious right isn't afraid to stand for truth, either. Calling that "arrogance" is cheap and cheesy and unworthy of an honest man.

"I AM striving to find ways to communicate my position so that such folk can understand them, but it's a little tricky when you all keep reaching conclusions that I have not made or suggested, and conclusions that I do not believe myself, in fact."

We reach the only conclusions your words allow and what they indeed suggest. I'm glad you don't believe them. I just don't understand why you keep saying them.

"Marshall, do you think Jesus was wrong when he said, "BLIND GUIDES! FOOLS! SNAKES!..."?"

God takes lives. I don't expect that gives you an excuse to do likewise. Of the numerous and sundry differences between you and Jesus, His authority, understanding and accuracy in hurling epithets at appropriate targets is without question. You haven't established hypocrisy and arrogance on my part nor that I've truly spoken falsely. The best you could do is say I'm wrong, and I'm not sure you can prove that. No matter how you try to explain yourself, the conclusions don't change. Again, that's not my fault. Someday perhaps you'll find a way to align what you mean with how it sounds. That would be so nice.

"Don't like it? Then stop using "foul language" yourself. I don't find it graceless, so I shan't stop using it when I think it appropriate.

Does that seem reasonable?"


It is the definition of "unreasonable". Foul language is graceless. Even for me. But again, I'm not the one crying for grace (not that I begin any discussion otherwise--it devolves later).

"...I feel I do at least as well as those who'd call obvious orthodox Christians "not Christian,"..."

My problem with this piece of commentary is the "orthodox" part. There's nothing "orthodox" in your application of Christian understanding. Certainly nothing obvious. In a recent post at Stan's, you once against listed a litany of orthodox beliefs, as if copied and pasted from any Christian Bible class text. But it has always been about how these points manifest. For example, it's not in question that a Christian should be loving, but what that actually means. How it looks and what it encompasses. (No need to explain it here---that wouldn't be relevant to the point).

"But I suppose striving to denigrate those who use "foul language" is limited to only those one disagrees with. I'd hate to believe that such hypocrisy is so blatant in your lives, my friends, but that's where the evidence is pointing."

We denigrate ourselves in the use of coarse language, Dan. This is what I was trying to get across to my niece when Geoffie and others tried to chastise me for calling her out publicly. But that's not the issue here. It is as I said. You are calling us hypocrites for pointing out your hypocrisy. YOU are the one so insistent upon grace in discourse, so YOU are the Pharisee, you little viper you.

Mark said...

Dan, when you say. "My position is that these rules are not universal moral prohibitions. 'men shall not lie with men' seems pretty obviously to me to be referencing some specific, pagan practices specific to the people at that time."

It sounds like you are saying God left "as part of a specific pagan practice" out of the admonition, and you are somehow blessed (above all other mortal men) with the Divine knowledge of what God REALLY meant, or that God just forgot to add that particular phrase to His instruction, even though there is no scripture or passage anywhere in the Bible that reinforces such a belief. In fact, everywhere homosexuality (or any kind of sex except within a man/woman marriage)is referred to in the Bible, God makes it crystal clear it is SIN.

Or, it sounds as if you believe God picks and chooses what's moral for different people. Or maybe you feel it's some kind of Heavenly crapshoot. Like evolution.

It also really sounds like the reason you believe God was wrong is because it better fits your particular world view. Regardless of what God really said, you apparently know better. It makes me think you have some homosexuals in your family or that you may very well be homosexual yourself, and you feel an overwhelming need to justify their/your deviant desires. I certainly hope it isn't a personal reason you think God is wrong.

Can you clarify?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,
You say I am arrogant and hypocritical - nice ad hominem lies.

I never said it WASN'T wrong for others to use bad language - the subject was YOU. You pull the old logic fallacy of "well he does too!" How about accepting responsibility for YOUR behavior!

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

That is because despite your preference, the fact is that it is indeed reflective of God's attitude toward perverting His intentions for human sexuality.

1. That is not a "fact," that is your opinion.

2. This is the problem in our conversations, or at least one of them. You are conflating your subjective opinions with God's objective will.

3. As repeatedly noted, my PREFERENCE was to keep believing as I had grown up believing. It was CONTRARY to MY preference to change my position to the one that I believe best aligns with biblical and godly and moral teaching. You can disagree with my conclusion, but what you can't honestly say is that my "preference" was to change my mind. It honestly and objectively was NOT my preference. It is where sincere, earnest, prayerful seeking of God's will led me, even CONTRARY to my preference.

THAT is an objective fact, one that I know because it is MY change that we're speaking of.

And I have not conflated MY HUNCH to be equal to GOD's Will. That would be another difference between you all and I. Objectively speaking.

You can't say "THIS IS a fact," and expect people to believe you when all you have to support it is YOUR HUNCH about what a text says (and that, not directly) about this point.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan, it is NOT a "Hunch" to say God calls homosexual behavior an abomination. It is not a subjective opinion. It is 100% fact, a fact you choose to deny because of your own bias.

For thousands of years the Jews and Christians understood what God was saying, yet you call their understanding nothing but a "hunch." Such rank arrogance! Just like satan, you ask, "Did God really say?"

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

it is NOT a "Hunch" to say God calls homosexual behavior an abomination. It is not a subjective opinion. It is 100% fact

How about this:

It is a FACT that there is a text in Leviticus that says FACTUALLY, "Men should not lay with men. If they do, kill them." and it is supposed to be a rule from God to Israel.

That is factual.

It is a FACT that the text is part of a set of rules from God to ancient Israel that is to set them apart from the ancient Canaanites and their practices.

It is also a FACT that it is part of a set of rules that include, "Don't cut the hair on the side of your head..."

We are all agreed that those are facts.

Where you enter into SUBJECTIVE HUNCH territory is when you say "Based upon those ancient rules to an ancient people in a specific set of circumstances, I, GLENN (Marshall, Craig, etc) THINK that we can GUESS/CONCLUDE/FORM THE OPINION that God would be opposed to gay folk marrying."

THAT is where you OBJECTIVELY and DEMONSTRABLY move from fact to opinion.

It is NOT a fact that God has told you or anyone else that ALL gay behavior for ALL time and in ALL circumstances is wrong. That simply has not happened.

If you THINK you have objective factual evidence to support that hunch, you can offer it, but I can safely predict that you WILL NOT do that because, factually, you CAN NOT. God has not told you that.

And that, my friend, is an actual fact.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

I never said it WASN'T wrong for others to use bad language - the subject was YOU.

Actually, the SUBJECT was the topic being discussed and my ideas. You are trying to make it about me, but that is just an ad hom attack.

I'd think the better thing, my brother, is stick to talking about ideas and ideals, not petty personal attacks. How about let's agree to stick to that?

Or is it the case that if you try to stick to ideas, you can't compete because your arguments rely upon ad hom attacks and twisting of truths? If that's the case, my brother, don't you think it's time to move on to spiritual meat and leave the childish milk behind?

Marshall Art said...

"Actually, the SUBJECT was the topic being discussed and my ideas. You are trying to make it about me, but that is just an ad hom attack."

ACTUALLY, the subject was a tangential one brought about by your use of language that lacked grace. It proceeded when I referred to it thus:

"Not exactly the "grace" of which Dan so often speaks of so highly."

Indeed that sidebar WAS about you and the hypocrisy of one who so often speaks of grace in discourse resorting to profanity. To be more clear as if it wasn't clear enough, no one was referring to the language alone (I wasn't referring to it at all, as it doesn't bother me personally---I'm far more bothered by my own use of it), but rather, I/we were referring to how you insist on grace and proceed in a graceless manner. Your cheap justification by your shameful appeals to Scripture don't help your cause.

"I'd think the better thing, my brother, is stick to talking about ideas and ideals, not petty personal attacks."

Do you mean like accusations of "twisting of truths", "ad hom attacks", "hypocrisy" and "graceless manner" in rebuking your thin arguments in favor of clearly prohibited behaviors? We can go back and forth with accusations, Dan. If we stick with anything, it should be the issues which include the accusations of your poor Biblical understanding and rejection of Biblical teaching. To wit:

Marshall Art said...

""That is because despite your preference, the fact is that it is indeed reflective of God's attitude toward perverting His intentions for human sexuality."

1. That is not a "fact," that is your opinion."


No. It is a fact. Let's look yet again at what the text says. It says do not follow the practices of the Egyptians or Canaanites. "Practices" does not imply religion. It might by your practice to take a walk after dinner. Is that religious? It might be your practice to try to take in a movie once a month. Is that religious? The text refers to lying with a "male", not a man or a boy. This clearly refers to any homosexual pairing calling in an abomination. It makes no reference to pagan ritual anywhere, but simply says no don't lie with a male as with a woman. Period. No qualifiers. The Chapter 20 version applies death to BOTH partners. If one was not consenting, it would be rape and only the rapist would be guilty. Thus, a consensual pairing would bring about death. The words "their blood will be on their own heads" shows that all will know the penalty is self-inflicted by willingly engaging in the practice. It doesn't mention any qualifier such as monogamy, but merely mentions what would befall anyone who engages in the practice. This is all directly from the text without any biases projected upon it, but instead provide the basis for my beliefs. It reflects the sinfulness of behaving contrary to God's intention of providing woman for man, and the biological (not to mention spiritual) compatibility and complementarity of the two sexes.

Thus, it is YOU who projects bias against the text forcing meaning that the text itself does not provide in any way, shape or form. As such, to suggest that a union between two of the same sex could ever be God-blessed requires injecting into Scripture that which Scripture never comes close to expressing on its own. Scriptural study CANNOT teach what it doesn't say. An honest person CANNOT say that such "marriages" are "good" when such unions do not qualify as marriages, as marriage is the union between a man and a woman and NOTHING in the Bible even hints at any other possibility.

Thus, you MUST twist meanings and force loopholes into a Scripture that does not by itself supply them.

The above should be sufficient to cover point #2>

As for #3, my opinion on the sinfulness of homosexual behaviors of all sorts isn't a preference. I don't freakin' care about what people do. That it is sinful is true regardless of my preference, just as sex with women other than my wife is sinful regardless of my attraction to other women. I don't "prefer" that homosex is sin. It IS sin and I accept that truth just as I accept the sinfulness of other behaviors.

As to YOUR preferences, you can call it what you like. But the fact is that without outside influences, you could not come to believe as you do by Scripture study alone. You were led to believe by others, and you prefer to believe as you do for the sake of others. But so do I. I believe that if they forsake their sinful desires, they will gain Heaven. Paul says so. Christ says so. On this, you, the activists and other enablers say, "No. We'll find a loophole or make one if need be." You've all made one.

To tie it all together, I am convinced of this truth. I am certain because it is plainly revealed so that there is no mistaking. You, the activists and enablers lie to yourselves and willingly reject this plainly revealed truth. If it was not so crystal clear, then you could possibly say that it is my opinion or hunch. But it is that clear to honest people.

Marshall Art said...

One more thing. You often speak of just how Godly and loving your homosexual friends are. Appearances aren't always what they seem, and the niceties do not equate to goodness and Godliness. Only belief in Him on HIS terms can do it. The Evil One will deceive by appearing to be a sweetheart. He only needs to bring us far enough. These people do not deny themselves for His sake. They insist He accept them on their terms while seeking ways to justify it in ways the smack more loudly of legalism than anything my defense of Biblical truth ever has. I think the proper term here is "penumbra".

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

You often speak of just how Godly and loving your homosexual friends are. Appearances aren't always what they seem, and the niceties do not equate to goodness and Godliness.

Yes, of course. Appearances AREN'T always what they seem to be. For instance, you are APPEARING to come across as a legalistic, pharisaical and at least a little arrogant. I'm sure in the real world, you aren't as nasty in appearance as you are appearing here.

Nonetheless, I'm not speaking of passing acquaintances. At our church, we spend time together, we work together, we pray together, we eat together, sometimes we even live together. We KNOW each other. And I'm telling you, in THIS case, we are speaking of some genuinely Godly people.

How do I know? Because I know them.

How do you know? Well, you DON'T because you DON'T know them.

It's important in communicating ideas and ideals that we not presume to be all-knowing and arrogantly judgmental, because that comes too close to sounding idolatrous, as if you are placing yourself in God's position.

Again, I'm sure the appearances of what you're doing here don't hold up to how you actually are. Still, it's worth considering how one presents one's self to the world in such public fora as this.

Marshall...

Only belief in Him on HIS terms can do it.

Of course. And that is what we all are striving prayerfully and seriously to do, by God's grace.

Marshall...

These people do not deny themselves for His sake.

Well, since you don't know a single one of "these people" you are speaking of, you factually are not in a reasonable place to make such an arrogant and BS false witness.

But know this, Marshall, it IS a false witness. It IS an arrogance on your part, in fact, if not in intent.

Stop being arrogant and bearing false witness. The Bible is clear on those not being part of the Kingdom of God.

Marshall...

They insist He accept them on their terms while seeking ways to justify it in ways the smack more loudly of legalism than anything my defense of Biblical truth ever has.

How would you possibly know? I'll tell you how: YOU CAN'T. YOU DON'T KNOW THE PEOPLE YOU ARE SPEAKING OF, THEREFORE, YOUR MORAL PREENING AND FALSE WITNESS ARE JUST THAT.

Marshall, seriously, how about dealing with some actual positions rather than making up false shit (excrement, poo, piss, whatever words aren't "foul" and harmful to your collective hypocritical ears and yet get the point across).

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Indeed that sidebar WAS about you and the hypocrisy of one who so often speaks of grace in discourse resorting to profanity.

You all seem to keep coming back to a non-issue.

Do you all or do you not agree with me that there are plenty of biblical examples of prophets, teachers and Jesus Christ our Lord and Holy Example (WHOSE STEPS WE ARE CALLED TO FOLLOW IN) of harsh rebukes?

The bible quite clearly offers these examples. I can't imagine you all would stand and criticize Jesus or Isaiah or Jeremiah or James for the rebukes they offered, even though they were at times quite harsh. (Actually, if James, Jesus, et al were to offer those rebukes TODAY and OUTSIDE the Bible, I can actually EASILY imagine you all criticizing them, but that's another point).

Answer one question:

DO YOU THINK THAT THERE IS NOT A TIME FOR HARSH REBUKES OF BAD BEHAVIOR?

If you agree with me, then there is really no point to keep pursuing this non-issue.

The difference between MY use of harsh language (Reminder: "Bullshit. This is not what I said." - addresssing a SPECIFIC and DEMONSTRABLY false representation of another's position) and yours (Reminder: "You, the activists and enablers lie to yourselves and willingly reject this plainly revealed truth.") is that MY rebuke is based on demonstrable false representations of my position (demonstrable because it is MY position and I KNOW what I BELIEVE and thus I AM QUALIFIED to attest whether or not something is MY PoSITION), whereas yours are built on arrogant and false PRESUMPTIONS and GUESSES and HUNCHES on your part. I am not lying about anything, not to myself (again, I would say I'm in a better position to know than you - a complete stranger - are what my beliefs are.

Mine is based on objective fact, yours is based on arrogant presumptions.

Thus, I can correctly and harshly rebuke that sort of arrogant bullshit because it is demonstrably false by a knowledgeable source (in this case, ME, since you're speaking of MY positions). IF, on the other hand, I was guessing as to YOUR reasoning and actual positions (for instance, if I guessed you were protesting so much because you were actually a self-loathing pedophile and this was your sick way of dealing with that illness), then I WOULD BE ENGAGING in the sort of arrogant and false and graceless sort of disagreement with your positions.

But I'm not doing that. It's you all that do that, not me.

When we are DISAGREEING ABOUT INTERPRETATIONS, then I would advise grace and respect.

When we are disagreeing about objectively FALSE and ARROGANT representations - especially that are delivered in a pharisaical or bullying or oppressive way - then that sort of disagreement is appropriate for harsh rebukes, after the gentle corrections have failed.

Do you disagree about when it's appropriate to deliver harsh rebukes?

In practice, you all appear to think it's okay to deliver harsh rebukes about mere disagreements, but I would suggest that is lacking in grace and biblically, not the model of when to use harsh rebukes.

Dan Trabue said...

I had said...

"I'd think the better thing, my brother, is stick to talking about ideas and ideals, not petty personal attacks."

Marshall responded...

Do you mean like accusations of "twisting of truths", "ad hom attacks", "hypocrisy" and "graceless manner" in rebuking your thin arguments in favor of clearly prohibited behaviors?

I called out "twisting of truths" when truths were demonstrably, objectively, factually twisted.

For instance, the suggestion that we "lie to yourselves" or that "you weren't conservative," or "your position is X" when my position is NOT "x." These are objectively false. I have corrected you all on them and yet you continue to falsely represent another. That is a "twisting of truths," factually speaking.

You have NO evidence that I have "lied to myself" or that I was NOT a conservative, for example.

I DO have evidence that I have not lied to myself and that I was a conservative. BEcAUSE IT'S ME that we're speaking of, I am in a position to know my positions while you simply are not.

To insist that you all know best what my actual positions are, that is a graceless manner of disagreeing with one another, and an arrogant-as-hell manner. Not to mention a little megalomaniacal.

If you wish to DISAGREE with MY INTERPRETATION and make YOUR CASE for YOUR INTERPRETATION, that is fine, there is no problem in disagreement. But disagreements over mere opinions are EXACTLY the kind of thing that ought to be handled with grace and respect, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. Romans 14

YOUR HUNCH and MY HUNCH about taxation (not discussed in the Bible) or capitalism (not discussed in the Bible) or gay marriage (NOT discussed in the Bible), these are all "disputable matters" and we can disagree respectfully with one another. These sorts of disagreements are not the situation where one ought to call another a liar, or say that "I know your actual position better than you do..." or anything as graceless as that.

THESE situations are the ones where grace is called for.

Situations where actual SIN is being done (false representation, slander, denying God's Work, gossip...) those are acceptable instances of where we might employ a harsh rebuke.

You all seem to have a hard time sorting out the difference between the two, and that APPEARS to be because you all have a hard time sorting out the difference between opinion and fact.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan, look above at November 19th, 1056 AM and I give the FACTS about what the Leviticus passages mean. You just don't want to accept those sort of facts.

"Did God really say?" Satan is working through you just like he did through the serpent.

Craig said...

"One more thing. You often speak of just how Godly and loving your homosexual friends are."

Marshall, great point. Every time I have ever heard anyone from the left argue against the sinfulness of homosexual sex, it always comes down to this exact point. "Well, Bob is gay and he's a wonderful christian, so therefore how could being gay be wrong."

There may be a few out there that approach this differently, but the vast majority start here, then try to justify their position. If you look at all of the discussion in the PCUSA over ordaining gays, it all comes down to this.

Craig said...

The point of calling falsehoods "BS is not grace, but more the calling out of religious hypocrisy, arrogance in the manner of Jesus calling the pharisees blind guides, fools and snakes.

Do you think that Jesus and the other prophets who used harsh language at times when dealing with arrogance and oppression? I doubt that you do."

The first problem here is that you're not Jesus and we're not the pharisees.

The second problem is that the verse you chose to justify your position (of gracelessness) says quite clearly "but only such as is good for building up" and "that it may give grace to those who hear.".

I would love some explanation/justification that could possibly paint your words as "building up" or "giving grace" in any way shape or form.

Keeping in mind also that when Jesus was rebuking folks He was at least doing it from a position of not only KNOWING absolute objective Truth, but actually EMBODYING absolute, objective truth. You on the other hand feel like you are qualified to rebuke based on your opinion or hunch. IMO, you are grossly under qualified.

I eagerly await your rationalization.

Dan Trabue said...

Earlier, Mark made all sorts of crazy guesses (clearly out of thin air, since he does not know me at all and has no solid grounds on which to base his hunches), saying...

It also really sounds like the reason you believe God was wrong is because it better fits your particular world view.

As repeatedly noted, when I changed my position from anti- to pro-supportive of marriage equity, I WAS OPPOSED to that worldview. It was NOT something I wanted to change. I DID NOT believe it right for gay folk to marry one another. I had NO DESIRE or inclination to change that position.

Rather, it was prayer and Bible study that led me away from my cultural traditions to what I think are more reasonable biblical moral and logical positions.

Even though it was NOT my intent and I was, in fact, opposed to changing my position.

You HAVE to go where God leads you.

Mark continued guessing...

Regardless of what God really said, you apparently know better.

God has not offered a position on marriage between gay folk. It HAS NOT happened, unless you're claiming some special revelation from God.

Are you?

Mark continued...

It makes me think you have some homosexuals in your family or that you may very well be homosexual yourself, and you feel an overwhelming need to justify their/your deviant desires.

You are free to make wild-ass guesses all you want, but as I've pointed out, I did not know any gay folk (actually, I did, I just didn't know they were gay) at the time. I KNEW NO GAY FOLK. I had no personal reason to want to change my position. In fact, I DID NOT WANT TO change my position, I was convinced of it.

In truth, in the real world, the FACTS are that prayer and Bible study led me away from my old position to the new one.

I might guess that you all are child molesters who are self-loathing and that's why you protest something that is obviously and self-evidently beautiful and good, but that would be a wild-ass and unsupported guess on my part. So, I don't do that sort of guessing about people's motivations.

I'm not God and it's not my role.

Nor are you God, nor is it your role.

Mark finished...

I certainly hope it isn't a personal reason you think God is wrong

I don't think God is wrong at all.

I think YOU all are.

You truly truly should not conflate yourselves with God, nor your opinions with God's Word. Bad form and arrogant as hell. (and that's not a curse word, but a literal description).

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

The first problem here is that you're not Jesus and we're not the pharisees.

No, I am not Jesus. Not even a pale imitation.

BUT, I AM a follower of Jesus. Jesus left us an example, that we might follow in His steps, the Bible tells us.

Jesus called out arrogant hypocrisy in the religious folk of his day and used harsh terms to do so. I personally believe that there is a time and place for such a thing. I've TOLD you the time and place I believe to be appropriate (and not over mere disagreements, as when you all get so disagreeable).

And so I would ask again: Do you think it never appropriate to rebuke arrogance and hypocrisy, even using harsh words to do so?

If so, then THIS SEEMS TO BE A NON-ISSUE that you all keep clinging to.

No, you are not the pharisees, but sometimes you all are acting in a pharisaical way, as if you all are the keepers of God's Way and you all are the Knowing Ones to whom all others ought to meekly bow down.

No thanks. Not me.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

You on the other hand feel like you are qualified to rebuke based on your opinion or hunch.

No, I have NOT done so. That IS what you all are doing.

I am rebuking folk when they say FALSELY, "Dan thinks X" when Dan does NOT think X, and I AM in a position to know BECAUSE I AM DAN.

It is MARSHALL's HUNCH (a false one) that we "gleefully ignore" passages in the Bible. It is a FALSE one and demonstrably so, because I am part of the "we" he references and I KNOW THAT WE DON'T DO THIS.

THAT is where the arrogance is, Craig, presuming to say "This is what you think," "This is what your motives are..." That IS arrogance because it presumes to SEE INTO OUR MINDS and know our motivations.

Tell you what, Marshall, Craig, anyone reasonable who'd like to honestly have a conversation, do this:

DON'T ANSWER ANYTHING ELSE BUT THIS: DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT THINK IT IS ARROGANT TO PRESUME TO READ THE MINDS OF COMPLETE STRANGERS AND "KNOW" WHAT THEY THINK AND WHAT THEIR MOTIVES ARE?

In the real world for most of us, that comes across as if you are putting yourself in God's place.

On the other hand, when I say, factually, "No, THAT is not my position," or "No, that is NOT my motive," I am in a position to know, so there is no "hunch" on my part there. It is objectively factually true.

And that is the difference between my corrections and yours.

I AM qualified to state "This is my position. THAT is not my position."

I may not be qualified for much, but I AM the one and only one here most qualified to answer that.

Craig, one more question for you to answer:

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I AM, IN FACT, QUALIFIED TO ANSWER AUTHORITATIVELY WHAT MY POSITIONS AND REASONINGS ARE?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

it always comes down to this exact point. "Well, Bob is gay and he's a wonderful christian, so therefore how could being gay be wrong."

Hmmm, why WOULD someone look at someone's life as evidence of their Christianity?

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

~Jesus

Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did...

Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble...

if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.

And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us...

Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

~St John

the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

~St Paul

What you do for the least of these my children, you do unto me...

~Jesus


Oh, THAT's right. The reason we can look at people's lives and see the obvious love of God in them and know that they are followers of God is because THAT IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES.

Do you disagree with this conclusion, Craig?

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

look above at November 19th, 1056 AM and I give the FACTS about what the Leviticus passages mean. You just don't want to accept those sort of facts.

I read YOU offering YOUR OPINIONS about how YOU INTERPRET those words from the Bible.

But given that these are YOUR WORDS, YOUR OPINIONS, YOUR INTERPRETATION, how does the make me want to conflate YOUR HUNCHES with God's Word?

On what basis do you have the final word on correct interpretation?

Do you see how it comes across as not a little arrogant to presume that you hold the final answer and that I should bow down to your understanding?

Thanks, my brother, but no thanks. I am answerable to God, not you and I simply don't think you are understanding this right and I don't find YOUR INTERPRETATION to be, in ANY WAY, comparable to God's Word.

Sorry.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

What I learn by reading/hearing foul language (which neither Jesus nor the apostles used) is that the individual who always resorts to such language actually demonstrates his lack of command of the English language. None of that sort is necessary for ANY communication.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

Satan is working through you just like he did through the serpent.

On what do you base this hunch, Glenn? Did God "tell you" that or is it just your graceless hunch?

Is it your position that those who disagree with Glenn are ALWAYS working in conjunction with Satan or is it only perceived Liberals who do so? After all, you disagree with Marshall, Craig and others here, I'm sure, on points. Are they, too, having Satan work through them?

Brother Glenn, sometimes Christians disagree. It does not mean that the Other is not a Christian. It does not mean that the Other rejects God. It does not mean that the Other is working with Satan.

It means that THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU, not with God.

You all truly need to learn the difference between YOUR OPINIONS and God's Word. There truly is a giant chasm between the two.

Now I await your, hopefully, gracious answers to my reasonable questions.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,

There you go again saying the teachings I demonstrated from Leviticus are just MY opinion. Interesting, isn't it, that this has been the understanding of the Jews and Christians since it was written, and yet Dan knows the REAL interpretation, which means all the scholars and believers for thousands of years are wrong- it is just THEIR HUNCH. Yep, Dan is the only one right and all those others have just had hunches.

How arrogant can one man get!

When anyone denies God's Word as it is plainly written, just as Satan denied God's word as plainly stated to Adam and Eve, with the same question, "Has God really said...." , which is what you do when you say God really didn't say homosexuality is a sin, then Satan is working through you as he did through the serpent.

When you deny the truth of what God says just because it doesn't fit with your bias, then you are speaking for Satan. Only Satan would say sin is okay; only Satan would encourage people to practice sexual immorality.

Marshall Art said...

"For instance, the suggestion that we "lie to yourselves" or that "you weren't conservative," or "your position is X" when my position is NOT "x." These are objectively false."

For one to be lying to himself, it is not generally the case that they recognize the lie as a lie any longer, but instead regard the lie as true. Yet, they are still lying to themselves to believe it is true. This is the case with you, activists and enablers, though the degree to which any given individual has convinced himself the lie is true is not at issue. Perhaps you've totally convinced yourself on a conscious level that the lie you defend is truth, or maybe you have a nagging doubt that you work hard to ignore. That doesn't matter, but you are living a lie, as are your friends, to believe that such behavior is ever worthy of God's approval, anymore than out of wedlock sex would be, or sex with a close relative. There simply is no Biblical support for the possibility. THAT is a FACT, not an opinion. If you want to suggest that the Bible supports marriage as a good thing, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. But then, there is no Biblical support for the notion that "marriage" can ever be defined as other than the union of a man and a woman not closely related to each other. THIS is a FACT, not an opinion or hunch.

Note the pattern here. I am dealing with specific facts that can be traced to actual words the Bible arranges to teach a point or explain a teaching. Nowhere have I injected any personal opinion as to what is being said. THAT is something YOU do by suggesting that the Bible only refers to "some" homosexual behaviors. So that if there is either of us basing personal beliefs upon opinion, it is clearly you, for only personal opinion and biases can lead to the conclusions you put forth as a legitimate interpretation, not Scripture itself. And it has been settled no so long ago, that you're decision to "prayerfully study" the Bible to find the truth on this issue could not have been compelled by mere curiosity if your "conservative" position was strongly opposed to homosexual behavior. What would make you try to find if your position was wrong? It would have to have been some outside influence.

Indeed, the same was true with me. Dealing with a denomination so determined to promote a sinful lifestyle as morally equal to that which we all know is the ideal, it was suggested by me by a pastor, who had far more face-to-face experience with proponents of this lie, that their arguments are really tough to wade through. So I began my own study. The more I did, and this is ongoing to this day, the more I found that YOUR side of the issue is more than willing to buy into whatever cheap rationalization they can make sound legitimate. Yet, they have always, and still do to this day, fail to address the concerns of their opponents, just as you continue to do here. The obvious example is the statement made regarding pagan ritual. You suggest that the text indicates that is the form of homosex behavior to which Lev 18 refers. But the words of the text do not say anything about the list of that chapter being related to religious ritual of any kind. It only mentions the behaviors as practices not to be followed. Where, then, do you get this from if not from extra-Biblical sources? Commentaries on the original languages? But my sources speak of major flaws in such commentaries that have never been addressed. I, like they, await a return volley and until that volley comes, "lie" is the appropriate word. It is so because "wrong" can only work before an entire lifestyle and agenda to change understanding begins.

Mark said...

Dan, when you say, "I don't think God is wrong at all.

I think YOU all are.
", it sounds like you are saying you would rather believe what you would like God to have said, instead of what He actually said. Could you clarify?

Dan, It is objective truth that God says men laying with men is an abomination. It's in the Book!

However, you have stated that you think that's wrong, ergo, you think God is wrong.

Why are you digressing into your old arguments? I presented my case exactly as you wanted me to. I said, "when you say X, it sounds like you are saying Z. Could you clarify? but you went back to accusing me of maliciously getting you wrong, and in the end, you didn't clarify.

If you can't keep moving the goalposts and then complaining they were moved.

Marshall Art said...

"For instance, you are APPEARING to come across as a legalistic, pharisaical and at least a little arrogant."

Perhaps to one on the defensive, but not to an honest man seeking only to find truth. The legalism of the pharisees was a distinctly different situation from one like me who only states the truth of what the text is saying. I continue to think of Jesus' point regarding lust being equal to adultery. I think of such when dealing with the sexual prohibitions of Leviticus. If I'm placing some kind of burden on anyone, it is no more different than the common expectation that no one speaks falsely. Because "lie" is what is happening here with the defense of homosex marriage. As I said, the legalism is your sin as you push a penumbra based on there being no specific language prohibiting marriage including homosexuals. It more than that. It is stretching Scripture beyond all recognition.

But let us assume appearances of your friends are accurate, in that they act nice to people. Was Al Capone relieved of his duty to repent of his crimes for having soup kitchens? I've met people, including my wife's grandfather, who had some contact with the man and thought he was a nice guy. Clearly he was breaking civil as well as Mosaic law, but he, too, found loopholes that justified his behavior, and he believed those lies as well. Those who thought he was a nice guy ignore his crimes, as you ignore the blatantly sinful lifestyles of your friends on the grounds that, aside from that one aspect, they are somehow "Godly". That one aspect is what keeps them from being so, and it is a lie to suggest that the nice things trump the intentional engagement in sinful things.

"How do you know? Well, you DON'T because you DON'T know them."

But I know with absolute certainty what Scripture says about their sexual behavior (or do they live in a platonic manner? You should know this since you know them so well.). A plain, honest reading says they are sinning. There is nothing "presumptuous" about "Thou shalt not..." I don't need to delve into the mind of God when He was so nice enough to express His opinion on the subject, as He does in Lev 18.

"
Only belief in Him on HIS terms can do it.

Of course. And that is what we all are striving prayerfully and seriously to do, by God's grace."


In the same manner a child says he cleaned his room when he merely pushed the crap under the bed perhaps. But if the result is a clear violation of God's plainly revealed intentions, no, there's little that can said to serious about such striving.

"Well, since you don't know a single one of "these people" you are speaking of...etc."

I don't need to know them, anymore than I need to know a nice guy who sells crack to know that his idea of leading a good life is not square with Scripture. I know what the Bible says on this issue and I'm not really all that concerned with what the people in question try to tell themselves. I'm speaking of what is, and they are lying to themselves. Those sorry individuals who believe they were lying to themselves by being in the closet were no different at that time than any person who controls his anger or desire to steal. Are they lying to themselves, too? The lie is that the behavior is moral. The lie is that they created a loophole in Scripture to enable them to indulge in the sin. The lie is that they are still cool with God on this issue by doing so. The only "bullshit" is in your trying to redirect attention to what WE'RE doing by referring to it negatively, when all we're doing is stating what Scripture says.

Marshall Art said...

"You all seem to keep coming back to a non-issue."

Only because you insist on trying to justify your bad behavior/language. A gracious man would have copped to it and moved on. The rest of us would have regarded you better for having done so. But you continue to try to compare yourself to Jesus as if you know our hearts as He knew the hearts of those He rebuked. THAT is the distinction here and your attempt to defend your ungracious language is appropriately labeled "hypocrisy", because it is definitionally true. Do you wanna keep going with this crap, or move on? Since you cannot justify your actions, I vote we move on.

Marshall Art said...

"DO YOU THINK THAT THERE IS NOT A TIME FOR HARSH REBUKES OF BAD BEHAVIOR?"

Yes. But you apparently feel that if the rebuke is aimed at you, it is arrogance or idolatry. Homosexual behavior is always wrong. The Bible clearly says so. We rebuke those who engage in it as well as those who enable them. We do so based on clearly revealed Scripture. No arrogance. No idolatry. Only whining by those who stand accused of blatant sinfulness.

Gotta go. More later.

Craig said...

"And so I would ask again: Do you think it never appropriate to rebuke arrogance and hypocrisy, even using harsh words to do so?"

And I'll answer again, yes there are probably times when it is appropriate. The problem is that you have chosen to engage in what you like to call "rebuke", without following the guidelines laid out in Matt 18 and the Ephesians 4 verse you quoted. What you've done is vent your frustration or anger then try to cloak it with respectability when you've gotten called on it.

"No, you are not the pharisees, but sometimes you all are acting in a pharisaical way, as if you all are the keepers of God's Way and you all are the Knowing Ones to whom all others ought to meekly bow down."

Unfortunately this is a complete unsupported opinion on your part. While you are welcome to your hunch, it is in no way supported by any actual real world facts.

"DON'T ANSWER ANYTHING ELSE BUT THIS: DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT THINK IT IS ARROGANT TO PRESUME TO READ THE MINDS OF COMPLETE STRANGERS AND "KNOW" WHAT THEY THINK AND WHAT THEIR MOTIVES ARE?"

I'll answer the question. What in the world are you talking about. I would venture a guess that after years of communication, no one involved in this conversation is a complete stranger. Further, I have tried to be very clear when drawing conclusions based on your comments. The problem is that you have done the EXACT SAME THING in our conversations. So, if there is arrogance, there is enough to go around. Finally, the arrogance expressed by you commenting at someone else's blog in ALL CAPS, starting with this "DON'T ANSWER ANYTHING ELSE BUT THIS:", is phenomenal.

"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I AM, IN FACT, QUALIFIED TO ANSWER AUTHORITATIVELY WHAT MY POSITIONS AND REASONINGS ARE?"

Yes (Mr. arrogant ALL CAPS), in much the same way that we are able to use your own words to demonstrate when you contradict yourself.

"Do you disagree with this conclusion, Craig?"

If your question was germane to my point I'd answer it, since it's not I won't.

I realize it might get in the way of your rants, but how about some answers for my request for explanation.

Since your past practice has been to ignore/skip inconvenient stuff, by saying that you can't find the question or whatever, I'll save you the trouble by cutting/pasting my request.

"I would love some explanation/justification that could possibly paint your words as "building up" or "giving grace" in any way shape or form."

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

I would love some explanation/justification that could possibly paint your words as "building up" or "giving grace" in any way shape or form.

I've answered that question, Craig, but I'll answer it again directly and in more detail:

1. The Ephesians 4 passage is not speaking of words of rebuke. It is a general teaching and one which I generally follow.

2. The Ephesians 4 passage does not preclude using words such as "fool" "snake" and other harsh rebuking words.

3. It would be wrong to cherry pick a verse and say it applies in any and all situations. If we did that, then we'd have to criticize Paul and Jesus for breaking this teaching from Paul. That would make no sense.

4. In general - in conversations, in mere disagreements, in passing remarks, in Bible study back and forth, etc, - we are to have respectful, grace-filled words. You know, like calling one another brother, saying "I'm sorry" when mistakes are made, asking for clarifications respectfully, etc. I strive to stick to this and my words back this up.

5. Nonetheless, as you agree, there IS a time for harsh rebukes. I'm suggesting those times are times of direct and obvious and unrepentant repeated sin, like misrepresenting people's words, for instance, like calling those who are Christians "of the devil," or "doing Satan's work..." and other graceless crap like that, those would be reasonable times to employ such strong words.

6. BECAUSE it shows Christians strongly holding one another accountable and BECAUSE it shows that Christians will call one another on the carpet when they slander, gossip and twist words, this DOES build up the body of Christ.

Seems to me. Do you disagree?

Dan Trabue said...

Mark...

Dan, when you say, "I don't think God is wrong at all. I think YOU all are.", it sounds like you are saying you would rather believe what you would like God to have said, instead of what He actually said. Could you clarify?

Easily. I don't confuse YOUR opinions with GOD's Word. I fully recognize that you have YOUR opinions and I'm not as interested in what your hunches are as I am in following what God actually wants.

In the matter in question, I think you are way off in your opinion about what God thinks. After all, I used to hold that position, myself. And yet, IN SPITE of what I wanted (ie, to continue to hold the traditional hunch on this issue) I went CONTRARY to what I wanted and determined to follow God, not my own hunches.

Does that explain it better and in a way that you can understand?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Yes (Mr. arrogant ALL CAPS)

I am sorry if you misunderstood the purpose (ie, MY ACTUAL purpose) for using all caps and bold fonts. It was just to help you all see the questions I was asking.

Since my questions often go ignored, I thought I'd help make them clearer by using all caps. No arrogance intended. Just trying to be helpful.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

There you go again saying the teachings I demonstrated from Leviticus are just MY opinion.

And I have demonstrated that, YES, the text does say in Leviticus, that men should not lie with men and if they do, kill them. It also says don't cut the hair on the side of your head.

It is factually in the text, no one is disagreeing with that.

Where you move from factually reporting what's in the text to your hunch is when you say, "and so, we can know that God is opposed to marriage between gay folk. I can't be wrong on this point."

That is an opinion.

But let's say it's a fact. All you have to do is provide objective evidence to support it.

You know, like if I say, "it's raining outside right now..." all someone has to do to verify that I'm speaking a fact is physically check outside and verify, "Yes, it IS raining outside. Dan's facts are right."

So, all you have to do, Glenn, is support it with something, you know, factual. Some FACTUAL support that not only does the text in Leviticus say that men should not lie with men, but that this means that the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to understand this and other teachings from the Bible is that God is opposed to any and all gay behavior in any and all contexts, even a marriage relationship.

If your hunch is NOT a hunch but actual fact, you should be able to support it with something other than more hunches.

Your argument, Glenn, is subjective. Your interpretation, Glenn, is opinion. You can't support it in any meaningful or objective way.

You're welcome to make your opinions all day, Glenn, but you aren't welcome to make facts.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

you apparently feel that if the rebuke is aimed at you, it is arrogance or idolatry.

I am fine with rebukes when I have done something actually wrong. Holding an opinion on a disputable matter other than the one you hold is NOT an instance of doing something wrong. It is an instance of holding a different opinion.

You don't believe holding different opinions is a sin, do you?

If you believed that, then you'd have to go around rebuking any and everyone every time they disagree with you, wouldn't you? That does not seem at all to be the biblical model for rebuking.

So, if I do something wrong - misrepresent your position, slander you, lie about you, call "of the devil" those who are of God - and you try to gently correct me and I don't get it, THEN I would very much appreciate a correction, even a strong rebuke.

What I am saying is this: MERELY holding a different opinion on a matter is not a sin.

Do you disagree?

And so, when I called BS on your misrepresentations of my position, it was not over a "mere disagreement," but over MISREPRESENTATION.

Do you see the difference?

You are free to hold your own opinions, you are not free to hold your own facts, especially about someone else.

Do you understand the point being made in that comment?

Mark said...

Yes, Dan, that clarifies it for me. You have formed the opinion that God didn't really mean it when He said men shouldn't lay with men as they do with women. That it isn't an abomination to Him.

What I don't understand is how you can reach that opinion from that text. There are no "unless'", "If's", "buts", or exceptions mentioned in that passage, nor are they anywhere else in the scriptures regarding that particular admonition. Every time the subject of homosexuality is brought up in the Bible, it is called sin. There is absolutely no way that passage can be taken out of context. It is as clear as an unmuddied lake. As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.

This, by the way, is not an opinion or a "hunch". It is incontrovertible FACT. You've read the text. You know what it says.

And yet, you, somehow, find ambiguity within. Can you please point to a definitive scripture, any scripture at all, that supports your "hunch" that God was wrong, mistaken, or lied when He said Homosexuality is an abomination to Him?

I'd say you better spend a little more time in prayerful consideration and re-evaluate your position.

Mark said...

You know, Art, if you have comment moderation enabled you don't need word verification. Just sayin'.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

But you continue to try to compare yourself to Jesus as if you know our hearts as He knew the hearts of those He rebuked. THAT is the distinction here and your attempt to defend your ungracious language is appropriately labeled "hypocrisy", because it is definitionally true.

Why don't we just think this thru a minute, brother.

1. Are you saying that it is "definitionally true" to call a false statement a false statement?

2. How does my calling a false statement "BS" indicate that I'm acting as if I "know your hearts."?

3. Is it not the case that, when you say, "Dan thinks X" and I say "NO, that is false, I do NOT think X," that this does not require or suggest I think I know your hearts, but rather, just that I know my own positions?

4. Do you think it is ungracious to call BS about someone's repeated misrepresentation of your own positions? How so? What is ungracious about it?

5. You will notice that I have not called you all "liars," only that your representations of MY positions are false and misrepresentations. This graciously allows that you all may well just be stating these demonstrably false representations in ignorance, sincerely believing that you know better than I do what I think.

Would you agree that this is at least a bit of graciousness? And, since I am NOT presuming to know your hearts and minds, while you all are (in your presumptions that you can know my motives and my opinions), is that not showing more grace than I am being shown?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

For one to be lying to himself, it is not generally the case that they recognize the lie as a lie any longer, but instead regard the lie as true. Yet, they are still lying to themselves to believe it is true. This is the case with you, activists and enablers

Yes, it IS possible to lie to one's self. What I'm saying is...

1. That of the TWO OF US, I am more likely to know if I'm lying to myself than YOU, a complete stranger who does not know my every day life.

2. The ability to tell if someone is lying to themselves is not the sort of discernment one can glean based on a few anonymous words on the internet, even many words over years do not give a full picture of a life and you simply are not in a position to reasonably conclude that this MIGHT be a possibility, much less to state it authoritatively as true. That presumes WAY too much on your part and, believe it or not, it comes across as arrogant as hell (and there again, I don't mean "hell" as a curse word, but literally, since I think arrogance is a hellish behavior/attitude).

3. When you say, authoritatively and unquestioningly, "This IS THE CASE with you..." (besides the poor form/arrogance of such a blanket statement), you have no support for it. Your full reasoning behind it appears to be, "Well, I don't see how anyone can reasonably reach that position, therefore, he is lying to himself.." relies WAY TOO MUCH on these key words... "I. DON'T. SEE."

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy...

But I'll tell you what: Why don't you go ahead and one more time, make the case that allows you to "know" and state authoritatively that I am lying to myself (in as few words as possible, preferably). Perhaps in seeing the dearth of rational evidence and how much your "evidence" relies upon "I don't see..." and "I can't imagine...", you'll see that perhaps you have been a bit too presumptuous for a mere mortal man.

Dan Trabue said...

And Marshall, you might want to begin that by addressing the ridiculous suggestion you've made that it was NOT prayer and Bible study that led me away from my firm traditional conviction in opposition to gay marriage.

Here, you suggest at it...

And it has been settled no so long ago, that you're decision to "prayerfully study" the Bible to find the truth on this issue could not have been compelled by mere curiosity if your "conservative" position was strongly opposed to homosexual behavior. What would make you try to find if your position was wrong? It would have to have been some outside influence.

First, to address your question: Intellectual honesty compels me to God's Word on every issue, or at least that's my prayer. Seeking the Truth on my every point compels me to God's Word on every issue, or at least that's my prayer.

Is that not also the case for you? I'm sure it is.

Otherwise, we would never change any of our positions, we'd merely assume, "Well, on my every point I hold right now, I AM RIGHT, so there is no need to enter into bible study any more..."

What Christian does that??

The fact is, prayer and Bible study led me AWAY from my rock-solid firm conviction against gay marriage to my position now. You have asserted authoritatively as if you "know" the facts that this CAN NOT have happened and, I believe, you are suggesting I am lying to myself.

I would open myself to your prayerful concern and say, Show me. Show me how you can "know" authoritatively that I am lying to myself and that it WASN'T prayer and Bible study that led me to my position. "Settle it" for me.

Or, if not, consider that JUST MAYBE, it is a bit arrogant and presumptuous for you to presume to know what you just can't really know and perhaps just an humble, "yah... I probably overreached my authority there, my bad..."

Craig said...

"DON'T ANSWER ANYTHING ELSE BUT THIS"

Actually this was much more arrogant than the ALL CAPS.

I'm still waiting for an answer to may actual question.

Please explain/rationalize/justify. how your rants in any way conform with the admonition in Eph. 4 (Since this is a passage you introduced in order to justify your words and tone, it seems reasonable that you should actually follow it.), that your "rebuke" "build up" those who you "rebuke" as well as "giving grace to all who hear"?

So far I've seen no evidence of either.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I saw my name, or at least my initials, somewhere in here. Please, leave me out of this. On the one hand, I have no problem with Art taking specific issue with things Dan has said, I do believe, on the merits, Dan is correct. You, Art, repeatedly make the claim that Dan has said "X", when Dan has not said "X", has said he has not said "X", and reiterates his original claim for the sake of clarity. You, then, repeat your insistence he has said "X" and everything he has said is meaningless.

This dance is old, it's tired, and were I Dan, I would allow you folks to have your fun at my expense while I went and did something productive.

As for whether or not we "gleefully ignore" any part of Scripture, that would be a big, resounding No. Again, as Dan, and I, have said many, many times. There are all sorts of things in the Bible that seem and sound problematic to all sorts of people. Wrestling with them in faith is part of life. Choosing to not follow a three thousand year old legal stricture from a long-defunct satellite kingdom of Egypt kinda sorta doesn't seem like a real winner for me, considering how we tend to ignore the rest of Leviticus. Gleefully or not.

As for God's will, as Bonhoeffer reminded us so long ago, that is something that changes for us, each and every day. So, taking his advice, I seek after it each day in prayer, with a contrite heart, and an additional prayer that I have ears to hear and strength to do it.

Carry on, folks.

Marshall Art said...

"And Marshall, you might want to begin that by addressing the ridiculous suggestion you've made that it was NOT prayer and Bible study that led me away from my firm traditional conviction in opposition to gay marriage."

I'd be happy to do so.

First of all, there's nothing whatsoever ridiculous about the FACT (not "suggestion") that it was not prayerful study of the Bible that provoked your twisted support for homosex marriage. Pay attention here. I want to have this point clarified again if it has changed since the last time I got what passes for an honest answer on the subject. I once asked about what led you to study the issue in the first place. Without recalling your exact words, I am confident that someone suggested a possibility that your opinion was somehow off-base. This resulted in you being led to believe Scripture somehow says something the words of the text do not themselves say. Stay with me here.

As I said, I too was compelled by another to see what the opposition (the homosexuals and their enablers) were saying about the Bible and what it really means regarding Lev 18 and all the other references to homosexual behaviors. YOU, obviously, bought into their lame arguments and chose not to give equal time to the other side (the side that speaks the truth). This was also evidenced by your response to my suggestion that you re-read my original post (the first ever of my blog) wherein I presented a fine piece on why some Levitical laws are applicable and some aren't. That response of yours was "I don't buy it", though you gave 0 (zero) reasons why, 0 counter arguments.

I've countered your claim that Lev 18 speaks of homosex and pagan religious ritual. I've countered it with the absolute truth that there is no such reference anywhere around Lev 18 for anyone to cling to such a fanciful imagining. It doesn't exist. What does exist is extra-Biblical suggestions by enablers and activists that the Bible is saying such a thing.

In short, no argument by your side for any of the references to this behavior is supported by the text or the original languages. One of the best sources remains Rob't Gagnon, and neither you, nor your goofy buddies Alan or that doufus Michael, who banned me from his "Levelers" blog has ever addressed any of Gagnon's arguments, but only ripped on Gagnon personally. (Gagnon is but one example, that piece from my first post is another, and Gagnon points to at least two Biblical scholars who support homosex marriage including one lesbian, who also agree the Bible does not provide any support for ANY form of homosex behavior)

So much for Scripture. To add to that is your personal knowledge of ten couples and your belief that their behaviors, not including their homosexual behaviors, led you to believe that they are Godly and wonderful people, true Christians. This is hardly Biblical study, it is hardly a manner in which a serious student would weigh Biblical teaching.

And as if I have never said it a billion times before, I do not offer any hunches as to what the Bible says. "Thou shalt not..." is crystal clear. I don't have to dig deeper to find out what "don't lie with a man as you would with a woman" means. It could not be more plain without saying, "don't be a homo". I could study for a million lifetimes and the words would still say the same thing..."Thou shalt not..."

So I don't care what you continue to insist. You did not come to your conclusion by Bible study alone, because the Bible does not say what you say it says.

That's all for now.

Dan Trabue said...

I had said...

"DON'T ANSWER ANYTHING ELSE BUT THIS"

Craig responded...

Actually this was much more arrogant than the ALL CAPS.

Fair enough, that does sound sort of arrogant. My apologies. My intention was just to get you (collectively) to deal with some of the questions I was actually raising, but stating it like that certainly could be perceived as sounding arrogant.

I am sorry for that tone.

Craig...

I'm still waiting for an answer to may actual question.

Please explain/rationalize/justify. how your rants in any way conform with the admonition in Eph. 4 (Since this is a passage you introduced in order to justify your words and tone, it seems reasonable that you should actually follow it.), that your "rebuke" "build up" those who you "rebuke" as well as "giving grace to all who hear"?


Again, I apologize if I was not clear.

The purpose of posting the Ephesians passage was NOT to justify my use of the term, Bullshit. The purpose was this: I was inviting Glenn to try to justify HIS position against crude words. In an effort to help GLENN, I did some of the work for him, providing some of the passages one MIGHT CONCEIVABLY USE if one was making the argument that "Bullshit" was a forbidden word for Christians.

I am not making that argument, so I was not using that passage to defend my use of the word in any way. I was striving to help Glenn make HIS argument, that would have been my point.

MY point, stated ad nauseum, is that harsh words ARE used by God's Followers and by God's own Self in the Bible, laying down a precedent. A point which you concede.

So, I'm not sure, does that clarify it further for you?

Dan Trabue said...

Mark...

Yes, Dan, that clarifies it for me. You have formed the opinion that God didn't really mean it when He said men shouldn't lay with men as they do with women. That it isn't an abomination to Him.

No, Mark, that is NOT my position. You have misunderstood me. I apologize that I have not found a way to make it clear to you, but it has not been through lack of effort.

Suffice to say, you still don't understand my actual position.

Mark...

What I don't understand is how you can reach that opinion from that text.

Through logical Bible study.

Mark...

There are no "unless'", "If's", "buts", or exceptions mentioned in that passage, nor are they anywhere else in the scriptures regarding that particular admonition.

Mark, there are no "unless, ifs, buts or exceptions" to the "if they do, kill them," part of that passage, either, but you don't think we ought to kill "men who lay with men," do you?

There are no "unless, ifs, buts or exceptions" to the part that says, "don't cut the hair on the side of your head," but you don't think that is a rule for all people for all times in all situations, do you?

I'm quite sure that you don't.

The thing is, the OT is not a rule book from God to us. That is not the purpose of the OT. To read it thusly would cause one to engage in all manner of bad biblical exegesis. It is a description of God's work with and through the people of Israel. It includes some rules that were specific to Israel for whatever reason, but those are not rules for all time and all people. No one thinks that and I'm quite sure you don't think that, either.

So, ON THAT MUCH, you and I are AGREED.

The OT is not a rule book with each line to be taken as universal moral rules for all people and all times.

Agreed?

Dan Trabue said...

Mark...

Every time the subject of homosexuality is brought up in the Bible, it is called sin. There is absolutely no way that passage can be taken out of context. It is as clear as an unmuddied lake. As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.

Homosexual rape is brought up in the Bible and condemned. Homosexual practices like those engaged in by "the pagans" is condemned, at least for Israel ~4000 years ago.

But "all homosexual behavior for all times in all circumstances, including faithful committed marriage relationships" is NOT brought up in the Bible. God has not offered you an opinion on that. Factually speaking, THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.

You might want to FORM THAT THEORY based on a handful of out of context passages, but I would say that that would be sloppy Bible study, it would be EISOGESIS - reading into the text something that isn't there.

You're welcome to your opinions about this topic, but you're not welcome to say that no one else can reasonably conclude some other opinion. That would be bordering on arrogance, wouldn't you agree?

Wouldn't that be like me insisting, "The Bible is QUITE clear that Christians ought not engage in or support war and, really, NO ONE COULD BELIEVE OTHERWISE..." would that not be an arrogant presumptuous statement for me to make, especially when sincere Christians have obviously done just that.

I'm opposed to that sort of arrogant presumptuousness, could we agree to that?

cont'd...

Dan Trabue said...

Mark...

This, by the way, is not an opinion or a "hunch". It is incontrovertible FACT. You've read the text. You know what it says.

I would refer you to Merriam Webster. You appear to have a problem differentiating between opinion and fact. It is a FACT that God has not anywhere condemned all homosexual behavior even and including in a marriage relationship. It HAS NOT HAPPENED.

If you want to produce some evidence that God has done so, do so. It has not happened.

Mark...

And yet, you, somehow, find ambiguity within.

Actually, no, I don't. I think the Bible is quite clear that those things that are good, true, noble, loving, just, respectful, honorable... that these things ARE abundantly clearly good things. This would include loving marriage relationships.

Do you have ANY evidence (real world evidence, not your opinions) to contradict this self-evident truth?

Mark...

Can you please point to a definitive scripture, any scripture at all, that supports your "hunch" that God was wrong, mistaken, or lied when He said Homosexuality is an abomination to Him?

God did not say that. You'd have to show me where God says "homosexuality is an abomination to me." Factually speaking, THAT IS NOT IN THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE ANYWHERE. "Men lying with men" is referred to as an abomination, but that begs the question, WHAT is being referred to there? All homosexual practices in all circumstances in all times or something specific to these people, "for all these abominations have the men of THE LAND - Canaan - done, which were before you...")

Further, it sounds like you are misunderstanding the word "abomination," which meant "something taboo," and often referred to temporal ritualistic practices, not universal moral yuckiness.

"Yet a close reading of the term toevah [abomination] suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another. Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo".

Bible study is a great and awesome thing, my brother. Always strive to read the Bible in context and with an eye to the actual language/words being used.

Mark...

I'd say you better spend a little more time in prayerful consideration and re-evaluate your position.

I do, regularly. How about you? When was the last time that you ever considered, "I don't really THINK I'm wrong on this topic, but let me look honestly and prayerfully at the text and sincerely SEEK GOD'S WILL. Not my will, oh Lord, but thine..."?

Have you ever done so? Have you done so recently?

I have and encourage us all to do so. Surely we can agree on that much?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan says: "Where you move from factually reporting what's in the text to your hunch is when you say, 'and so, we can know that God is opposed to marriage between gay folk. I can't be wrong on this point.'

Dan, the Bible states plainly in several places that homosexual behavior is an abomination, perverse, unnatural, etc. And God also defines marriage as between man and woman. This means that "God is opposed to marriage between gay folk." Simple logical deduction. You keep saying it is a hunch - I don't think that word means what you think it means! You keep saying it is "opinion," as if 2+2=4 is a mere opinion.

You have yet to respond to my question as to why for thousands of years Scripture was understood as we understand it, i.e., that homosexual behavior is abhorrent to God, and yet to you that is just a "hunch" or "opinion" whereas YOU have the truth?

By they way, since you obviously don't understand Scripture, the issue of cutting the hair on the side of the head is not in the same passages or context as the condemning of homosexual behavior, and even with the cutting of the hair there is a context you ignore.

Hey everyone, if you really want to know what the Scripture means, don't read it in context, and don't study all the commentaries from scholars and theologians for the past 2000 years, or even the teachings of the Jews previous to Christ, because none of that has truth. If you really want to understand, put your Bible down and ask Dan. Only he has the truth. It may look like he is taking things out of context and bringing in bias - i.e. practicing eisegesis - but really, he has the truth and no one else does. We have just all misunderstood what God has said.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, attempting to point out how I did NOT change my position because of prayerful Bible study, said...

I once asked about what led you to study the issue in the first place. Without recalling your exact words, I am confident that someone suggested a possibility that your opinion was somehow off-base.

No. The ONLY thing that was different in this particular time period was that I had met Christians (folk who were abundantly obviously Christians based upon biblical measures and their Christian witness) who disagreed with the traditional position on marriage and gay folk. Prior to that, I didn't really think that there were any serious Christians who could even possibly believe such a crazy (to me, at that time) thing.

But here I had met some Christians who disagreed with it. "How is that even POSSIBLE?" I asked myself. And so, I prayerfully studied and, eventually, changed my position. I did NOT "want" to change my position. I had not entered the study to seriously even consider possibly changing my position, I was simply striving to understand how THEY could reasonably have such a position.

And a note: That I had found some genuine Christians who disagreed with me on this point, that in NO WAY would be sufficient to make me want to change my position. I hold, for instance, to a fairly pacifistic/peacemaker Christian position and am QUITE confident of my position. Now, I know and have always known some serious, GREAT Christians who disagreed with me on that point. But the fact that I knew/know sincere Christians whom I respect and love who disagree with me on that point is not sufficient to cause me to want to change my position.

I'm not flighty, that way. I was raised Baptist and we take the Bible EXTREMELY seriously. It HAS to be prayer and Bible study that would change my position, nothing else would do it.

Marshall, continuing...

This resulted in you being led to believe Scripture somehow says something the words of the text do not themselves say. Stay with me here.

No, it didn't. It led me to prayerful Bible study which eventually - and CONTRARY TO MY WISHES - led me to see that the Bible does not say what I had been taught that it says. I had fallen prone to that error of cultural blindness that makes it hard to see what is and isn't there. I had a hard time differentiating between FACT (the text factually says, "men shall not lie with men...") and opinion ("and that MEANS that all gay behavior for all time is wrong...").

I had to grow a bit in the faith to move past that less mature/more shallow approach to Bible study.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

YOU, obviously, bought into their lame arguments and chose not to give equal time to the other side (the side that speaks the truth).

No, factually, I did not. I didn't LISTEN to "THEIR" arguments. I read the Bible and considered the evidence.

Now, does that mean I CONSIDERED (even if a bit hostile-ly) what the "other side" had to say? Yes, of course.

One can't rationally enter into a consideration of a position, saying, "God, show me your will," and seek Truth without considering all the arguments.

Would you agree that, IF you were considering "Which ice cream flavor is best? I sorta think Vanilla, cause I REALLY like vanilla, but maybe it's chocolate..." but then, YOU NEVER TASTE chocolate and you then make your decision, "yep! Vanilla IS best...," well, you have not honestly considered the actual argument, you've just validated your pre-existing belief.

That is a childish way to study anything, wouldn't you agree?

Marshall...

This was also evidenced by your response to my suggestion that you re-read my original post (the first ever of my blog) wherein I presented a fine piece on why some Levitical laws are applicable and some aren't. That response of yours was "I don't buy it", though you gave 0 (zero) reasons why...

That is not evidence that I didn't study the Bible and pray and change my opinion. Are you thinking that my giving a brief answer, "I don't buy it" is somehow "evidence" that I did not prayerfully seek God's Word and Will and change my mind? It's not, it just isn't.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

I've countered your claim that Lev 18 speaks of homosex and pagan religious ritual. I've countered it with the absolute truth that there is no such reference anywhere around Lev 18 for anyone to cling to such a fanciful imagining. It doesn't exist. What does exist is extra-Biblical suggestions by enablers and activists that the Bible is saying such a thing.

The Bible definitely refers to the evil practices of the Canaanites in their temple practices. It speaks of offering child sacrifices to Molech, it speaks of Temple prostitution. I had heard all THAT much in my conservative youth from conservative pastors who were preaching about the evils of the nation around Israel.

Are you suggesting there is no biblical support for the notion of temple prostitution?

It is true that Lev 18 does not specifically refer to pagan RELIGIOUS RITUALS, but it does refer to the "practices" of the canaanites... "Do not follow their practices."

Thus, I read that and I REMEMBERED that my conservative teachers had taught me about the evil Canaanite Ba'al practices, of temple prostitution and temple orgies as part of "THEIR PRACTICES." Does it definitively say these rules are in regards to those temple practices? No, but it SEEMS TO ME (and SEEMED TO ME at the time) that it was likely.

WHY, after all, would someone have sexual relations with THEIR MOTHER??? WHO WOULD DO THAT?!! No one! BUT, in the land of Canaan, such a thing would happen IN THEIR TEMPLE PRACTICES.

Are you unfamiliar with Ba'al/Molech worship and the various activities that happened in Canaan? I wasn't, because I had been taught about them BY MY CONSERvATIVE PREACHERS AND TEACHERS growing up. Further, Lev 18 SPECIFIES "don't sacrifice your children to Molech." AT THE LEAST, it was obvious to me AT THE TIME that at least SOME of these rules are obviously, contextually speaking of pagan temple practices.

Do you disagree, at least with some of these rules?

Further, the problem with looking to Leviticus as a list of universal moral rules, is THAT THEY AREN'T. They simply aren't. That is NOT THE BIBLICAL PURPOSE of Leviticus, to suggest that these are universal rules for all times and places.

And the thing is, NO ONE THINKS that is true. You don't think we ought to kill men who lay with men (whatever that means). You think it is okay to cut the hair on the side of your head. You think is not a sin to wear polyester (albeit maybe a questionable style statement).

NO ONE thinks these are all universal rules for all times.

Dan Trabue said...

It would be extremely poor biblical exegesis to say, "THIS rule is a rule that really applies for all times and people, therefore ALL these rules are always true," DON'T YOU AGREE?

The point is, there IS legitimate biblical reason to think that these practices - at least some of them - are speaking of temple practices. AND not only that, but I factually - even though I was coming from a conservative viewpoint on that point - I FACTUALLY found this to be likely.

Can you read this and tell me if you understand the point:

You are free to hold your own opinions, you are NOT free to form your own facts.

It IS A REAL WORLD FACT that some people form the opinion that I did. You don't have to agree with that opinion, but you HAVE to admit it happens, because it is just a fact. Failure to admit it happens makes you sound either arrogant in the extreme or delusional. That is not an attack, just a statement of how it appears.

Marshall...

In short, no argument by your side for any of the references to this behavior is supported by the text or the original languages.

And I've just demonstrated that there IS an argument. Whether or not it's one you believe, that is up to you. But IT IS A FACT that there IS an argument. The argument is,

"'Don't sacrifice to Molech,' that is speaking of pagan temple practices; having sex with all these people you wouldn't normally do, that sure SOUNDS like it might be referring to the temple practices of the people in Canaan; the text refers specifically to "the practices" of the Canaanites... these appear to be, at least in part, speaking in reference to that..."

That IS AN ARGUMENT, Marshall.

Can we agree on that reality? It just IS. You may not find it COMPELLING and that is your right, but you can't say it doesn't exist. THERE IT IS, right on this page!

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

So much for Scripture.

I don't know what you mean by that. You stated authoritatively that I could not reach my position by prayer and Bible study. I am telling you with ACTUAL authority (because I know what MY reasoning was and the path that took me there), that I DID reach my conclusion just in that way.

So, can you admit that you overreached your ability to rationally make such an authoritative statement? Glenn, Craig, John B? Any of you want to have the intellectual honesty to admit that, whatever you may think of my conclusions, Marshall only sounds arrogant or deluded when he says I did not reach them the way I did?

Anyone?

Marshall...

To add to that is your personal knowledge of ten couples and your belief that their behaviors, not including their homosexual behaviors, led you to believe that they are Godly and wonderful people, true Christians. This is hardly Biblical study, it is hardly a manner in which a serious student would weigh Biblical teaching.

1. The Bible tells us repeatedly that we can KNOW people are Christians by their lives, their actions, by their fruit.

Do you disagree with this basic Christian teaching? Do you think that Jesus was WRONG when he said...

By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another.

Was Jesus crazy to make such a blanket statement, or can we "KNOW" based on the love we have for each other and the fruit of the Spirit in our lives?

2. The fact is, my beloved community (gay and straight) ARE Christians and it is obvious because of the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. It is obvious to all who see them live. It is obvious in their confession of Jesus as their Lord and Savior. It is obvious in their humble repentance and resting in God's grace. THESE ARE BIBLICAL MEASURES OF CHRISTIANITY.

3. Thus, to take what THE BIBLE TEACHES IT, and apply it in the real world, that SEEMS TO ME to be an application of Biblical study. Do you disagree?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

And as if I have never said it a billion times before, I do not offer any hunches as to what the Bible says. "Thou shalt not..." is crystal clear.

So, you don't cut the hair on the side of your head? After all, "THOU SHALT NOT" is crystal clear and it's right there in Leviticus, so, it must be a rule for all time and all people. Is THAT your reasoning? If so, do you see how it is faulty?

As I have said a billion times: JUST BECAUSE A RULE IS FOUND (OR APPARENTLY FOUND) IN THE BIBLE, DOES NOT MAKE IT A UNIVERSALLY MORAL RULE FOR ALL TIME AND PEOPLE. NO ONE THINKS THIS.

Marshall...

I don't have to dig deeper to find out what "don't lie with a man as you would with a woman" means. It could not be more plain without saying, "don't be a homo".

And yet, you cut the hair on the side of your head? Does that make you a hypocrite, or just a very shallow student of the Bible or what?

The Bible is NOT A RULE BOOK.

Marshall...

So I don't care what you continue to insist. You did not come to your conclusion by Bible study alone, because the Bible does not say what you say it says.

And yet, that is FACTUALLY what happened. Now, you can deny real world facts and say what is true is NOT true, but does that sound like an adult approach to Bible study, my brother?

Please, consider what you're saying.

Beyond that, HOW ELSE would you explain how a conservative traditional Christian CHANGED THEIR VIEW, flipping totally around on the point, if it WASN'T prayer and Bible study? What ELSE could have made me change my position? You have NOTHING to support this delusional hunch that it wasn't just the way it happened in the real world.

You could legitimately say, "Well, you DID look into it and you were swayed by bad reasoning on your part..." and something like that would be a rational real-world attempt to explain my change, but to say it didn't happen, well, that's simply not rational, because it denies real world evidence (and not just with me, since MANY people have been similarly swayed in the real world).

Anyone? Anyone at all want to agree with me that denying real world facts and insist, contrary to real world facts, that "NO! I KNOW BETTER THAN REAL WORLD FACTS!!" makes one sound like they have a god-complex, or are just as arrogant as hell, or that they are delusional? Or maybe some combination of those?

What should a rational person do with someone making statements contrary to real world facts?

Pray, my friends. And embrace grace.

John B said...

The problem Dan displays (and others like him) is that they presume that since the pagans participated in a particular behavior, that the admonition of that behavior is only in the pagan context.

Rather than seeing the situation like this:

God condemnes homosexuality. The pagans practiced homosexuality and God condemned the pagans and the practice.

Dan sees it like this:

Pagans practiced among other things, homosexuality. God doesn't like pagans, therefore the condemnation of pagan practices is only condemned in the context of paganism.

But for some reason, all the other pagan practices like beastiality and child sacrifice is condemned outright by Dan. He doesn't seem to be advocating for beastiality so long as the human cares for the animal.

Very inconsistent.

Dan Trabue said...

John B...

Dan sees it like this:

Pagans practiced among other things, homosexuality. God doesn't like pagans, therefore the condemnation of pagan practices is only condemned in the context of paganism.


You have misunderstood my beliefs, John. That is not an accurate characterization of what I believe or have said. It is a false representation of what I believe.

I did not say what you concluded and stated authoritatively is my position. Look at my words. That's not there. It's not my position.

Can you have the intellectual honesty, my friend, to ACKNOWLEDGE that it's not my position, now that I've pointed it out directly to you?

My ACTUAL position is NOT:

Pagans practiced among other things, homosexuality. God doesn't like pagans, therefore the condemnation of pagan practices is only condemned in the context of paganism.

My actual position, in relation to Lev 18/20, is at least twofold:

1. The OT is not a rule book full of universal rules for all people and all times. NO ONE READS it that way and attempting to do so - while cherry-picking the rules - is poor biblical exegesis.

2. That, in context of Leviticus, it APPEARS to me that at least some of the rules (specifically for Israel ~4000 years ago) being spoken of ARE in reference to pagan temple practices. This would APPEAR to me to be the case with "men lying with men," as well as some of the other passages.

Beyond that, since I AM NOT READING THE OT AS A RULE BOOK, there is nothing "inconsistent" in my not reading it as a rule book.

On the other hand, if YOU are reading it as a rule book AND YET you pick and choose which verses are universal, THAT would seem to be inconsistent.

Fair enough?

Marshall Art said...

Responding as time allows.

Beginning with Dan's last (November 22, 2011 4:53 PM):

1. This notion that the Bible is "not a book of rules" is a poor line of reasoning. Of course it is. Ever hear of "Love they neighbor as thyself"? That's a rule we are all meant to abide. Consequences await those who fail to do so. Indeed, belief in God is a "rule" that is important to follow as is accepting Christ as our Savior. These are obvious, but not nearly the extent of the list.

To speak of "rules" as if the rules alone lead to salvation is not the point, because then we have deal with "works based" arguments irrelevant to this discussion. But there are indeed codes of behavior that have existed from before the time they were handed down in Leviticus and elsewhere.

Dan wants to return to lame defenses such as how we cut our hair or whether or not we put homos to death for their behaviors. It's very difficult to believe that anyone who uses such arguments is serious about having seriously studied the Bible.

2. You have yet to flesh out why it "appears" to you to be as you say. Your appeals to Baptist pastors fails on two levels:
a) It assumes that the pastors in question were good ones who properly teach Scripture.
b) It assumes that, allowing for the possibility that those pastors were spot on in their teaching, that YOU properly understood what they were teaching. Given your record, that doesn't seem likely.

This notion of "it's not a rule book" is convenient for those who wish to do the picking and choosing. On those issues where I express certainty, it is because there is no mistaking what Scripture is saying (except by you and those like you). I don't hold that I can speak with certainty on every aspect of the Bible (as evidenced by my discussions with Stan on Natural Man). I am also certain as to why things like putting homos to death no longer apply to Christians today. There is no inconsistency whatsoever. To conflate sin with the punishment for it is further evidence of your "serious study" being less that serious. (I'm assuming "serious study" leads to understanding. Your inability to distinguish between behavior and the punishment for it, and why the punishment no longer applies while the behavior restriction does indicates clearly that you were never serious enough.)

Marshall Art said...

As for your links, thanks for wasting my time. None of them make the connection you imply exists between Canaanite religious practices and God's prohibition against sex outside of the traditional marital arrangement. You are clearly engaging in the projection, the eisogesis, of which accuse us. You are eagerly reading into the text that which does not exist. You once again assume "practices" is referring only to religious rituals and not the customs of the pagan peoples.

The last link is especially lame, as it does what so many of those like yourself insist on doing, pretending the the Israelites created their own creation story as opposed to having it revealed to them. This allows for all sorts of projection where it is convenient and what is done so well by activists and their enablers.

"Are you suggesting there is no biblical support for the notion of temple prostitution?"

No. Nor am I concerned with whether or not there is. I am concerned with Lev 18 and the fact that there is no such reference to the sexual practices listed as being necessarily prohibited ONLY as practiced by pagans. They are not. They are prohibited because they conflict with God's intention of why we were created male and female; His intentions for human sexuality.

"Does it definitively say these rules are in regards to those temple practices? No, but it SEEMS TO ME (and SEEMED TO ME at the time) that it was likely."

(yawn) Really? No kidding. The question is "why should it?" There is nothing in the text itself to suggest it. Even back then (assuming you understood what your Baptist pastors were teaching) the notion was projected upon the text, not lifted from it.

"WHY, after all, would someone have sexual relations with THEIR MOTHER??? WHO WOULD DO THAT?!! No one!"

That's funny. People have said that, and continue to say that about homosexuals. "Who could be attracted to one of the same gender?" "Who could be attracted to prepubescent children?" "Who could be interested in sex with donkeys?" All these and more have occurred in human history and the frequency of any of them is hardly the issue. How ugly and bigoted of you to regard the committed and monogamous love between a man and his mother in such an ungracious manner!

Marshall Art said...

"It would be extremely poor biblical exegesis to say, "THIS rule is a rule that really applies for all times and people, therefore ALL these rules are always true," DON'T YOU AGREE?"

No one is saying this at all. Irrelevant.

"The point is, there IS legitimate biblical reason to think that these practices - at least some of them - are speaking of temple practices."

Someday you'll have to fill us in on those legitimate reasons. What you've given so far does nothing to support the notion that Lev 18 or 20 is speaking of religious ritual versus ALL homosexual activity, which the text itself states by saying "Thous shalt not..." You don't seem to realize that with such a concise statement that logic dictates it is comprehensive and all encompassing as it stands. You MUST project what the text itself does not say to make it work your way.

"You are free to hold your own opinions, you are NOT free to form your own facts."

Another piece of hypocrisy by you. I am going by what the text says. YOU are projecting and doing so in order to hold to your OPINION, proven by your statement of what the text APPEARS to be teaching. I don't make any such statements. I speak only of what the words say and nothing more. What the words say are the facts. What you say are your opinions of what the words mean.

"And I've just demonstrated that there IS an argument."

You can call any collection of lame statements an argument, but that's typical of the lefty practice (not a religion, but a custom) of redefinition. An argument can't be just any crap that conveniently works for your position.

Much more later. Out of time.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

1. This notion that the Bible is "not a book of rules" is a poor line of reasoning. Of course it is. Ever hear of "Love they neighbor as thyself"? That's a rule we are all meant to abide.

I did not say that there are not rules in the Bible. Of course there are. There are some rules that are universal in nature and some that are temporal.

My point that you appear to be missing is this: The PURPOSE of the Bible is not to provide us with a list of rules for us to live by. The purpose of God's revealed Word is to tell of God's grace.

When we turn the Bible into a mere list of rules that are to be randomly and woodenly obeyed, we have denigrated down into a legalism and MISSED the PURPOSE of God's revealed Word.

That's my opinion, anyway. You can view it as a rule book if that's what your hunch is, I just don't find it very credible and I find that position to be ANTI-biblical, so I can't go along with your hunch.

Marshall...

But there are indeed codes of behavior that have existed from before the time they were handed down in Leviticus and elsewhere.

But those rules given to an ancient people in an ancient time for some specific purposes are not, en masse, universal rules. Some are universally applicable, some aren't. To try to treat them as if they are all universally applicable would be wrong and a form of deadly legalism.

Do you disagree?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Dan wants to return to lame defenses such as how we cut our hair or whether or not we put homos to death for their behaviors.

I don't find the serious study of God's Word to be "lame," Marshall. Do you?

And I'm going to tell you this one time, Marshall: If I were in a serious Bible study/ethics discussion with another adult and they used a derogatory term to refer to another human being (the "N" word, for instance), I would tell them I'm not going to be part in a conversation with such truly vile language and, if they didn't apologize, I would end the conversation, as it would be obvious that this person was not engaging in respectful adult (much less, Christian) conversation.

You can apologize for using that sort of vile language or this conversation is ended.

You shitheads don't understand the nature of "foul." That is hellish bullshit that is TRULY foul and I rebuke that sort of language in the name of our loving Christ who died to end that sort of shitty oppression.

Now would be a good time for Marshall's comrades to call him on the carpet, IF you want to be taken seriously.

Mark said...

Obviously, Dan has lost the argument but stubbornly refuses to admit it, because he has returned once again to the infamous "argument from silence".

Dan, it is troubling to think you may be teaching impressionable young people that God blesses Gay marriage, and that homosexuality is natural and normal. If you are, you are literally leading them to Hell.

I'm done here. But I will leave you with this one point:

Dan, you are wrong. God condemns homosexuality and He does not bless gay marriage.

Craig said...

"So, I'm not sure, does that clarify it further for you?"

It clarifies why you used the Eph. passage. It does not clarify why your responses/rebukes don't conform to the standards set out in the passage. Nor does it explain why you have chosen not to follow the words of Jesus in Matthew 18.

As per the Eph. passage, if one needs to use harsh words they must "build up" and "give grace to all who hear". Yet your harsh words do neither. Yet, you still consider them justified.

Dan Trabue said...

I will address one point from Craig...

if one needs to use harsh words they must "build up" and "give grace to all who hear". Yet your harsh words do neither.

That is a fine opinion, there, Craig, and you're welcome to it. I think calling the Pharisees and other similar oppressors "FOOLS" and "SNAKES" and calling such oppressive twisting of words "BULLSHIT" IS give grace. You can say Jesus, the prophets, Mary, James and others, including modern day folk who stand against falsehoods and oppression wrong if you want, I think it gives GRACE to those who have been oppressed by the Pharisee/oppressor types, AND it points the WAY to grace FOR the pharisee/oppressor types.

Feel free to disagree.

Craig said...

Where in scripture does it say that God doesn't like abbreviations?

John B said...

Marshall

I'm not sure if you've ever read Dans detailed outline for how he came to believe homosexual sexual relationships are perfectly ok or not. He posted it on his blog a while back. I was lucky enough to copy and paste it in order to save it since his posts get buried and arent really searchable with any amount of ease. Let me know if you want to read it that way you can see it as he put it officially.

It is the most ridiculus defense for homosexuality I have ever read...and I have access to the internet where lots of nonsense is available. But you are right, he does not get his view from the text, he gets it mainly from "principles". Y0u know, Love is a good thing right?
perhaps he'll link to it, and save people the time.

Dan Trabue said...

I will also address one of Mark's heretical statements...

it is troubling to think you may be teaching impressionable young people that God blesses Gay marriage, and that homosexuality is natural and normal. If you are, you are literally leading them to Hell.

Worst case scenario, I am MISTAKEN. Teaching someone a MISTAKEN point about a BEHAVIOR does not lead anyone to hell. Not literally. Not even in a fevered imagination.

A lack of GRACE leads one to hell, and that is what is being displayed amongst some here in their word-twisting and arrogance.

Teaching folk a mistaken point on A BEHAVIOR and yet, still teaching them salvation by Grace through faith in Jesus, well, that's just being mistaken.

You know, like WE ALL ARE sometimes.

Unless you want to go so far as to suggest you are never mistaken, which would be, again, more worrisome than some fellow believer being merely mistaken.

Embrace grace, gentlemen. Consider the arrogance of your words, the poor exegesis of your Bible study, your conflation of your opinions with God's will, and the lack of grace in your words, and repent.

Marshall Art said...

Due to time constraints, I will have to get to Dan's last "harsh rebuke" later. I will do soon enough, even if it isn't soon enough for him. For now, I'd rather finish my thoughts, picking up where I left off.

Dan said,

""'Don't sacrifice to Molech,' that is speaking of pagan temple practices; having sex with all these people you wouldn't normally do, that sure SOUNDS like it might be referring to the temple practices of the people in Canaan; the text refers specifically to "the practices" of the Canaanites... these appear to be, at least in part, speaking in reference to that...""

This is an example of what passes for "serious Bible study" in Dan's world. The list of prohibitions in Lev 18 includes

Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord Lev 18:21 -NIV

Though this is an example of a pagan religious ritual, it does not in any way suggest that all other prohibitions on the list are also examples of a pagan religious ritual. This would be like saying that if God was to have used a chapter to express that He does not want the Chosen to eat like the Canaanites, and the list read something like: Lev 275:9 "Thou shalt not eat apples." 10 "Thou shalt not eat watermelons." 11 "Thou shalt not eat grapes." 12 "Thou shalt not eat cabbage." 13 "Thou shalt not eat bananas.", to Dan the chapter would be a prohibition against eating fruit with vegetables simply because one verse said "cabbage". This isn't "serious" Biblical study. It's childishness. "Wow! As long as I'm not eating my fruits with vegetables/having homosex in the context of pagan worship services, I'm cool!"

Dan also makes an incredible leap to suggest that he knows without a doubt that the Canaanites would normally be adverse to having sex in any of the other arrangements Leviticus prohibits, if not forced to do so as part of pagan worship ceremonies. "But Mom! I don't want to go to church! I don't feel comfortable having sex with you!" "I know Son. I'm not comfortable, either, but it's what Molech wants." As if Molech actually told a Canaanite Moses personally how to worship him. "Tell the people they must have sex with close relations." How can this be serious study? How can this NOT be a case of Dan projecting his modern biases and sensibilities on the subject matter, as he so often accuses us of doing?

It really doesn't matter of such behaviors were indeed temple practices. What is most likely is that their temple practices evolved from their actual desires to engage in these behaviors (doesn't matter if absolutely every individual enjoyed so engaging), as opposed to Judeo-Christian behaviors being a direct reflection of the intentions of an actual and very real God. Keep in mind, that these prohibitions were given directly to Moses who had a one-on-one, face-to-face relationship. Thus, if God had intended that every line of Lev 18 involved pagan temple practices, He would have said, "Do not follow their temple practices." Feel welcome to point out the flaws in my logic and why they are so.

So while the above highlighted words of yours might technically be categorized as "an argument", it must be listed under the sub-section "incredibly stupid arguments". If that strikes you as arrogant, so be it if that's how truth strikes you.

Marshall Art said...

"
So much for Scripture.

I don't know what you mean by that.
"

Apparently I need to spell things out for you. I was explaining why you couldn't have based your opinion solely on "serious and prayerful Biblical study" and began with Scripture itself; that the words it uses do not say what you want it to mean. After finishing with my argument from Scripture, I moved on with the segue "So much for Scripture" and moved on to your statements regarding the "Godliness" of your homosexual friends. (Note here how when referring to people you know, I use the full spelling of the term rather than it's non-derogatory legitimate abbreviation, which I use in speaking of homosexuals in general. "Ugly and hateful" is your attempt to demonize those who do not treat sinners in the exact manner you demand.)

"So, can you admit that you overreached your ability to rationally make such an authoritative statement?"

Not without lying. If the Bible itself does not say "XYZ", then no claim of serious prayerful study can make it say "XYZ". That is my point. Thus, I don't believe that your claims are truthful no matter how much you stomp your feet and insist that you know what you think better than I do. Discerning exactly what you think is not at issue anyway, but only the matching of what you say with what results.

"1. The Bible tells us repeatedly that we can KNOW people are Christians by their lives, their actions, by their fruit."

Yes. And your friends, evidenced by their willful engaging in what God clearly and plainly prohibits, show that they are far from "Godly" or "some of the most Christian people" anyone could know. The best one could say is "if not for their sexual behavior, they are among the most Godly people I know." This is easy, Dan. Even for you. Just replace their homosexual behavior with any other explicitly prohibited behavior and see what you get. And no, I don't believe a single one of them truly believes that they are not engaging in sinful behavior. I don't believe too many people, excluding those with true mental issues, ever fully convince themselves their bad behavior is OK. They simply give up trying.

"2. The fact is, my beloved community (gay and straight) ARE Christians and it is obvious because of the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. It is obvious to all who see them live."

The Spirit would not have anything to do with leaving people to believe their sinful behavior is worthy of blessing. Their sinful behavior belies the Spirit's full working.

"3. Thus, to take what THE BIBLE TEACHES IT, and apply it in the real world, that SEEMS TO ME to be an application of Biblical study. Do you disagree?"

No. I don't agree. Not unless I acknowledge that people can engage in any sin of their choosing and it would be OK if they find lame ways to justify it and act like a Christian in all other ways. I do not.

Gotta go. Stay tuned.

Craig said...

Dan,

If you'd actually like to explain how your "harsh rebuke" lines up with Eph 4 and Matt 18, I'd still like to hear it.

Marshall Art said...

"So, you don't cut the hair on the side of your head? After all, "THOU SHALT NOT" is crystal clear and it's right there in Leviticus, so, it must be a rule for all time and all people. Is THAT your reasoning? If so, do you see how it is faulty?"

No. It is NOT my reasoning. My reasoning is far more logical and does not make childish comparisons between those things which are not comparable. I refer again to my very first blog post (and the comments which followed) for a fine reasoned and rational explanation regarding Levitical law, and now I can also offer another fine argument in a recent post at Stan's blog.

But MY point was more specific here. It referred to the Levitical prohibition regarding homosexual behavior. It referred to the fact that I am citing a specific rule that you dismiss with non-specific (actually, made up) reasoning, that being, that the prohibition spoke of a particular context in which the behavior might take place, which is NOT specifically stated, implied or even hinted.

"As I have said a billion times: JUST BECAUSE A RULE IS FOUND (OR APPARENTLY FOUND) IN THE BIBLE, DOES NOT MAKE IT A UNIVERSALLY MORAL RULE FOR ALL TIME AND PEOPLE. NO ONE THINKS THIS."

What is really stunning about this argument is its irrelevance. So, saying a billion times more won't make a bit of difference regarding the rule in question. It IS a rule to be followed just as the other sexual prohibitions are to be followed because it does not align with God's intentions for human sexuality and His purpose in creating two genders, which is incredibly self-evident.

"And yet, you cut the hair on the side of your head? Does that make you a hypocrite, or just a very shallow student of the Bible or what?"

Neither. It shows I understand the difference between the two rules and which applies and which doesn't and that I don't childishly pretend no difference exists.

Marshall Art said...

"Beyond that, HOW ELSE would you explain how a conservative traditional Christian CHANGED THEIR VIEW, flipping totally around on the point, if it WASN'T prayer and Bible study?"

We've been through this, but I'm more than happy to go through it again.

To begin, there has been nothing in anything you've ever posted that suggests you've ever had a true understanding of conservatism, either religiously or politically. Sure, you may have spoken in a manner that suggested conservatism, saying things like "Homosexual behavior is wrong!", but never really knowing why it might be wrong other than seeing it prohibited in the Leviticus passages. This is certain as you don't understand it now. (Note that the alternative is that you DO know and willingly ignore it, which would be far worse.)

So, being less than convicted, you were led to believe first by those who suggested that your understanding (which you never really had) might be wrong and that you need to study Scripture again, assuming you ever studied it at all. It sounds like you never really did, but only went by a poor understanding of what you heard from your pastor. Thus you began your "serious study" and with the guidance of pro-homosexual acquaintances and authors. Your study could take you in no other direction, especially as you began to find people who were homosexual, and like so many, allowed their otherwise "Christian" behavior to affix the lie in your all too willing mind.

I could flesh this out in far more detail as it is so routine with enabling heterosexuals. It isn't, in fact, much different with anyone who dismisses their sin or the sins of others they love. No one wants to believe that friends or family, even those they regard as jerks, go anywhere but heaven when they die. It is assumed they are with God and it is quite natural to do so. There's no way Cher wanted Chastity to be a lesbian and have a sex change. There's no way Dick Cheney wanted his daughter to be a lesbian. There aren't too many who will, like Alan Keyes, stand firm in the knowledge that the behavior is sinful and psychologically abnormal while loving their child or friend, but will instead alter their perspective for the sake of their relationship. Like you, they'll tell themselves that they've found that they USED TO BE wrong about it all.

"You could legitimately say, "Well, you DID look into it and you were swayed by bad reasoning on your part..."

HELLO! DAN! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING AT LEAST ABOUT A THOUSAND TIMES!!! Bad reasoning IS THE SAME AS "you did not get their by serious Bible study". Good reasoning would include being able to provide those verses that support your contention that some forms of the behavior are permissible. You haven't done that. You've only provided verses upon which you've projected your own meanings (or the meanings spoon-fed you by enablers and activists).

"What should a rational person do with someone making statements contrary to real world facts?"

We've been trying to figure that out, Dan. You've been making such statements on this issue (as well as others) for years.

Marshall Art said...

"The PURPOSE of the Bible is not to provide us with a list of rules for us to live by. The purpose of God's revealed Word is to tell of God's grace."

This is totally untrue. Among the things the Bible is meant to teach us is indeed Grace. But that is hardly the whole story. It is indeed meant to teach us what God expects of us, including how we conduct our lives in relation to each other as well. It does indeed teach us behaviors that pleases and displeases Him.

"When we turn the Bible into a mere list of rules that are to be randomly and woodenly obeyed, we have denigrated down into a legalism and MISSED the PURPOSE of God's revealed Word."

So, we don't have to worry about "wooden obedience" regarding the prohibition against murder or adultery?

"You can view it as a rule book if that's what your hunch is, I just don't find it very credible and I find that position to be ANTI-biblical, so I can't go along with your hunch."

Ah, I see. You can't go along with my "hunch" that we should abide the teachings of Scripture. That is, unless it is those teachings that YOU find to be worthy of "religious" adherence.

"But those rules given to an ancient people in an ancient time for some specific purposes are not, en masse, universal rules."

Again, never said that. But you like to make this point so as to ease your ability to pick and choose which to follow. But more to the point, it's an irrelevant argument regarding the universal nature of Lev 18:22 and the fact that it prohibits ALL forms of homosex behavior. To put it another way, you like to use this pharisaical argument, that we are legalistic. But this is not about missing the spirit of God's laws. This is about you (and those you enable) rejecting God's laws and the extremely lame justifications and rationalizations used to provide your permission.

"I don't find the serious study of God's Word to be "lame," Marshall. Do you?"

Didn't say that. But what passes for serious study in YOUR little world is indeed lame. Serious study cannot lead to your conclusions. Your conclusions mean the study wasn't quite as serious as you thought it was. You know, some people say they work really hard. But when you get a chance to observe them at work, you wonder when they will get to the hard stuff. Their notion of "hard work" isn't hard at all. Truly hard work would have produced different results. Truly serious study would have lead you to different conclusions than those you hold.

Marshall Art said...

Now, Dan. I'm going to tell YOU this one more time. "Homo" is NOT a derogatory term. It is an abbreviation of the legitimate term for the people who are the subject of this discussion. If "homo" is an ugly term, then so is homosexual. I believe it is still the accepted clinical term by those worthless psycho-babblers who pretend there is no need to regard the condition as a mental disorder.

What IS ugly and reprehensible is for you to come here and use this dodge to bail on the discussion. To pretend that I have been speaking in a derogatory manner about homosexuals, simply because I shorten the term to a more convenient alternative, is a cheap and pathetic ploy. To so demonize someone who does not hold to YOUR rules (I apparently must follow yours with perfection while YOU dither about which of God's one must follow) is ugly hypocrisy as you once again display a great lack of graciousness in my house.

I'm well aware of your twisted morality and do not use the term at YOUR blog. Yet, you insist on forcing YOUR twisted morality on me and my visitors. You would not accept such at YOUR blog.

The only thing that is vile is your attempt to force this morality of yours, knowing full well that we do not hold with your crap about homosexuality. Homosexual behavior in all its forms is vile, detestable and an abomination, just as the Lord says it is. Your defense of it is equally vile. That young people over whom you have influence may be led to believe as you because of your defense is worse than vile. That you dare try to equate my use of the word "homo" with the word "nigger" is also vile. That you would dare come here and think you can dictate what words are permissible and which ones aren't and when on YOUR freakin' terms is vile. How dare you! You psuedo-sanctimonious hypocrite!

4simpsons said...

Just glanced at your last couple comments and saw the "don't cut your hair" canard, aka the "shellfish argument," where a skeptic/fake tries to make you look inconsistent for pointing to Lev. 18 as obviously opposing homosexual behavior yet not being subject to dietary and other restrictions.

The hair cutting / shellfish argument is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in flaws of the shellfish argument -- http://tinyurl.com/l2qjtc

Short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination. They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts. The associated sins had radically different consequences and had 100% different treatments in the New Testament.

Those who use those arguments are either ignorant of the text and/or counting on the ignorance of their hearers.

I appreciate your public service in keeping Dan busy. That means he has less time to pose as a conservative on blogs that aren't on to his facade of being dragged kicking and screaming to his unbiblical pro-gay theology, and where they won't catch on to his "The Bible is the word of God! Totally! Except when I say it isn't!" routine.

Dan Trabue said...

And I see that Neil is still willing to gossip like a grade school girl, but hasn't the balls to address me man to man.

Grow up, little brother in the faith. Repent of this slander and childish behavior and start to grow in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Seriously, gentlemen, it is time to starting behaving like grown up Christians...

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,

Neil is not gossiping - he's merely speaking the truth about you and it isn't behind your back! Do you even know what gossip is? Demonstrate where Neil has slandered you, since you made such an accusation.

When you tell people to grow up, perhaps you should look in the mirror and say that. Your behavior on this post, and every post I've seen you on, is less than juvenile.

Dan Trabue said...

Gossip: rumor or report of an intimate nature.

Speaking about my faith is a pretty damnably intimate bit of rumormongering, especially when it's not his business.

Do you all ever consult dictionaries?

And this...

That means he has less time to pose as a conservative on blogs that aren't on to his facade of being dragged kicking and screaming to his unbiblical pro-gay theology, and where they won't catch on to his "The Bible is the word of God! Totally! Except when I say it isn't!" routine.

...IS slander. Look up the definition yourself.

it IS a false charge to say I "pose as a conservative," when I'm always quite clear that I am often classified as a liberal, although those labels are not especially accurate.

It is a false charge to suggest my actual change of positions was a "facade."

It is a false charge to suggest my expression of my views is a routine.

These false charges are all petty and cowardly attempts to defame me behind my back and wherever he can rather than talking to me like a man.

I don't expect that sort of DEMONSTRABLY false and petty behavior from the worst of the lost, much less a fellow Christian.

He needs to repent and you need to repent for defending sin.

Grow up little brothers.

Marshall Art said...

Really, Dan. "Behind your back"? As if you never visit or are expected to visit? This charge might make sense if you found a site where the rest of us were, up to that point, congregating without your knowledge and used that site to trash talk people like you. As it is, it's really not possible for us to be talking "behind your back".

And your "slander" accusation is getting more than a bit tiresome as well. No one makes up crap about you. Everyone speaks from conclusions to which your own words have led them, for good or ill. We do nothing that those you favor don't do, except that we are more discerning regarding the ramifications of your words and positions.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,

I have seen you on numerous blogs, including mine, with the same routine. I am a witness to everything said about you and your belief system. YOU are the one guilty of bearing false witness against Neil, for he has not gossiped, nor has he slandered you.

Quit playing the victim and act like a man.

Feodor said...

It’s amusing to read as the Simp cites the Masoretic text as evidence that some sins from Leviticus were carried along by the NT while others were not.

I doubt Simp can read Hebrew. I’m sure he’s got massive accordances and paperback commentators lined up on his desk which lend him his assurance - but only the ones which guarantee the outcome he wishes.

The Simp’s point is, to quote, "Short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination. They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts.”

One can just as well substitute the English word, “God” for “abomination and Simp’s point would be just as correct. And yet he does not feel the need to differentiate the various words for God in English. He’s happy to blend it all together.

Because that would not guarantee the point he wants to make.

Neil is a stupid Christian’s idea of a smart Christian.