Sunday, February 12, 2012

It's So Hard To Be Humble...

...when I'm perfect in every way.

I like to show off. I like to take the risk of failing to complete the tricky play, to make the instantaneous grab of hot shot screaming between 2nd and 3rd, to carry a difficult split when the money's on the table. I like to sing lead and be the guy in the middle of the stage. I like to wear the nice threads while walking with my beautiful wife. And you know why? Because it's damn funny.

Yeah. Funny. It cracks me up to pretend that I am that pro-athlete doing what so many pro-athletes do routinely as if so many others aren't equally capable, if not more so. It's funny to think that I have just made someone look stupid by doing what he obviously thought I was not able to do, and what even I wasn't sure I could do. Loads of fun. Showing off is a gas.

Does this imply incredible pride and conceit to you? Does this smack of some vile lack of humility? Who cares? All those grand stages of pick-up sports and bar bands are so incredibly insignificant diversions. Part of the fun is the IN YOUR FACE/DIG ME aspect of doing it.

But guess what. I have fun when I fail to impress. Just participating is what it's all about for me. I've sung where it seemed absolutely no one in the crowd gave a flyin' rat's ass that there was a live band even present. But I still got to sing. I've played a variety of sports where I've not made the big play, not logged that turkey in the final frame to win the game, and even taken shots from a fighter who was clearly superior and making ME look stupid. I've enjoyed every minute. It's just a gas.

That's been the bottom line. Just having a good time regardless of the outcome and being prepared to be shown up.

I was on a bowling team one year that was amongst my most enjoyable years bowling. Everyone on the team was capable of doing damage and we competed more against each other than we did as a team against others. We didn't even think of the other team as our money was wagered against each other and it was the most fun taking each others' money over taking the money in the league pots (though that was indeed a serious goal). And when you took the other dude's money, you mocked him mercilessly. We had a blast and if we didn't win it all that year (I don't think we did), we were definitely in contention.

Humble wasn't a factor. Didn't need to be. Our averages were posted and it was clear who the best was.

Humble. Humility.

The subject of humility comes up a lot around here and was the subject of a blog post not too long ago. It is apparently considered by some to be lacking in humility to be confident in what one knows about Scripture. The line is that we are fallible and capable of being wrong on anything. While this is true, we being imperfect beings and all, it simply does not mean that we can't be totally right on specific things, especially if those things are directly revealed.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Pretty clear that. Can I not be confident and convicted in the knowledge that adultery is always sinful and not to be practiced? Is there any way in which I might be understanding this commandment improperly? I can't think of any, can you? So, knowing what the term "adultery" means, and knowing that it is clearly prohibited, am I acting in a manner lacking in humility to insist the behavior is sinful? Am I speaking for God?

Well, as a bit of a sidebar, any expression of what Scripture teaches us to another is to be speaking for God. So what? It is suggested by some (or one in particular) that to insist that one is confident in what Scripture teaches is to somehow speak as if one IS God, or equal to Him to the extent that one's "understanding" is equal to His Will. Again. So what? Are we not supposed to reflect His Teachings and His Will in the manner in which we live our lives?

The pitch is that what one person believes to be the Will of God might be different than the understanding of another person. Still once more, so what? This only means that one of the two is wrong or at least that one of the two is further from the truth than the other. But if both believe and are convicted in his belief, is it prideful to state the case as such? Does one lack humility in preaching what one believes to be the truth?

No. Not that I don't think so, but that my answer is "NO" in no uncertain terms. Stating that 2+2=4 and refusing to accept any alternative possibility is NOT a sign that one lacks humility. To state at the same time that the other guy who believes it isn't always the case is more than just wrong is also not a sign that one lacks humility. What it does show is two possibilities:

1. The one stating the fact cares enough about the wrong person to encourage a change of opinion.

2. The one stating the fact cares enough about anyone in the sphere of the wrong person's influence to continue to speak out against the fallacy the wrong person insists on preaching.

(There's also a third, that the one stating the fact thinks the other guy is a complete idiot or liar or both.)

Neither (and even the third) indicate a lack of humility on the part of the person defending the fact. Not in the least.

Indeed, to submit to God's authority and His mandates as clearly revealed in Scripture is a sign of humility of the type Jesus modeled for us. He was totally subservient to His Will. He was not acting pridefully when He cast out the money changers. He was not acting pridefully when he accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites and vipers. He was not being false or prideful when He taught that we be humble, like He is. In that sense, defending God's Will is not lacking in humility at all, but being humble in the manner that Jesus modeled in that we are exposing ourselves to heat from those who disagree with us for His sake. Our "suffering" at taking that heat is to put God before our own comfort.

"Agree to disagree" is not humility. It is milquetoast. I do not dismiss the possibility that I might have some notions of Biblical understanding wrong. Of course I can be wrong. But only when I am so proven to be. To "agree to disagree" gives tacit permission for the other person to carry on as if that person was not wrong. Why would any sane person agree to that? "Oh yeah. Let's agree to disagree. You go ahead and believe setting yourself on fire won't hurt." Am I serving that person to agree to allow such a destructive belief to go unchallenged? Is that humility, or cowardice?

Another person in the same discussion brought up this weird crap about learning new things that open him up to a better understanding of God. This after a post that mentions 1 Cor 13:12, as if a perfect understanding of God Himself is the point. I am already quite humble before the Lord. I could not be more unworthy of His Love. How much more need I know to make this more true? How much would it make a difference to know exactly how unworthy I am? He is Everything. I am nothing. There's not a whole lot more one needs to know.

Yet though His exact nature is unknowable to a living person, though His exact ways and thoughts are beyond us, He did not leave us with no clear understanding of how we are to live on this earth. He did not leave us without any "clues" as to what constitutes righteous behavior and what is sinful. What we need to know is crystal.

In that discussion, to get to a more clear explanation of a convoluted point being made, I offered this: "I saw a chair today and realized how little I understand God." It was an attempt to get this dude to explain his earlier comments that were no clearer than this. He went on to talk about how just seeing the chair from one angle doesn't tell us all we can know about the chair. Seeing it from the other side tells us something different, but then we cannot see the first view anymore, and, we cannot tell how comfortable it might be or if it can support our weight. He is humbled by such lack of knowledge apparently. I would simply sit in the damned chair. Even without doing so, I still know that it is indeed a chair and it is made for sitting.

In any case, that part of the discussion did not provide anything useful except to allow him to wax poetic (he hates when I say this) about that which did not enlighten in the least. I sought the connection between his "examples" and how they humble him more than merely acknowledging the vast chasm between who we are and who He is. But it has something very much in common with the poster and his thoughts on "humility". Both serve to dismiss what is clearly revealed for whatever reasons they wish to preserve and before which they insist on humbling themselves.

29 comments:

Neil said...

Good points, Marshall. In the example you cited, it is clear that the people are expressing false humility. Ironically, they are quite sure that it is wrong to be sure. They are so practiced at their passive-aggressive deceptions that they think we don't see their hypocrisy.

They express no such reservations when making biblical cases of their own. They just use them against you when they are losing the debate on biblical grounds.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Marshall,

"He is Everything. I am nothing. There's not a whole lot more one needs to know."

It is true that humility is understanding that those things we know to be true about God are those things revealed to us by God, which are meant for us to understand for His glory, and not based on our own understanding.

Being decent to others while standing firm for what is clear in scripture is also profitable. The quote that sticks with me in all discussions is the one Ravi Zacharias shares about what his grandmother taught him: After you have cut off a man's nose, there's no use giving him a rose to smell.

Blessings in standing firm and persevering in the Truth, and answering, like Paul, "What does the Scripture say?"

Marshall Art said...

Hmmm. Being decent while standing firm. Some must settle for the decency of still being allowed to post bad arguments here. New visitors will find all the decency they can wish for, but some visitors have spent all their capital long ago.

Craig said...

I was unaware that humility and certainty were in opposition to each other.

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, Craig. Like oil and water, apparently.

Feodor said...

I’ll give you this: you are descendent while standing firm.

Which is really quite a feat, and one that you show off almost without fail.

Marshall Art said...

Note the lack of grace and humility in feo's last comment. This is typical of his tone and has been since he first soiled the comment section of my blog. So too with little Parkie. Yet, in my case, I have debated opponents in really a cold and clinical manner to start, and never get snarky until long after I've dealt with a particular person, getting the same bad reasoning that I'm supposed to respect as valid simply because some human being put it on the table. It doesn't work that way.

But notice one other thing. There's also a complete lack of examples to support his contention that I'm in any way "descendent" in my positions. Now it is one thing to ignore such things from one so morally corrupt and twisted as feo, who supports truly counter-Biblical positions, but I am more interested in something akin to an intelligent argument that illustrates such accusations. And I don't mean "intelligent" as in "sounding intellectual", which is feo's way, because sounding intellectual doesn't hide the fact that he isn't the least bit intellectual.

In any case, I've come to expect such things from one like feo, whose belief in his own "ascendency" exists only in his fevered imaginings. Having been given over to his corruptions, he isn't likely to see reality clearly and certainly doesn't when it comes to his self-satisfying judgements of me. Whatever helps him sleep.

Bubba said...

In brief, it's not a sign of humility to plug one's ears and pretend that God mumbles.

Good point, Marshall.

Marshall Art said...

feodork sent a message that said:

"It seems, Marshall, that you’ve become only interested in applause. That’s a shame. It was the last virtue remaining to you that you allowed all kinds of responses here: something that put you above...some others."

First of all, I deleted a portion of the fool's message as he insists on abusing my visitors as if he is somehow their better. He isn't. He isn't even worthy of being mentioned with them. But that's the way it is with false priests. Ironic, given the topic. This cretin has no humility in him.

But then, to assume that it is applause that I desire and that is why I don't publish his every lame attempt at cleverness (one would think someone who believes himself to be so intellectually superior could provide a decent insult at least once in a while). What interests me is comments with substance, perhaps an interesting slant not yet considered or evidence of wit. You know...something that the average reader would regard as having made the trip here worth the time and effort. At the very least, conversation, discussion, debate.

What I'm not looking for is one so lacking in virtue daring to believe he can detect its presence in others. feo doesn't realize, being the false priest he is, that one is to first remove the plank from one's eye, not impale one's self upon it hoping to see anything at all.

If anything, this buffoon should have known by Parkie's lamentations that I do indeed limit the amount of bullshit any one visitor might hope to deliver.

Feodor said...

"I do indeed limit the amount of bullshit any one visitor might hope to deliver.”

Would that you would treat the host the same.

Feodor said...

Fleshing out the John Winthrop (Marshall Art/Simp) christianity vs the Roger Williams (humble) christianity allusion I made earlier, this is intended to help you along and to remind you that yours is only one of many kinds of American christianities. And the others are more gracious, more humble, and stronger than yours:

“Williams did not dispute withe them on any point of theology. They shared the same faith, all worshipping the God of Calvin, all seeing God in every facet of life, and all seeing man’s purpose as advancing the kingdom of God. But Winthrop [he of “the city on a hill”] and his colleagues in power in the Massachusetts Bay colony had enormous disagreements with Williams over how to infuse human society with God’s vision.

“The Bay’s leaders, both lay and clergy, firmly believed that the state must enforce all of God’s laws, and the to do so the state had to prevent error in religion. This conviction they held fast to, for their souls and all the souls within the Massachusetts plantation depended upon it.

“Williams recognized that putting the state to that service required humans to interpret God’s law. His views were not yet fully formed - how Massachusetts dealt with him would itself influence their formulation - but he believed that humans, being imperfect, would inevitably err in applying God’s law. Hence, he concluded that a society built upon the principles that Massachusetts espoused could at best lead only to hypocrisy, for he believed that forced worship ’stinks in God’s nostrils.’ At worst, it would lead to a foul corruption not of the state, which was already corrupt, but of the church, as it befouled itself with the state’s errors. HIs understandings were edging him toward a belief he would later call ’Soul Libertie.’"

From John M. Barry, “Roger Williams and The Creation of the American Soul: Church, State, and the birth of Liberty

Marshall Art said...

I've only time to respond to this:

"Would that you would treat the host the same."

When you can show the bullshit in my comments, I just might. Though keep in mind that I provide rules for such as you to follow. Being this is my blog, I can do what I like.

But again, how typical to accuse my comments of containing bullshit with no defense whatsoever of the accusation. That won't fly here. Simpleton.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

You pretty much are intent on proving what an idiot you are. Unfortunately, I'm already very much convinced of that fact.

To begin, you continue to call Neil "Simp", when, as you so often prove, it is YOU who is the simpleton. You have nowhere near the grasp of the faith that Neil has.

What's more, you clearly have no grasp of our positions on the faith, for neither of us seek to legislate the faith into law, regardless of whether or not we allow the faith to guide our positions on proposed legislation.

Furthermore, there has been very little dispute on theology from either of us, but only pointing out clear violations of God's clearly revealed intentions for human behavior. It is the major divide between those of us who seek to follow God's Will and those like yourself who are of the world.

Thus, your comparison of us to Barry's description of the two from Mass Bay colony is as lame as most of your attempts to pigeonhole us in a manner that allows you pretense of superiority. Indeed, how pathetic we would be should such as you be superior to us!

What is most ironic is that after you seek to remind me of the "many kinds of American christianities", you then present Williams as one who clearly would disagree.

The truth is that there is only ONE Christianity, despite there being many variations of practice, mostly in terms of structure and polity. YOU represent something entirely different. YOU are only, at best, Christian-like.

Feodor said...

Marshall, not only do you miss the analogy, you don’t understand the trope of analogy - and so completely declare yourself unable to understand your own position.

Must be the presence of the word, “anal,” that handicaps you.

Feodor said...

Your post is about humility and its role in interpreting scripture. This is exactly the crux of difference between Winthrop and Williams. It is the basis for the different ways in which they relate state and church. They apply their different theological valuations of the role of humility in biblical interpretation.

In this way, Williams, long before the founding even of the nation show your position to be unsound, unwise, and ultimately destructive to both state and church. That is what is clear here.

Leave it to you to forget what you were thinking and wonder off the point. Try this Marhshall: every time you think you’ve run across a easy, simple problem to solve, take a moment to turn your head a little. The cookie your fixated on is next to the filet mignon for which you have no knife.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

If you wouldn't spend so much time trying to impress others with the intelligence you like to believe you possess (while never proving you do), you wouldn't come off so stupidly. Re-read your own excerpt and then point out where there he provided proof of William's opinion yielding actual fruit. He only compares the opinions of the two men. He doesn't show one actually manifested in benefits the other didn't.

Thus, there is no evidence that my position is either unsound or destructive, especially since you don't even have the sense to really learn and understand my position. All you care about is that I dared reject your examples of poor Biblical reasoning regarding anything from homosexuality to whether or not the earth is still under God's curse.

As to the point of the post, it is about whether being certain about what Scripture says equates with lacking humility. What's more, while you seem to wish to side with Danny T that I lack the appropriate humility when defending what the Bible clearly states, you show your own lack of humility constantly. Typical hypocrisy from a false priest.

Feodor said...

Roger Williams, as I’m sure you need informing, is the first to propose a separation of church and state as the best moral and political policy. His dedication to religious tolerance is what creates a zone of humanism in seventeenth century New England.

You’ve asked for evidence because you have no clue as to what was going on in seventeenth century American history. You don’t know how to engage in a conversation regarding Winthrop and Williams. You are lost to know exactly what principles undergird “separation” or what purposes are gained and consequences avoided from it.

You haven’t read much if anything at all that applies and you wont now. Try reading Barry’s book, thereby putting your own effort in and gaining something for your mind. For the sake of anybody else reading here, I’ll just point out two events available for more investigation and reflection.

It was not in Rhode Island where the following women were murdered and many others like them:

Ann Glover
Ann Hibbins
Mary Johnson
Margaret Jones
Mary Parsons
Alice Young

Wonder why?

It was not in Rhode Island that the Shays rebellion took place (about which Jefferson cold-heartedly made his casual letter entry that the country needs to spill the blood of patriots from time to time).

Wonder why?

Should you surprisingly take up and read good history about these things, Marshall, one word from me: enjoy.

Feodor said...

What’s hard to understand about your position, Marshall? Except that you yourself do not know from whence it comes?

It’s four hundred year old strict Calvinism, unchanged by the foundations of modern law, particularly as it relates to the emergence of individual rights out from under the Divine Right of Kings - as developed in the seventeenth century thought of Francis Bacon, Edward Coke, John Locke and on into the eighteenth century by Paine, Madison, and Marshall.

Marshall Art said...

"What’s hard to understand about your position, Marshall?"

Perhaps you'd like to state exactly what you believe my position to be. Then we'll see just what you understand and what you don't.

Then, you can offer just where in either my post or any of my comments afterwards I am speaking on the subject of separation of church and state. I've looked and can find no evidence of such.

Nor can I find any evidence whatsoever of a connection between your last droolings and my post. All I see is another desperate attempt to prove to yourself that you know things I do not, and that you understand those things better than I do. This is so very sad.

As to those droolings, you still fail to show where or when either Neil or I have sought some level of theocracy in any way, shape or form. And still further, your offerings do nothing to show how such blend of faith and gov't must result in witch trials and the like, as opposed to merely poor gov't, theocratic or not. We could, if you insist, compare such gov'ts to those of communist Russia or China to see whether or not the religious leanings of any given gov't are more or less worse than one that is separate from religion.

No one here has ever advocated for legislation of ANY kind, on ANY level, for strict adherence to one belief system. But that does NOT mean that discussions regarding what Scripture clearly reveals are either bad form for a Christian or without beneficial purpose.

You merely engage in the same deceitful practice of others, which is to stifle reminders of just what those clearly revealed intentions of God are in order to enable bad behaviors.

Here is yet another reminder that all your alleged education and reading have done so tragically little to provide you with the least shred of wisdom. Now we can clearly add humility as another quality lost on you.

Feodor said...

"Perhaps you'd like to state exactly what you believe my position to be.”

Well, I’m pretty sure that the sentence that starts with “it’s” is were I state exactly what I believe your position to be.

Marshall Art said...

What came after "it's" is another of your unfortunate attempts to appear intellectual. "It's" meaningless in describing what your understanding of my position is. If you think my understanding of Scripture is fixed beyond the ability of modern law to change, it is only because God's Will is fixed, clearly revealed, understandable and not subject to human/worldly demands, unlike yourself. You can name drop all day, pretending to have learned anything from any of those who bear those names, but doing so does not enlighten as you make no effort to demonstrate where the comparison truly lies. Calvinism? Doubtful. Try again, and this time try actually addressing anything I've actually said to establish what you think my position on anything might be.

Feodor said...

That you cannot recognize - and more, don’t really care to know - the foundational principles that describe the very kind of Christian theology which you inherited, explains why your arguments are so vague and weak… as well as why you tend, so often, to shift and shift again from the arguments you’re trying to fend off.

You are, in a way, like Santorum when he claims that Obama’s theology is not biblically sourced. Little does little Rick know that his own faith community puts up two other sources of authority, valued equally with Holy Scripture. And, germane to your post, the Roman church does exactly that because the church believes that Scripture cannot be interpreted faithfully or consistently by any one individual. In other words: low trust in the ability of single minds and hearts to interpret scripture.

And so, equal with scripture, the ecumenical councils are authoritative for establishing a “rule of faith” which is also, in part, to serve as a model for interpreting scripture for believing in those things Scripture does not literally mention or fully explain (e.g., things like the Trinity, the fuller meaning of the Incarnation, the meaning of the Blessed Mother, etc.). Also equal would be the Magisterium, for Scripture needs continual interpretation for today, and the church makes the holy decision that some in the church are gifted by God for interpretation just like others are gifted for music, liturgy, or service. I forget what you are gifted for, but God is very powerful.

In short, the Roman church feels that interpretation should be done in the midst of the community and in the context of the community’s worship experience of God – and then led by those gifted for this part of the ministry of the Church. Santorum knows none of this, or has forgotten it, or ignores it because it’s inconvenient for his alliance with people like you, strict unchanged Calvinists.

Your position, Marshall, is that you have a low view of humility because you have an extremely high view (a seventeenth century, strict Calvinist view) of sola scriptura and irresistible grace. Scripture is necessary for any real revelation of God, is authoritative as God’s full and sufficient utterance, and has such a character as to be able to overcome our depravity and makes itself clearly known by those whom God has called to faith.

Since this is your position on the authority of scripture, how could you ever suggest a policy of bracketing off God’s revelation from the public sphere? Unless, of course, you did not honor your own – though unrecognized – theological commitments? You must, as little Ricky does, find the idea of separation of church and state to be vomit inducing.

You’re Winthrop. And I am Roger Williams and the Roman church: I don’t trust you to interpret the Bible well. Or beautifully. Or morally. Or humanely. Or intelligently. I’ll settle for interpreting the Bible in the midst of a loving and worshipful community which respects all past Saints with their gift of intelligence and deep love for God. But… we may find a need to change some things as we go along. For Christ and the Holy Spirit are living and sharp: Ecclesia semper reformanda est.

Marshall Art said...

My, how you can babble! It seems that the manner in which you are gifted is to be a real-life Irwin Corey, babbling on as if speaking wisdom, but indeed, only speaking out your ass, which is likely considering that's where your head is.

"Your position, Marshall, is that you have a low view of humility because you have an extremely high view (a seventeenth century, strict Calvinist view) of sola scriptura and irresistible grace."

You're an idiot. My position, which requires so little fake intellectualism to discern, is far more simple to understand, though not simple enough for a simp such as yourself.

My position is that there is much within Scripture that is easy to understand, that is crystal clear in what it means for us as believers and that to express this understanding is NOT a sign that one lacks humility.

Most of the discussions that rage between the Dan T types of the left and those of us on the right have revolved around what is clearly written, clearly revealed, but dishonestly interpreted according to worldliness and a desire to be seen as "pious" amongst those who put their own desires above God's. It's just that simple. But what is simple is not easily understood by the simple, as you have just proven once more.

You say you can't trust me to interpret the Bible well? This is not true. The truth is that you can't trust me to interpret it in a manner that pleases you and your world-centered and corrupted nature. You have thus far been unable to demonstrate that I interpret it in any manner that is not "humane"(?), moral, or beautifully, but instead prove that you have not interpreted it in a manner that aligns with the words on It's pages. This is evidenced by your last lines, which show that you would change things to suit the world, rather than encourage the world (as best as anyone is able)to change to suit God. I'm of the latter group.

What's more, I don't believe that the Roman Catholic Church sees itself as looking to do otherwise. Despite the fact that they feel they need to interpret for their members, they do not do so in a manner that they believe changes anything about God's Will to suit the modern era, but how to apply His Will to whatever time in which they find themselves. This is not you. I doubt it was Williams, either.

As if that wasn't enough, Santorum, whose every word on his faith I'm sure I haven't yet heard, has a far better grasp of the Constitutional aspects of faith in the public square than you apparently do, considering you condescend as you do as if you are in any way his better. There is no separation of church and state the way idiot liberals like yourself wish to fantasize. There is only a leash on the federal government against establishing a national religion to which the population must adhere, and a prohibition against the federal government from interfering with the free expression of one's faith.

You're a very stupid man, feo. You, like another lefty blogger I know, do not provoke faith in higher education.

Feodor said...

WOW!!! How prescient am I?!

www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/opinion/nocera-a-revolutionary-idea.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

LIke I said, Marshall, you’re an unchanged and strict Calvinist reader of Scripture. We all are something. God would have it so that we all bring our Spiritual gifts to reading the Bible. Your problem - or among them - is that you don’t know your own spiritual desires or are afraid of them.

So you’d rather think you know God’s. And so you miss there, too.

Marshall Art said...

"WOW!!! How prescient am I?!"

Not very.

"LIke I said, Marshall, you’re an unchanged and strict Calvinist reader of Scripture."

What you say is meaningless. What I AM is an honest and sincere seeking of God's Will as revealed in Scripture. I am also a defender of what is clearly revealed therein. YOU are a fraud and a false priest supporting heresies.

"We all are something."

A truer statement you've never made. We are indeed. That YOU are something goes without saying. In fact, you're something else entirely. A fraud and a false priest.

Speaking of meaningless:

"Your problem - or among them - is that you don’t know your own spiritual desires or are afraid of them."

"So you’d rather think you know God’s."

God's what? God's Will? As I said, it is clearly revealed insofar as those subjects about which I've discussed on blogs. There is no mystery whatsoever about them.

Your nonsense with regards to bringing up Winthrop and Williams has no relevance here. There is no push by me or "little Ricky", as you so pompously refer to him, for a theocratic state of any kind. There was no push by Jefferson to quash the introduction of any religious point of view from any discussion of legislation. As I said earlier, the Constitution, to which Jefferson was referring, was meant to prohibit the gov't from forcing a religion upon us or preventing us from practicing as we see fit. This has never been opposed by any right-wing commenter here, by me or by Santorum. Ever. It is only a lie by losers like yourself looking to make controversy where none exists in hopes of demonizing your betters.

This being said, there is no restriction against using one's faith or ideological background for developing policy or legislation, but only a hope that the proposal can be justified without exclusive reference to one's faith. In other words, is the proposal practical, workable and of equal benefit to all or most of society.

But what goes on at THIS blog, is merely discussions about what Scripture actually says, not a desire to force frauds like yourself to believe something that goes against your fully corrupted souls.

In this sense, the charge is that I lack humility in defending the true meaning of clearly revealed teachings of God. The charge comes not from my manner so much as my insistence upon what the meaning clearly is. All the opposition needs to do is explain and prove why I am wrong. In the end, you fools are perfectly within your rights to remain the fools you are. THAT'S never been debated.

Feodor said...

I strongly beg to differ, Marshall: No one has a right to remain a fool.

God created us with minds and the natural spiritual desire to use them. It is normative to explore, to reflect and reason. We are created in the image and likeness of God and we are made whole by Christ so much so that we can live like him. We participate in the divine nature as St. Peter says. And the intellect is central to the life of the mind. All you who disparage learning [little Ricky, yet again] are blaspheming against the grace of God’s creative glory in the human being.

So, no. No one has the right to stay pat. This is your central problem. You stick with those helicopter engineers when it comes to Biblical theology (talk about steadfastly remaining a fool!) and refuse to investigate how they dimly reflect Calvin’s brilliance - though itself now dated and underserving.

In fact, I hear jealousy. I think you’re jealous that I can send a few comments your way only to find them paralleled in an opinion piece in the New York Times.

You are right though, Marshall, in that this does not say all that much about me. You can do it, too. Should you ever read big things, curious things, things written with inquisitive minds running on the power and delight natural to created minds. You, too, even now, can revive that thing that sits atop your entire physical being, your crowing glory, the seat of your soul, the own mirror of God’s λόγος.

Marshall Art said...

"I strongly beg to differ, Marshall: No one has a right to remain a fool."

Yet you persist in being one, as you continue to put forth this unBiblical notion that suggests there is some new revelation being brought forth to such as yourself (funny how it's only those who support the behaviors who get these revelations) that conflicts with what Scripture actually says so incredibly clearly.

"God created us with minds and the natural spiritual desire to use them."

You should try it some time.

"It is normative to explore, to reflect and reason."

Not at issue now, nor has it ever been at this blog.

"All you who disparage learning [little Ricky, yet again] are blaspheming against the grace of God’s creative glory in the human being."

There has been no such "disparaging" of learning here, nor by Santorum. Ever. Try to find some proof and get back to me, and I'll show you why you're being stupid again.

"So, no. No one has the right to stay pat. This is your central problem. You stick with those helicopter engineers..."

A couple of blatant and incredibly pathetic problems of "thought" here. First, on that which I remain firm, we are speaking of God's Will clearly revealed in Scripture. You have yet to show how it has changed. God "stands pat". Why would I presume to know better than He? There is no precedent for altering what Scripture says, for pretending there has been some Spirit driven change in what is or is not sinful, nor has there ever been.

Secondly, in an ongoing display of your own arrogance, unjustified pride and hubris, you again disparage a very knowledgeable person because of his profession. You claim theological training but show nothing that measures up to the understanding of the "helicopter engineer". This is evident by your never having even attempted to dispel, dispute or in any way argue against his understanding of Scripture. You only denigrate because his method of paying his bills comes by a profession not itself theological. It wouldn't matter if he was a garbage collector if his heart and soul is in Biblical study. But because you lack class and any true understanding of Scripture, you attack him personally rather than argue his position on Scripture. How typical of a lefty and how perfectly appropriate for a false priest.

Thirdly, you don't "investigate" as much as seek ways to twist Scripture to suit your worldview, rather than base your worldview on Scripture. All this crap about seeking from the likes of you and Geoffrey really bore me to tears. It's all just an excuse to avoid what you want to ignore about yourselves and people you don't wish to upset. You are all "of the world" rather than merely existing in it.

"In fact, I hear jealousy."

Oh yeah! I really wish I could make being a pompous ass look as effortless and natural as you make it look! I'm freakin' green. And frankly, if my thoughts were "paralleled" in the NYT, I'd blow my brains out.

I read quite a bit, feo. Enough, at least, to know a fraud when I see one, false priest. And again, I don't disparage learning. But I am convinced that people like you and Geoffrey and other lefty "intellectuals" give learning and higher education a bad name. All that education, all that reading...what a freakin' waste!

Feodor said...

I will definitely concede that you are, in fact, "merely existing" in the world.

Marshall Art said...

Wow,feo! That's actually a good shot! Kudos. Even a blind squirrel...