I've been monitoring the back and forth between Bubba and Dan, and it's going pretty much as expected. I can't say that I don't understand what the big deal is. This is how I see it:
Let's assume two sides, since there really actually are. Since they generally run along political lines that are fairly well understood, I'll use "right side" and "left side" (of course I'm on the right side---the right side morally is just coincidentally the right side politically).
Anyway, Bubba argues for the right side, and Dan argues for the left. They are each, to one extent or another typical of all who are on each side, at least generally. And they each engage in a manner that is also, to one extent or another, at least generally, typical of each side. The right goes to the heart of the matter, dealing in reality, willing to face the truth on truth's terms. The left, goes to the heart of what they want reality to be, and takes great pains to avoid facing the truth on truth's terms in deference to that altered "reality" they would prefer.
When the right answers a question, the answer is as direct as the question. The left alters the question to reflect the preferred altered reality, and then answers a question that wasn't asked.
When the right balks at a question, it is because the question is leading, irrelevant, or takes the discussion down a preferred tangent believed by the left to be more amenable to the altered reality the left prefers. When the left balks at a question, it is because the question exposes the gaping holes in the altered reality the leftist hoped wasn't so glaringly obvious.
Maybe I shouldn't paint the entirety of the left with such a broad brush. But the above is descriptive of what's going on at Dan's blog and is typical of all debates with him. So I can show Dan how it's done and take the initial questions Bubba put to him and demonstrate how one answers the questions honorably. I won't answer as if I'm Dan, but answer as if the questions were put to me. I begin with the two set up questions to which I believe Bubba put forth with an assumption of a positive response from Dan:
Do you believe in orthodoxy and heresy as real categories and not just traditional understandings?
Yes.
Do you really believe that there are essential Christian doctrines?
Yes.
See how that works? I answered two "yes or no" questions with either a "yes" or a "no", in this case, a "yes". That's my honest response. But keep in mind that these were set up questions, as in setting the stage for the real questions of interest to Bubba. A "no" response would make what follows unnecessary and moot. There would be no point in asking what follows if a "no" response followed these questions, so the asking was rhetorical. So here are the actual questions:
NAME ONE ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
Jesus is God in flesh.
NAME ONE CLEAR TEACHING OF THE BIBLE.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Note that I didn't ask "essential to whom", as if the question wasn't seeking my opinion only. Note that I didn't take off on irrelevant asides regarding how some things in Scripture are clear to some and not to others. I answered as one who is convicted in my beliefs, confident that what I believe is true and honest enough to allow my beliefs to be scrutinized and tested openly in a manner that might lead to a better understanding of what is true, or greater confidence that what I already know is true. If I'm wrong, show me. I don't want to be wrong, but I do indeed want to know the truth.
Dan doesn't want to be wrong. He likes what he wants to believe is true. I think that's for the most part true for leftists in general, but for Dan I have little doubt of it based on our years of engagement. It makes perfect sense given his evasive and convoluted style of debate. It is being played out before our eyes at Dan's blog, though I wouldn't expect it to last much longer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
495 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 495 of 495You do like taking quotes out of context, don't you, Dan?
In the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH, Marshall wrote the following:
"When the right balks at a question, it is because the question is leading, irrelevant, or takes the discussion down a preferred tangent believed by the left to be more amenable to the altered reality the left prefers. When the left balks at a question, it is because the question exposes the gaping holes in the altered reality the leftist hoped wasn't so glaringly obvious." [emphasis mine]
I objected to your question on the grounds that it's leading -- more specifically, that it's a loaded question intended to argue from outrage rather than discuss the entirely legitimate claim that we have the moral duty to obey God even when we do not fully understand the rationality and morality of the command.
Marshall didn't suggest that we directly answer whatever loaded bullshit question the left brings up, and it's just stupid and dishonest for you to suggest that he did, as if we couldn't scroll back up and read his claim in context.
As I said earlier:
The question was, "is there something you wouldn't do even if you were sure God commanded it?"
I say no, and you think I'm wicked for saying so -- as you think I should follow what I believe to be moral even in the face of what I know to be divine revelation.
You say yes, and I think you are wicked for saying so -- exhibiting a literally diabolical pride in placing your own understanding above even the clear commands of God.
We both think the other's wicked for his position; the point of your question isn't clarifying my position but attempting to shame me for it -- "to find out if you really mean it."
That's not a legitimate inquiry, and certainly not grounds to hector me and postpone answering more than the dozen questions I've raised, with some questions going back more than a week and, in one case, going back four years.
Okay, so no, you are not going to answer.
No problem, that has been my experience overwhelmingly coming from the Right: Ignore questions that are inconvenient and/or that you can not answer without pointing out the immorality or irrationality of your position.
So, in spite of what Marshall and you say, I never really expected you to answer and not for the reasons you suggest.
It's a legitimate question.
1) You haven't explained what you mean by affirming the Bible's divine inspiration -- explaining how it could have a "divine nature" and wisdom to a "divine degree" while not being actually authored by God.
2) You haven't shown any real interest in tackling Stott's arguments regarding Matthew 5, which I excerpted at length 1500+ days ago: you apparently don't even understand his argument, and you're content to dismiss it as cherry-picking.
3 & 4) You accused me of eisegesis regarding II Timothy and I Corinthians, but you don't explain what you believe the texts say.
5 & 6) You didn't even acknowledge my questions regarding executive pardons and II Samuel 12.
7 & 8) You have not clearly answered whether you believe God has the moral authority to take human life and not just the omnipotence to "do what He wants," and -- assuming you do believe that -- you haven't explained why God could take human life through disease and disaster but not through human agency.
9) While distinguishing between reliable history and myth, you basically punted on a clear answer to the question of whether God communicated His law through Moses to ancient Israel, writing only that Israel "thought" God did.
10) More specifically, you haven't clarified whether you believe God commanded ancient Israel to execute murderers and adulterers.
11) I concluded that you believe that ancient Israel INCORRECTLY thought that God commanded what is recorded in the Mosaic law, you wrote that that's not what you believe, but you demurred from clarifying what it is you DO believe.
12) You claimed that "the data shows" that the Old Testament isn't reliable history, but you didn't produce that data.
13) I'm still looking for your thoughts on Paul's claim that those flagrant sinners deserve death.
14) And now you say that I misunderstand your position on Deuteronomy 21, but you don't say what exactly you believe about that particular passage.
15) Are there any areas where the Bible is strongly challenging some of the deeply held beliefs that you CURRENTLY have?
I'm not the one ignoring questions.
And your supposedly legitimate question can easily be turned around to ask, do we have the moral duty to obey God ONLY when we do fully understand the rationality and morality of the command?
The fact is, we're both in morally perilous positions.
My position is perilous if YHWH really isn't holy and righteous. Your position is perilous if your understanding of morality and rationality isn't completely unaffected by your fallen nature and limited nature.
YHWH's holiness or your perfect understanding of morality: I know which one I'd put money on.
And notice I don't have to probe your position about whether you're really, really sure that you wouldn't trust an omniscient deity to perhaps have a slightly higher perspective on reality or anything.
I can draw my negative conclusions about you from just knowing your position, same as you can draw your negative conclusions about me.
What you're doing is arguing from outrage, trying to cajole me to follow you rather than God (gasp!), or simply trying to avoid answering my dozen or so substantive questions.
Since I'm not playing along, you're going to pretend that there's no reason to continue this conversation.
Had I played along, you would have denounced me as a moral monster, in order to pretend that there's no reason to continue this conversation.
How very clever. I'm in awe.
Dan,
After all the comments at John's blog, which led to the Bubba-only post at your blog, which eventually led to this discussion, I think I can say with confidence that you are not arguing in good faith. Here are a few points to back that up:
The following question from you, which I'll number for convenience:
1. Are you saying, Bubba, that there is NOTHING you wouldn't do if God called for it? You'd rape puppies, children, tear off women's arms and beat them about their head with them IF God commanded it?
2. Or would you agree with me that there are things that God won't call us to do because it would be a violation of justice and love?
First off, Bubba answered question 1. You just don't like that he won't play your game of referring to raping babies or puppies or whatever. But his answer satisfies the question nonetheless.
Here, I will answer with no shame whatsoever: Can't you come up with an act more reprehensible than merely raping babies to really, really succeed in demonizing us? I mean, really...raping babies is the best you can do?
Oh, yeah... my answer: Yes. Absolutely, with only enough hesitation that would be natural for the average believer to register the command in one's mind before acting. Why wouldn't I? It's God, after all, isn't it? And please...don't now move the goal posts and change the rules by asking how I'd know with certainty that it was God asking. I'm assuming the question is asked in good faith and that it could only be the One True God of the Bible to Whom you are referring.
Good gosh, if I was so fortunate as to be blessed with direct contact by God Himself, I don't see how I could refuse any request or command no matter how outrageous and uncharacteristic it might seem. But yeah. You're damned right I'd comply.
But the lack of good faith comes with the wording of the question. You purposely choose the most vile possible commands, as if God would actually command such a thing. Yet, still I have no problem answering in the affirmative because I have no reason to suspect He'd ever actually command such a thing of anyone. If He would, however, I, like Bubba, would assume He knows what He's doing rather than presume to school Him on the difference between good and evil.
But then you ask question 2 as if a "therefore" could possibly fit between the two questions. In general, I would answer this question with a "yes" as well. I would, however, alter the question myself because it should be enough to simply say that God would not command such things. Again, like Bubba, I'm not arrogant enough to presume I would fully understand the reason behind God's commanding what I might otherwise consider an atrocious act. Like Abe, I'd trust that He has good reasons behind the command.
From these questions, you insist on this absolute slander and lie regarding Bubba and Glenn as somehow favoring rape and child abuse, simply because they would answer an outrageous question YOU purposely posed in order to portray them that way. Bad faith. The question doesn't imply they favor anything but pleasing God by complying with a command, even if they don't understand it. Again, like Abe did. Of course they oppose the notion.
I have more, but I'm tired from another twelve hour workday. Gotta get some rest. More later.
Thanks for answering honestly, Marshall. Even if the answer is distasteful.
I don't choose the question to vilify, I choose it to point out the ridiculousness of the reasoning.
You and I (et al) all agree we don't think God will command us to rape babies. That's a given.
But, the point is YOU all are saying, "I don't think there is any such thing as absolute morals, it's all up to the whim of God and what GOD says for us to do, that is moral and good..." whereas I am saying that what is moral and good is that which promotes the Good, Healthy, Loving, etc and, for that reason, God would never ask us to do that which is immoral, which IS solid and reliable.
So, interestingly, the "moralist" conservatives are arguing for a loose and undefined definition of morality while the "liberal" is arguing for a solid and tangible understanding of morality, not based on random and whimsical commands from God but based on reality and what is and isn't Good. Is that not fair?
The thing is, while we agree that God won't ask us to rape babies, you all would still hold out that - BECAUSE God "commanded" Israel to literally KILL babies in the OT, that we can't call the killing of babies immoral... it is only immoral as long as God is not telling us to kill them, but if God tells us - and God might! (in your opinions) - then, it would be moral to kill babies. Or, if God tells us it is okay to forcibly wed the orphaned girls of an enemy we just killed in war time - and God might because God has in the past! (in your opinions) - then it is moral to do so.
Thus, morality for you all is simply not a fixed reality, but based on what God may or may not want, and that may change.
And this is all based upon an approach to Bible study that tries to force a literal reading on OT text that does not need a literal reading. If you do away with the OT as literal history in the Modern sense, then you no longer have this difficulty of a god whose teachings for us and morality for us changes based on God's whim... you can have a consistent morality based on the common Good and Love, not something subject to whimsy and change. In your eyes, God's rules DO change (interestingly!) depending on the whim of god at the time. That is the problem with a literal reading - it undermines the great truths of the Bible, rather than making them more reliable and able to stand up to reason and objective moral considerations.
Seems to me.
And so, all of that to say, there is no bad faith in asking you to consider your arguments to their logical conclusion, that is just a false and entirely whimsical charge unsupported by any evidence in the real world.
Thanks for answering the question, I hope it can help you see where you may have a need to reconsider your positions.
Dan:
"But, the point is YOU all are saying, 'I don't think there is any such thing as absolute morals, it's all up to the whim of God and what GOD says for us to do, that is moral and good...' whereas I am saying that what is moral and good is that which promotes the Good, Healthy, Loving, etc and, for that reason, God would never ask us to do that which is immoral, which IS solid and reliable.
"So, interestingly, the 'moralist' conservatives are arguing for a loose and undefined definition of morality while the 'liberal' is arguing for a solid and tangible understanding of morality, not based on random and whimsical commands from God but based on reality and what is and isn't Good. Is that not fair?"
We all ARE NOT SAYING THIS, nothing we've written would justify this conclusion, and if the shoe were on the other foot, you would not only be lamenting about how poor widdle Dan is always misunderstood, you'd probably trot out the accusation of bearing false witness.
It is NOT true that we deny absolute morals: we just believe that a holy and omniscient God is in a unique position to know what is moral, and as we are in a fallen state with limited knowledge, we may not always comprehend what is INDEED absolutely moral.
We do NOT believe in a God who acts on "whim" or caprice, whose commands may be "random and whimsical:" instead we affirm a holy God whose will is always moral even when we don't see it that way.
And we are NOT arguing for a "loose and undefined definition of morality:" we are simply deferring to a holy and omniscient deity for that definition.
Besides the patent dishonesty and your attempts to villify us for positions we don't hold, there are at least three big problems with your position.
1) Your approach still does not register the Bible's clear teaching that, because God made us in His image, it is His prerogative to end our lives when and how He sees fit, which explains why He can forbid the taking of human life AS A GENERAL RULE but command it IN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, as when He requires capital punishment for murder or commanded ancient Israel to wage wars of annihilation.
2) To go back to our earlier discussion, you apparently think that the moral law regarding even the most justifiable uses of lethal force is more clear than the simple fact that the Bible teaches the existence of God and the historicity of Jesus.
Some guy claims that the Bible doesn't clearly teach theism, and we cannot dare conclude that he's not a capable adult arguing in good faith.
But if we believe that God can command the taking of human life because He is sovereign over that life, you feel more than justified in denouncing us for an atrocious and damn near monstrous grasp on morality.
(That you do all this while defending abortion as a mere medical procedure is just so much icing on the cake.)
3) You obviously have no idea what the "the great truths of the Bible" really entail.
As I wrote before, life is supremely about our relationship with God. Our primary purpose isn't even promoting good, it's FOLLOWING GOD.
I'll reiterate.
This is the essence of faith, responding to the clear revelation of God -- responding in trust even when it doesn't seem to make sense.
You evidently deny all of this, insisting that you will follow God only so far as you understand and agree with His commands.
For you it's not about trusting God, it's about trusting yourself on the literally diabolical arrogance that your moral intuition is "based on reality and what is and isn't Good" and couldn't possibly be subject to correction and confounding by an omniscient and holy God.
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding." - Prov 3:5
That is one of the most profound Truths of the Bible, and you apparently can't be bothered with it.
Dan, a question or two.
Suppose that a child got a very serious cut on his arm, and the cut became infected with gangrene, a lethal infection if it goes untreated.
Suppose furthermore that antibiotic and anaesthetic are unavailable, perhaps because the situation predates modern medicine or the family is marooned on an uninhabited island, Swiss Family Robinson style.
Suppose that, if the father doesn't ampute the arm even without anaesthetic, his child dies.
And suppose the child is too young to understand what death means but not too young to understand that getting his arm cut off is going to hurt. A LOT.
Finally, suppose that the father is a good father who has given his child every reason in the world to believe that he always has the kid's best interests at heart, even enduring great hardship for his sake.
QUESTION 1: What is the father's moral duty, to ampute without anaesthetic, to let the child die, or to let this very young child decide whether he wants to live without an arm even if he doesn't really understand the fatal alternative?
QUESTION 2: Suppose the father decides that amputation is his moral duty; what is the child's moral duty? To trust the love and wisdom of his father, to do something else, or does he have no moral duty in this situation?
Ah, hell, one more question, as kind of a follow-up to Dan's obviously loaded question, what if God commanded rape?
Well, what if God framed it as a medical procedure?
Y'know, something like "non-elective, non-artificial insemination."
We all know medical procedures are morally neutral, right?
"Again, scholars tell us - and the data shows...
Yet, we see no names of scholars or any actual data.
"It just wasn't how stories were passed on, by all evidence of which I am aware."
Evidence, you've never provided.
However, you have changed the subject. What we're talking about is the events themselves. The literary style used to tell about an event has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the existence of the event itself. So even if you actually could provide proof of your hunch, it still doesn't address the actual issue which relates to the actual events, not to the style of the story.
Of course, you've been dodging my comments/questions for quite a while now, I doubt things will change anytime soon.
"Even if the answer is distasteful."
Only in Dan's world would abeying a direct command from the God who created the universe, be distasteful.
Bubba, You called it. If you don't answer the ridiculous question in exactly the "proper" way, it is the excuse for pretending that all of the previous questions and logical failures exist. If you do, then it's distasteful and an excuse to move off on another tangent, while pretending that all that has gone before has been answered or dealt with.
It's an oldie but a goodie.
At something like a million words (wild guess...), I think it's time to give up. A few words in summary:
1. As always, most of your conclusions about what I think are mistaken. If you think I believe X, rest assured, the odds are, I do not.
Factually speaking.
2. I have no doubt that you fellas are good guys, striving to do the right, striving to follow God. God bless you.
Where some have concluded that I think you are less than noble, less than wise, less than honest, rest assured I do not. I think some of your statements are lacking in depth and maturity, and some of your conclusions are demonstrably non-factual or less than rational, but that is true for all of us. I do not think that, where I believe you to be mistaken is ANY indication of a lack of good will or decent character on your part. I just disagree with your conclusions.
3. I would hope you could extend the same grace towards those who simply sincerely disagree with you.
4. Since I have not pointed it out in these words, I would just add that you are correct that Jesus did NOT literally abolish the death penalty. Instead, he changed it so only those "who are without sin" can cast the first stone.
Which seems to me to be clearly indicating all of us, that it is a change of approach, a change of law, literally speaking. This is a reasonable conclusion if you agree with me that ALL of us are with sin.
But feel free to disagree.
5. Clearly, on your side, you see my answers as NOT answers and my responses to be not direct and clear. Clearly, on my side, I see it the same way for you all. You literally do not answer some of my questions when the rational answer points to a problem with your reasoning, or so it seems to me. But I fully understand that it seems that way to you all, about me, so... well, there you go.
Glenn, Marshall, Bubba, Craig... I love you with the love of Christ.
Go in peace and in grace.
Trabue,
I have no grace for heretics because people like you are dangerous to those seeking the truth.
You have no love of Christ because you don't have Christ. You have an image of yourself which you worship and call Christ.
And again, God bless you, Glenn, as you strive to do what you think is right.
In Christ,
Dan
Trabue,
It is what I KNOW is right.
"1. As always, most of your conclusions about what I think are mistaken. If you think I believe X, rest assured, the odds are, I do not."
Even when those conclusions are backed by quotes of Dan's own words.
My conclusion is that Dan has dodged numerous questions, made assertions of fact unsupported by evidence, refused to provide evidence when asked, misrepresented the views of others, and conveniently ignored those comments and questions that he finds inconvenient or troublesome.
Factually Dan's own words and comments make this more than clear.
Just to make sure,Dan,Your response to requests for you to support your positions, provide the evidence you claim to have and to answer questions is no.
Got it, how forthcoming.
""Did God say ...?" (Gen 3:1). Step One: Question God. Oh, not likely an overt questioning. Not an outright denial. Today's version is more like "Is that what God said, or is that your opinion?" Very popular is "Jesus never said ..." The current trend is "Just how reliable, authoritative, or sufficient is the Bible?" They will sprinkle nice sounding phrases where they assure us that being too reliant on clear Scripture is "arrogant" and it's best not to be certain. The humble man will always be questioning. It all amounts to the same thing. "Did God say ...?""
from elsewhere, but does this sound like anyone that comments here?
And for the last time, that I question YOU ALL is not a sign of me asking "Did God say?"
I do not confuse you all for God.
Beyond that, if someone is saying, "God says _____" and fills in the blank with something crazy, like "God says rape is good," or "God says we should kill people who work on the Sabbath..." asking the question, "Did God REALLY say..." is an entirely legitimate question.
And, lest you miss the point, that someone asks that question following crazy statements is not a sign of questioning God, but the person making the irrational or immoral claims.
Dan,
"Thanks for answering honestly, Marshall. Even if the answer is distasteful."
You asked a distasteful question. But having it answered (so that you won't whine about not having your questions answered) does not reflect badly on me, for there is no other way to answer the question. When we ask the question, "Is there something you wouldn't do even if you were sure God commanded it?" we're assuming a God who wouldn't command the rape of infants. We assume a character matching that of the God of the Bible. But it does indeed reflect badly on you in asking if we would rape an infant on God's command. It indicates your unwillingness or inability to argue in good faith because the question is ludicrous and NOT a logical extension of our position. It is in fact an illogical extension given that the notion of God making such a command is illogical based on we do know about God.
"So, interestingly, the "moralist" conservatives are arguing for a loose and undefined definition of morality while the "liberal" is arguing for a solid and tangible understanding of morality, not based on random and whimsical commands from God but based on reality and what is and isn't Good. Is that not fair?"
No. Not in the least, and not simply because it doesn't in any way reflect our position. It isn't fair because it is the exact opposite of reality. You first accused us of using the Bible as a rule book (which I don't deny as it contains many rules for living a life pleasing to God). This would indicate specifics, not a "loose and undefined definition of morality". In the meantime, yours has always been a most ambiguous representation of morality as you reject behavioral prohibitions of the OT (never overturned in the NT) in favor of a "grace" you never truly define. How is this arguing in good faith?
"BECAUSE God "commanded" Israel to literally KILL babies in the OT"
Maybe I'm forgetting some specific passage, but this again is an example of bad faith argument. While I recall God commanding the annihilation of entire populations, including infants, I don't recall a command to kill babies. But yeah, God commanding it makes it a moral act.
You wish to pretend that God's command to wipe out a people had no purpose? That it was random and whimsical? On what basis? Who among us on this side of the issue ever suggesting God acts capriciously? We're saying that IF God commanded us to do any of the wacky and vile things as described in your hypothetical scenarios, we would be assuming, much like Abraham, that He had some good purpose in doing so, even if that purpose is not apparent to us.
It appears to me that you believe what is moral existed before God. I believe that what is moral is an invention of God, a reflection of HIS notions of right and wrong. Nothing is good because I perceive some beneficial consequence, but because God says it's good. But there are behaviors that are good and pleasing to Him and those that aren't. Yet, He may have reason to command that we do what is normally not pleasing to Him if we did it on our own. This is not an incredible concept or an illogical one. Our parents have standing orders for us as kids, and sometimes, for any number of reasons, they will have us act in a manner that in conflict with those standing orders, only to leave us to live by those orders after the special occasion's requirements have been fulfilled. Why you think God wouldn't do as much, especially with all the examples of such in the OT, is seemingly beyond your ability to explain.
more...
"If you do away with the OT as literal history in the Modern sense, then you no longer have this difficulty of a god whose teachings for us and morality for us changes based on God's whim..."
We have no such difficulty. We are sitting around expecting that He will command us to act contrary to His behavioral laws. What's more, we don't presume to suggest that God ever acts on mere whim, though with Him being the Supreme Being and all, we don't deny Him the privilege, either.
"...you can have a consistent morality based on the common Good and Love, not something subject to whimsy and change."
We have a consistent morality based on the teachings of Leviticus, as well as the deeper understandings of those laws as revealed by Christ in the NT. The whimsy and change is on your end.
"...there is no bad faith in asking you to consider your arguments to their logical conclusion..."
As I said before, but it bears repeating, "God commands the rape of babies" is NOT a logical extrapolation of our position. It is a purposeful, bad faith attempt to corrupt our position. It can only be based on something that isn't logical in order to even suggest it as a possibility, even hypothetically. Thus, such vile questions do little to compel me to reconsider MY positions, but it does tend to solidify my conclusions regarding your inability to argue YOUR position in a good faith manner.
"As always, most of your conclusions about what I think are mistaken. If you think I believe X, rest assured, the odds are, I do not."
We cannot rest so assuredly given your own words compel our conclusions.
"...some of your statements are lacking in depth and maturity, and some of your conclusions are demonstrably non-factual or less than rational."
Yet you do little to nothing to support that whimsical hunch.
"I do not think that, where I believe you to be mistaken is ANY indication of a lack of good will or decent character on your part."
You've at least got that going for you, because you'd be wrong to do so.
"I would hope you could extend the same grace towards those who simply sincerely disagree with you."
I would hope you'd give us a reason to do so by providing the support for which we ask regarding your un-Biblical positions.
"...Jesus did NOT literally abolish the death penalty. Instead, he changed it so only those "who are without sin" can cast the first stone."
Where's the support for this? He didn't change anything. He merely responded to the question posed to Him in a manner that deflected their intention to entrap Him. He was speaking directly to a specific group of chuckleheads. He gave no indication that "Henceforth, only those who are without sin can execute a sentence for a crime!" He did nothing of the sort despite your desperate need to have Him do away with punishment for adultery.
"You literally do not answer some of my questions when the rational answer points to a problem with your reasoning..."
Not at all. We literally are insulted by the nature of the questions you pose that hope to force a problem into our more sound reasoning, because you cannot properly defend your own.
"And for the last time, that I question YOU ALL is not a sign of me asking "Did God say?""
Thank goodness, it's convenient that I never suggested that your asking us questions is questioning God. I'm always glad to clear up your confusion.
It remains that your entire position on the commandments of God in the OT does amount to "Did God say...?".
You essentially ask "Did God say to wage wars of annihilation"?
As MA pointed out your "kill babies" construct is not an accurate representation of the command, and intentionally inflammatory.
So, yes, it is quite appropriate to compare your actual questions with, "Did God say..?".
Of course, you pretend that the rest of the questions asked of you don;t exist.
"At something like a million words (wild guess...), I think it's time to give up."
Of course it is, Dan.
I asked more than a dozen questions that you never answered, many of which you never acknowledged. You griped about our answering your one loaded question, which we did answer and address at length, so do you reciprocate and answer our questions?
Do you point out where you supposedly answered our questions before, so you don't have to answer them "again"?
No. You think it's time to give up.
You accused of us not believing in absolute morality, arguing for a "loose and undefined definition of morality," and believing in a whimsical and capricious deity. I clarified our beliefs, so do you apologize or even just retract the smear?
No. You think it's time to give up.
I asked a couple more questions, on whether an earthly father has the duty to amputate his child's gangrenous arm in the absence of antibiotic and even anesthetic, and whether the child has the duty to trust the love and wisdom of a trustworthy father even when he doesn't understand that father's actions. These questions are far more sober-minded than your question about God commanding rape, and they get to the heart of our position that an omniscient and holy God may command truly moral acts that we simply don't understand in our fallen and limited states. Did you tackle these questions or even acknowledge them?
No. You think it's time to give up.
And so you shall, but some time down the road, you'll regurgitate these idiotic accusations as if this conversation never took place, as if you weren't corrected on your slanderous distortions of our position, and as if you weren't asked questions that got to the heart of the matter.
And if anyone brings any of this up to provide some context for the umpteenth go-around, you'll grouse about off-topic ad hominem attacks.
It's par for the course -- and telling us you love us "with the love of Christ" means nothing when you behave like a literal sociopath toward us.
I take that back, it does mean something: it means that you're willing to invoke Christ's name en route to avoiding the duty of faithfully seeking His will.
You reject as irrational and even monstrous the sort of faith that responds in trust to the clear revelation of God even when it doesn't seem to make sense: in your arrogance you insist that every word of the omniscient and holy Creator must make sense despite your limited perspective and fallen state.
You insist that not even a direct command from God Almighty would permit the taking of human life, even though it's His prerogative to end the life He created in His own image: but in your hypocrisy, you defend a legal regime that has permitted the massacre of literally tens of millions of children in the womb, often in the most violent fashion.
You fight strawmen rather than your opponents' actual position, and even a thread ostensibly started for me to ask you questions devolves into your usual one-sided badgering: in your cowardice, you decide to run precisely when we're owed quo for the quid you insisted from us.
And, now, in running, you can't help but congratulate yourself for the Christian love you pretend to have even for those who see through your charade.
Blasphemy on top of arrogance and hypocrisy and cowardice: that's a helluva way to bow out.
Bubba
If you would just embrace grace none of those things would matter. It's just time to let go and give grace a big hug.
http://thomas2026.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/b1949489251.jpg
Saw this and I thought of the Nazis and their theology for the state.
Then I thought of you.
Then I thought of Glenn.
Then I thought of Bubba.
And how Mark follows blindly.
This only proves that you see what you want to see, especially if you can pretend you are morally superior to those who are superior to you and your twisted, self-serving notion of Christianity.
No where and at no time have you ever been able to demonstrate where any of us have supported a theocracy. No where and at no time have you ever been able to demonstrate a connection between our positions and that of those like Nazis. You are indeed pathetic and sad.
Just thought I'd mention I was thinking of you.
And now you've reminded me of how badly you read and then base your opinions on your bad reading.
I didn't mention equivalencies. Just one thought led to another by association.
I'm sure you don't get that part, but let it be said that I certainly understand why you're upset. You should be.
And change.
Feodor,
I have no idea why you'd think about me. I don't subscribe to mixing Jesus in with all those patriotic symbols.
And I also want to point out that while many see that picture and think it is Jesus (and I knew you did so that is why I responded that way), every picture of "Jesus" is nothing but idolatry. No one knows what he looked like, and most illustrations (like this one) show him to look more anglo-saxon than Jewish. Since we don't know what he looked like, any illustration is from someone's imagination, i.e. a false Jesus.
I don't think you're following the conversation, Glenn.
Oh, I'm following, but your whole comment about that picture was totally stupid.
Since Jesus wasn't his name, you should stop using that as well.
This is my comment about the picture:
"Saw this and I thought of the Nazis and their theology for the state."
Please point out the stupidity as you see it.
I think we're beginning to see what Dan faces:
Bad readings.
Disconnected conclusions.
Leaps of logic.
Hypocritical comments made in bad faith ("we don't know what Jesus looked like; wasn't Anglo-Saxon obviously" while not realizing that using "Jesus" is the same anglicization problem)
Jesus wasn't the name of the person in the photo, but Jesus is the name of the son of God.
Unless you are playing games; because Jesus is the English version of Greek "Iesous" which is equivalent to his Hebrew name "Joshua," which in itself is an English transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua.
Please point out the stupidity as you see it.
Only a Leftist would see any equivalence in the symbols depicted compared to Nazism.
Hypocritical comments made in bad faith ("we don't know what Jesus looked like; wasn't Anglo-Saxon obviously" while not realizing that using "Jesus" is the same anglicization problem)
Nothing hypocritical at all. Again, your examples of equivalence are illogical.
Well then if you can English up his name why can't someone else Europeanize or Asiatize or Africanize his looks?
And ancient Hebrew had no vowels, Glenn, none that were written. So we don't know what his name was exactly. And Jesus is only the most recent anglicization of the latin, not the greek. There are English precedents that are not spelled Jesus. Check Tyndale and Wycliff.
So, when you use Jesus, you are using a contemporary translation of a translation of a translation of something we only have consonants for.
Kind of an allegory for how scripture cannot be entirely or even mostly literal either.
And for the fact of how rigorously you guys have to repress these things.
Didn't say the symbols, Glenn. I said - for the third time - "I thought of the Nazis and their theology for the state."
You really can't read for comprehension, can you?
Feodor if you don't see the difference between making an image of someone and anglicizing a name, then there is no point in the discussion.
Oh, and the commandment says to make no image of God. Jesus is God. Making an image is violating the commandment.
I can comprehend, but perhaps you need to make your meaning clear.
You stated you saw that image and thought about Nazis, etc.
My point is that there is no connection between the two so your being reminded of one while looking at the other makes absolutely no sense.
I guess you're safe making the image of doofus.
But I'm glad to see that you've backed off the argument that "Jesus" is his name.
feo,
But "Jesus" is His name. It doesn't matter that it might be a contemporary translation of the original language. It doesn't matter that the ancient written Hebrew had no vowels (as if they spoke without vowel sounds---what an idiot!). "Jesus" is the name by which He is known, while in another country it might be "Hey-zoos" or some other pronunciation. What an incredibly pathetic attempt to posture yourself as more knowledgeable! Typical.
Also typical and pathetic is to pretend we might be reading poorly, that our conclusions are not logically the result of your idiotic association of the picture to notions that the Nazis had anything akin to a theocracy.
Nothing in that picture suggests Nazis to anyone who isn't already twisted in his feodoric mind (which is a redundancy). And then to think of us from that point demonstrates true mental issues on your part. Why should thinking of Nazis compel you to think of a group of men who have never supported anything the least bit Nazi-like? Because you're a false priest with issues.
But hey! Anytime you feel like making a complete ass of yourself, why you just sidle up to the keyboard and type something. The result is always the same.
But I'm glad to see that you've backed off the argument that "Jesus" is his name.
No I haven't. I've explained it.
OK, Yuánshuài, maybe you're right.
But I'm only using Gai's - rather whimsical and irrelevant - criteria of why portrayals of Jesus are to be disparaged.
Using his criteria, not mine, one has to make the argument I make.
I'm not saying I have to be so niggardly about Jesus' name. I'm saying that the logic of Gai's thinking requires it.
You guys really, really cannot read and follow the process of how arguments are really constructed through analogy, taking the other's position, revealing unintended consequences.
When you get trapped, as you did here, Yuánshuài, you just claim that the other is false and add on irrelevant ad hominem.
Lastly, because ancient Hebrew had no written vowels - and no ancient Hebrew lived two thousand years to speak to us, Jesus name could very well have been what we would call, Joshua.
Even you, Yuánshuài, can see how these are not the same name.
Gai, you acknowledged that we are anglicizing the name of the Son of God, This means that he did not go by this name when he was on earth.
That's backing off your claim that Jesus was his name.
As you yourself point out, his name may have been more Joshua than Jesus.
You so sadly and pathetically wish I was trapped somehow. You are so desperate to be superior. Use any language you like. The name is the same, just in a different language. But if you need to feel you've "won" something here, feel free. No doubt you need every "victory" to help you forget your self-loathing.
You have as much class and ability to concede the obvious as Chris McDaniel.
Feo,
You are being intentionally stupid. His name IS Jesus. That's what the NT calls Him in Greek. It is also Joshua, Yeshua, etc.
Using one's language to interpret a name is not even close to the same issue of making up an image and saying it is a particular person.
After all, I could draw a picture of a jackass and label it "Feodor," but that doesn't make it a proper representation of you - or perhaps it does.
There's no "class" in conceding to that which isn't true or truthful. That would be like a Chris McDaniel conceding to someone who recruited enemy forces to overcome him. Sure, a false priest might concede in such a case. But people of honor and class do not.
Glenn,
"After all, I could draw a picture of a jackass and label it "Feodor," but that doesn't make it a proper representation of you - or perhaps it does."
Of course, that wouldn't be fair to jackasses. Not an original thought, but true nonetheless.
How can the NT call him Jesus, Gai, when there is no "J" in koine Greek?
Just asking two idiots to stop and ponder the simplest of their problems.
The logic we are using, about which both of you think is as stupid as an animal, is Glenn's.
Glenn is the one who based his argument on two points only - the only the two points I have applied to the issue of Jesus' name.
So here is what you both think of as asinine thinking, provided by Glenn:
1). No one knows what he looked like. (And no one knows how his name was sounded.)
2) He is often portrayed as more Anglo-Saxon than Jewish. (And Jesus is an Anglo-Saxon attempt at giving him a name. It's not Jewish).
You both screwed yourselves because...
1) you can't read very well, and
2) you both think very poorly.
These being the source of fantastic delusions of being able to write arguments.
And this is what Marshall calls thought, "Of course, that wouldn't be fair to jackasses."
Which captures beautifully how Marshall's thinking reads. It's derivative. It's eighth grade level. And, to state the obvious -- to all but Marshall and Glenn and Mark -- it's not even thought.
Hey, idiot.
In Greek the "I" also is used for "J" in English.
But I'm sure you know this - you just want to be an ass.
Feo,
Again, if you can't tell the difference from making a image of someone and calling it "Jesus", and using one's own language version of a name, then you are stupider than I thought.
Let’s make an analogy here. If I carry a photo of a model in my wallet and tell everyone this photo represents my wife, would I be properly representing my wife? Would it be respectful of my wife or would it cause her to be jealous? God tells us that He is a jealous God, which is why He commands no images for worship.
And this, Marshall, is where I begin to think of you when I come across Nazi theology: "That would be like a Chris McDaniel conceding to someone who recruited enemy forces to overcome him."
Glenn, poor, poor, Glenn. Let me keep this as simple as it can be, which still may fail your needs.
The iota is a Greek letter used by Greeks for certain Greek sounds.
None of them sounds like the English, J.
It is simply the best we can do. And, in fact, it's our latest attempt. Earlier English scholars used the Y or, indeed, the I.
And both those are far from the J we favor now.
Try again. I love it when you think you've come up with something. And then you try to act all big.
"How can the NT call him Jesus, Gai, when there is no "J" in koine Greek?"
So you think that they couldn't call Him "Jesus" (not saying they even tried, just demonstrating how stupid you are) because they didn't have a "J" in koine Greek? So, according to you're "logic" (I use the word loosely here) because their alphabet doesn't have a "J", they were then incapable of making the "J" sound? Really?
But then again, no one is saying that they called Him "Jesus", but only that they called Him by a name we now refer to as "Jesus". Why is this so hard for you to understand with all your university degrees and hundreds of volumes of books you've read?
"Just asking two idiots to stop and ponder the simplest of their problems."
That's funny. Someone like you daring to refer to anyone else as an idiot. Are you doing stand-up now?
"Which captures beautifully how Marshall's thinking reads. It's derivative."
Maybe you missed the part where I said it wasn't an original thought, just true nonetheless. Truth doesn't concern itself with the age of the person putting it forth. Nice try, though. You're still not superior.
"And this, Marshall, is where I begin to think of you when I come across Nazi theology: "That would be like a Chris McDaniel conceding to someone who recruited enemy forces to overcome him.""
Really? After you deal with the fact that the Nazis had no "theocracy", maybe you can explain (without making me laugh in the attempt) how my comment about McDaniel makes your point. Now I know that you bend over for every worldly bit of evidence to support your false religion, but why would a person of character? You believe McDaniel should bow out quietly after being smeared by his opponent in the attempt to garner Democratic support? Here's news for you, since it is so foreign to you: People of character don't do that.
Feo,
I didn't say the iota SOUNDED like a J. In fact, "Jesus" properly pronounce actually sounds like "Iesus" -- but since hundreds of years have passed since the original translation, English-speaking people have changed the sound. And if you study a wee bit about the English language, you will find this happened a lot. In fact, there is solid evidence to point out that my name used to be pronounced like "Catfield" (like the ch in "character") but became "CH" like "chew" over the years. So is the nam the same even if it is not pronounced as originally? YES.
Go ahead and keep pretending you are so much smarter than everyone else.
I noticed you didn't address my analogy about photos.
I've noticed, Glenn, that you may not have a Friday night life that's worth talking about.
I had to rush off and get our taxes finalized and join my wife for a fantastic dinner at Blue Water Grill of East and West Oysters (the West ones were better), medallions of tuna loin, asparagus with quinoa, and two glasses of Provencal rose.
I have, however, learned this morning that the English J sound came in with Elizabeth I. Or at least, that's what I've found so far.
I'm also continuing to be amazed at how unbelievable dense the two of you are. Or, more likely, it's a cognitive issue of rigidity associated with OC personality issues you both and people like you have in common.
For the fourth time (Dan knows what I'm feeling), I have yet to make an argument of my own.
Understand?
I have yet to enter into this discussion of the name -- or pictorial representations -- of Jesus with my own opinions.
What is hilarious is how the two of you are contending with the implication of Glenn's original and primitive thinking that establishes for him the invalidity of pictorial representation of Jesus. All I've done is apply his criterion consistently to an analogous issue.
_______________
As for your anachronistic analogy, Glenn, you are describing action in a time of photographic - even video - capacities of depiction. I would hope your wife would be offended.
However, if you were to commission a portrait of her, I would think she would be immensely pleased. This despite the face that the portrait cannot ever depict accurately her skin tone, bone structure, eye color, eye spacing, the precise curve of her ears and nostrils, the exact way she wears her hair.
This is because we, in the modern world with photography and video, have new, heretofore unexperienced, standards of accuracy. In fact, we have an interest in accuracy that no human culture has had before.
Looking at ancient Christian art and Byzantine Christian art and Renaissance religious subjects, and the eighteenth century, accuracy as to physicality were never the goals. Representation of spiritual truth was the object.
This is why God did not want to be represented as a cow. Or a snake. Or a phallus. Or as thirty breasts.
Yet again, for an uncountable time, you have slipped the meaning of scripture in order to impose some rigid, OC need for control and use scripture in grandly anachronistic self-aggrandizing ways.
As for Marshall, he's slipped the bounds of rational thought. Can the Greaco-Roman Jews of antiquity form their lips to sound a J? If they ever tried to learn modern English, why yes, I suppose they could. Just like a modern Russian, after years of effort, comes close to being able to sound a W.
But having to say this is like telling you - instead of the more appropriate need to a four year old - that the fruit has the name orange just like the color it has is called orange.
You really should be expected to be past elemental points.
Feodor,
Well, your high intellect has swamped me once again. YOU ARE UNTEACHABLE and ARROGANT!
Which is why it is a waste of time to have discussions with you - sort of like your clone Trabue.
I have a very good ministry which takes up my Friday evenings, by the way.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2009/12/public-apologetics-evangelism-ministry.html
Dammit, Glenn, I was just thinking I should write a note predicting you would quite the conversation now that your illogic has repeatedly been revealed!
I took the time to eat a salad and before I could get back, bam!, here you did it again.
So predictable.
Don't be a man and admit where you're wrong, quite. It's Glenn's way every time.
Yes, I feel confident that bagpipes will win the world for Christ.
"I've noticed, Glenn, that you may not have a Friday night life that's worth talking about."
And again, seeing what you want and need to see in order to feel superior. How incredibly sad.
"I had to rush off and get our taxes finalized and join my wife for a fantastic dinner at..."
How pretentious. Not impressed.
"I'm also continuing to be amazed at how unbelievable dense the two of you are."
I'm rather bored with how you express a need to believe we're the dense people.
"For the fourth time (Dan knows what I'm feeling), I have yet to make an argument of my own."
Right. That crap about a picture bringing to mind an imaginary Nazi theocracy, leading from that to us is not an argument.
"What is hilarious is how the two of you are contending with the implication of Glenn's original..."
What's hilarious is you believing we're contending with anything more than the implications ("accusation", really) of your original comment concerning the picture of Christ.
"As for Marshall, he's slipped the bounds of rational thought."
Someday you'll really have to demonstrate how this is true. Merely saying so does nothing but confirm your own shortcomings. Thus far, I've responded directly to comments you've published. Note this:
"How can the NT call him Jesus, Gai, when there is no "J" in koine Greek?"
This suggests that because they have no letter "J", the ancient Hebrews can't make the "J" sound. Don't try to turn this around as if I'm struggling with rational thought. I can't be expected to sound any more rational than the irrational implications of your own comments can provoke. If my response sounds stupid, it is only because I am dealing with stupidity from you.
In other words, whether or not the Jews could pronounce the "J" sound is irrelevant. YOUR statement suggested it was impossible because they did not have a character that equates to our "J". When you can make a rational argument, then perhaps you'll have room to question the ability of others to think rationally. Until then, you'll just be your usual pretentious fraud trying to appear intellectually superior.
As for Glenn "quite"-ing, it certainly doesn't prove he's wrong as much as having grown tired of casting pearls before a swine like yourself. I'm guessing that he merely didn't want to this time insult pigs.
Feo,
Yes, you are right. I'm always wrong, never been right in my life. Your intellect is so great that the rest of us are nothing but morons.
Yes, I feel confident that bagpipes will win the world for Christ.
What a completely stupid statement. I don't know that anyone claimed this. You continually prove what an ass you are with almost every comment you make.
You guys get the nastiest when the precipice of admitting that you've lost yet another argument on the merits of reason is at your feet.
It's such low character.
______________
I would not have reported, Marshall, my Friday night appointments if Glenn had not presumed that I avoided addressing his anachronistic analogy.
Though Marshall did win a spelling victory.
Congratulations, Marshall. Enjoy.
And you're absolutely right on this as well:
"That crap about a picture bringing to mind an imaginary Nazi theocracy, leading from that to us is not an argument."
It's just reportage.
"You guys get the nastiest when the precipice of admitting that you've lost yet another argument on the merits of reason..."
Again, you argue that which is not in evidence. This is especially true given the laughable suggestion that you've brought reason into any discussion in which you've ever entered here.
"I would not have reported, Marshall, my Friday night appointments if Glenn had not presumed that I avoided addressing his anachronistic analogy."
Yet you had time in two comments immediately after his analogy to make two pointless and failed attempts to prove you have something akin to a bull's eye response. No. You saw a chance to pretend anyone would care about what restaurant you patronize. Normal people would have simply responded in kind or not responded at all or even simply said, "I ran out of time" or "I forgot about that analogy---here's my response now."
And don't think I give a rat's ass about typos as a general rule. But we're talking about the false priest who prides himself on being superior (as if he is). You want to posture yourself as "all that", but make the same spelling mistake twice. How can that be? How can you live with it?
Now, after 24 typically lame comments from you, you have yet to justify your first. That's a lot of dancing around just to avoid explaining the implication that anything connected to Nazis should in any way provoke thoughts of us. Apparently you're content to slander without reason. Typical.
I find that just about all you give us is a rat's ass.
Like me, you've yet to state a position on the English name of Jesus.
Except you did say that ancient Jews could have made the J sound. And I'm sure you're right. We all make sounds that aren't native to our language. But it's only when doing things that aren't really speech. Like sneezing. Or retching. Or giving birth. Or sex. Are you saying, Marshall, that the name Jesus is some kind of Tantric meditation?
And this time, try a response that's better than your typical rat's ass. Raise your character!
Ate a French place last night. A.O.C. Bistro. Roased Chicken with cauliflower gratin. The best.
feo,
Despite your delusions of grandeur, you don't have the mental capacity to differentiate between true wisdom in comments and...well...your comments. So, just like the failure of all like yourself who can't understand good from evil, you think all that opposes your "intellectualism" is "rat's ass".
And your failure is evident in your inability to understand a simple explanation. YOUR statement implied that the lack of a "J" equivalent in ancient Hebrew prevents them from making a "J" sound. Don't pretend there is something wrong with my comprehension skills when you can't get a point across.
What's more, I did indeed state a position on the English name of Jesus. That position is, "His name is 'Jesus'", and it doesn't matter the various versions of other peoples. It only does to the false priest with an inferiority complex as he again fails in an attempt to appear superior in knowledge.
As to your newest pretentious boasting regarding dining, you the definition of lipstick on a pig.
Tonight I cooked, having a week and a day off. Braised short ribs, cabbage, cornbread, and more Provencal rose. Perfection.
To anyone but a rat's ass, my point was that a Jew speaking Greek in Roman occupied Palestine would never utter a J when talking. Nor to say someone's name.
Your point that the possibility exists in the universe that an ancient Jew could was agreed to by me if that Jew was on the toilet and screaming something incomprehensible to his family and friends because of severe constipation.
Which is exactly what you are.
DENSE constipation.
I had two Egg McMuffins and a can of Dr. Pepper. Exquisite! Nobody cares about your dining and travel destinations, particularly because you lord it over as if we're to be impressed by it, rather than as a normal person, joyously reporting your good fortune. That's because you're an asshole. Never, since your first visit, have you displayed anything akin to what even a good false priest would publicly manifest to convince others he was indeed a Christian. Instead, you prefer to be an asshole, and all the time.
This isn't anything more than statement of fact.
And apparently, there is a character in Hebrew that denotes a "J" sound, though not commonly used. As to the ancients, you first say we can't know and now pretend you do. Which is it?
But if your "point was that a Jew speaking Greek in Roman occupied Palestine would never utter a J when talking", you should have said so. Instead, as you are a pretentious and unjustified condescending asshole, we saw you say
"How can the NT call him Jesus, Gai, when there is no "J" in koine Greek?"
...as if they couldn't say "J" because they didn't have a "J" in Greek. What's more, no one put forth that argument in the first place. It was only that His name in Jesus, regardless of how a given people pronounce it, or what version of the name their language has. But no. YOU have to try and pretend you're knowledgeable, more sophisticated in your understanding. You're not. You're nothing but an asshole.
So, do you think you can ever visit here and discuss something like a human being who is interested in serious and honorable debate? Or are you only interested in being an asshole? Just state it one way or the other so I know. If you want to continue acting like an asshole every time you visit, making accusations you never support, pretending anyone is impressed by your obscure references, or wowed by where you eat, I'm not interested. You bore me.
If you're eating chain food and drinking soda, no wonder you're angry at the world. But you can always use Dan White's defense. You're a lot like Dan White.
___________________
"And apparently, there is a character in Hebrew that denotes a "J" sound, though not commonly used. As to the ancients, you first say we can't know and now pretend you do. Which is it?"
Curious why you wouldn't go ahead and mention this seldom used ancient Hebrew letter. Pray tell us, Marshall, which is it?
And as I said before, numnuts, we know their consonants. So..... no J, dipshit.
We don't know with precision what the vowels were in their words. So..... we don't know how they sounded them out exactly. We only know variants, dickwad.
Try to follow along. I know it's difficult for you.
___________________
"But if your "point was that a Jew speaking Greek in Roman occupied Palestine would never utter a J when talking", you should have said so. Instead, as you are a pretentious and unjustified condescending asshole, we saw you say
'How can the NT call him Jesus...'"
See, Marshall, when someone talks about "calling" someone something, they are referring to speech.
In this case, "a Jew speaking Greek."
You can only miss this point by being a dense turd.
_________________
Made tacos last night with Penzey's spices. A liquid rojo sauce added to the cooking meat. And a cabernet. Keeps one sane and civilized. The jealousy is on you. Who obviously can't cook.
Thank you so much for lending credence to my conclusion. Your first response to analysis of you as an asshole is to be an asshole. I guess you just can't help being what you are.
I am not angry at the world, just angry at corrupt people like yourself pretending to be what you are not, supporting immorality and demonizing good people. But that's what assholes do and it is not unnatural or immoral to be angry with assholes.
Like all other accusations from you, you couldn't possibly on your best day show how I compare with Dan White. But your every comment posted exposes you as an asshole. Well done. You're superior in your consistency.
The third letter Gimmel with an apostrophe is used for the "J" sound. This is not ancient language to which I referred, nor did I even hint at such. In the meantime, while you demand support for things I say, you continue to avoid and dodge your responsibility (not to mention any sense of honor) in supporting anything you say. I refer once again to your initial comment on this thread regarding how a picture provokes in you thoughts of a Nazi theocracy that never existed, and how THAT provokes thoughts of people like me. Provide some evidence for that lest you fear mitigating your reputation as an asshole.
See, asshole, when one asks "how can one be called Jesus when an alphabet has no 'J'", the logical question is why not having a letter would preclude the ability to make a sound. Nothing dense about that at all. A highly educated and well read intellectual surely has the means to make himself clear, does he not? But an asshole wouldn't take the time when trying to posture himself as superior. However, you simply look like an asshole, especially when presuming the point being missed is a result of the reader and not the failings of the writer. Just like a pompous asshole would presume.
I never said I couldn't cook. I said you were a pretentious asshole.
Feel free to continue being an asshole in your next comment, while I pray you'll someday repent and be the Christian you laughingly claim to be.
"This is not ancient language to which I referred..."
I see. So it's entirely irrelevant to any point about what Jesus' name was to his family and friends.
You just wanted to throw something in there because... who knows.
____________
"you continue to avoid and dodge your responsibility (not to mention any sense of honor) in supporting anything you say..."
Except for the fact that you just inferentially - though forced to do so - agreed with me that no one called him Jesus because there was no J used then.
Thank you.
_________________
"I refer once again to your initial comment on this thread regarding how a picture provokes in you thoughts of a Nazi theocracy that never existed, and how THAT provokes thoughts of people like me. Provide some evidence for that..."
Let me see if I understand you. You want evidence of the fact that may seeing a bizarre pictorial of Jesus healing the liberty bell made me think of Nazi theology (theocracy is your word, not mine). Surely the only evidence is that I wrote it down: "hey, I was just thinking that..."
And you want evidence than upon thinning of Nazi theology, I then thought of you guys. Rigth? Surely the only evidence that these thoughts associated themselves in such a sequence is... that I wrote it down: "hey, that thought led to another of..."
Exactly what kind of evidence do you want, Marshall?
OH!!!! I see!!!!! You're under the impression that just any fleeing thought that you have is an argument, don't you? That's why you're asking for evidence for my thoughts!
You don't have an idea of the vast difference between making a rational argument and the whizzing disconnected things that role into and out of your brain, do you Marshall?
Wow. What a revelation of how stupid you are.
________________
As for being an asshole, I've travelled through a good number of countries in my life. I've enjoyed reliving Brasilian cities I've been in via the World Cup. And when I'm in a different country, I really try to live into that kind of life. It's all part of educated the vast capacity for soul that we have.
So, too, when I come here. To the land of assholes. I live into the role. Otherwise, no real understanding - and pity - would be possible with you guys.
______________
Unbeatable ribs this weekend. My black father-in-law makes, hands down, the best ribs on the planet. So much so, there's no where I can eat in Texas or the south that compares. He's ruined me for restaurant barbecue.
"I see. So it's entirely irrelevant to any point about what Jesus' name was to his family and friends."
You were the one who said there is no "J" sound in the Hebrew language. I found what contradicts it and now you're trying to say that you were only speaking of ancient tongues of which you also said we can't for sure since we have no one from that period?
Yet if the modern language acknowledges the sound, what is to say that the ancients did not, either? Just because they didn't have an "official" letter for the sound, doesn't mean they were without their own slang, or influenced by the many cultures with which they came in contact.
Bottom line here is that I never said they called Jesus "Jesus" in the first place, but only that they called Him that in their own language. Glenn never made that comment, either. Try to pay attention.
"Let me see if I understand you."
You don't. You never did and have proven incapable of doing so. Better for you to simply ask for clarification and the use of smaller words.
I didn't ask for evidence that one thing made you think of something entirely idiotic and unrelated to the first. I asked you to explain it. It's your small mind. A genius like yourself should be able to handle the chore. Normal people also have thoughts pop up whilst engaged in other things. Normally, because I'm talking about normal people, there is some connection and usually, if not always, the jump is to something similar.
In other words, if I look at something that suggests solid and honorable character, I don't think of you. Even after your initial irrelevant and pointless comment, I could not see how the picture would provoke in even such as yourself, thoughts of Nazis, much less thoughts of a theology that doesn't exist.
For normal people, any compulsion to think of Nazis generally leads to thoughts of other assholes. So for me to view a picture of Nazis, thinking of you makes some sense, whereas thinking of Glenn or Bubba or Mark or Neil or any of my like-minded bloggers doesn't at all. There is no similarity.
So since you don't have the balls to explain your unnecessary initial comment, I'll do it for you: You're an asshole. Only an asshole would make such a disparate connection in his asshole mind. What's more, the mere posting of that initial comment is another validation of my assessment of your character, because one would have to be an asshole to even post it, as if anyone here would care or find it compelling or profound or anything of more value than the provocative crap it was meant to be.
So no, idiot. I do NOT think any fleeting thought of my own is an argument. That's quite an asshole leap of logic. I simply hoped some explanation would be forthcoming for why one thing could possibly in your feeble mind lead to another. I hope in vain for too much from the likes of you, and you never disappoint.
"I live into the role."
Yeah. You've tried to run that crap before. What makes you think it will play better now? It is childish in its deception. As is well known, from your very first visit here, you've been a pompous, pretentious, condescending and arrogant asshole, trying feverishly to impress us with what for you passes as intellectual sophistication. In other words, you've always been and continue to be an asshole. It's not because of us, because anyone who isn't an asshole would know that we do not trash talk anyone who doesn't first expose himself, as you have, to be undesirable in some way. And even then, it is usually long after we've reserved our contempt for the ideas and opinions expressed. But YOU, you had immediately exposed yourself as an asshole and it wasn't as if you tried to hide it.
As for your dining and travel, you once again offer what can only be a "hey look at me---see how cool I am" reference to Brazil, as if anyone would be impressed. This makes you not only an asshole, but a boorish asshole as well. You bore me, and you're boorish.
And what kind of "Christian" believes there is justification for an attitude of acting like an asshole because one believes he is amongst assholes. It's bad enough you have the audacity to presume you are amongst them from your first visit...hardly a Christian attitude at all. But I can't recall what passage of Scripture leads you to believe that is Christian behavior. Even if, like Paul, you feel you must become like others in order to bring them to Christ, when will we see that sort of "bringing" from the likes of you? It won't happen because you are indeed a false priest. You are a fraud. You have no redeeming qualities that you've ever felt compelled to display. Thus, my use of the term "asshole" in reference to you has never been an epithet, but the most accurate word to describe one of your character. Your behavior here over the years can compel no better term. That's on you. Own it and it will be a first step to repentance. Until then, I don't much care what you think or do.
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?"
Now there's a real asshole for you.
And I mean, really. For you, Marshall.
I'm just the shadow of an asshole in your life. He's your real problem.
_____________________
Cooked salmon with a honey mustard glaze last night. My rich black wife loves that - one of her favorites.
"And I mean, really. For you, Marshall."
Then that makes you superfluous as well. In the meantime, I'm not about to waste time with another futile expectation that you'll explain yourself. You're just an asshole in your own life. You are you're real problem.
I know you won't be able to deal with these, much less be able to read them - like Justice Sotomayor's brilliant dissent, which you were sure to post about. But in a continuing project to put the best before you, I'll hope in the Holy Spirit's power over wickedness.
1) http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
2)
http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/revisiting-racism
So, like your irrelevant link to a picture of Jesus and symbols of America, and your worthless comments stemming from it, you again take liberties you don't possess to dictate topics, as if it should be my problem that you cannot generate interest in your own blog.
And you also seem to think that I am obliged in any way to you as regards past topics, such as Sotomayor's idiocy. As it happens, life has distracted, and at this point I have no interest. It's a long slog through her pile of crap you regard as brilliance and I may yet take it up again. But feel free to point out the salient points of "brilliance" you're so sure lies within her dissent. I'm betting you haven't the capability of doing so.
Until then, you've yet to put before me anything that any normal, rational and reasonable person could call "best". But I too hope for the Holy Spirit's power over your wickedness. He has thus far chosen to give you over to it.
As to your "offerings", such as they are, I can respond without wasting my time reading them, though I likely will at some point:
1) There is no case for reparations that isn't just another racist attempt by lazy people to force producers to redistribute their wealth. Real men of character make their own way. But you wouldn't know about real men of character.
2) What need is there to "revisit" racism when there are baiters like you so willing to keep it alive?
It's pathetic enough that you wallow in white guilt without continually demanding that others do as well. Give your own money to those who use any excuse for their own failures and leave the rest of us alone to do with our money as we see fit. There are far more worthy causes than the covetous unjustifiably seeking reparations from those who did nothing to them
1. Don't have a blog.
2. You're not that busy. You stalk Dan at two sites and participate in a 484 comment thread here.
3. As Ta-Nehisis Coates makes abundantly clear, "white guilt" is the racist defensiveness. It's about fully healing the nation of some wrongs that keep us from truly attaining stability, security, and progress as a nation.
Thus, you're arguing for an anti-American stance. From ignorance and denial. All because you don't read and can't think very well.
1. You couldn't have one without anyone caring to read it. So good for you for being smart enough to know your aren't smart enough to attract readers.
2. You have no idea about my personal life and how busy I might be. Your insecurity dictates that you assume the worst about one who betters your every attempt to belittle. But note my comment of June 2, where I inform Dan, who you need to believe I stalk, that it might take time to respond to him. Then follow the comment stream until my next comment ten days later, you idiot. Even to your unique idiocy, I don't always respond immediately. But even with that, I demonstrate far more insight, thought, logic and understanding of the issues than any of your self-pleasuring comments ever have.
3. Coates makes abundantly clear that in his opinion "white guilt" is the racist defensiveness. It is a concept put forth by a black man to describe and explain people like yourself, but it does indeed speak to your own latent racism. Coates does nothing regarding any healing of the racial wounds of this country. People like him, and yourself, pick at the scabs to keep the blood flowing for the purpose of self-promotion and power. Self-respecting, honorable men of character, regardless of their race, don't waste their time with such nonsense and merely get on with living as brothers among men. There's nothing anti-American about that. But there most certainly is when anyone seeks to force attention upon one race over another, especially in the guise of "healing". That's far worse than ignorance. It's willful deceit and self-interest. All because you read the wrong people and can't think beyond leftist masturbatory drivel.
Gotta go. Always too busy for you, even when I'm wasting time doing nothing, as if that happens much.
By the way, speaking of stalkers, look in the freaking mirror. Always projecting, aren't you?
1) I do teach, however, which is like blogging. 130 people every year. Who will grow up to keep us on the right side of morality - and so history. Glad to be the complete opposite of your example.
2) You keep saying you have little time. And yet it sounds like you show up at four, five, six blogs, and about three of which you report addressing Dan. That's using up a lot of your time - according to your own words. And THAT'S stalking.
3) To be a brother to men [and women, whom you forgot to mention] would be to help with food, shelter, and opportunity - and the right to vote. These are policies you reject for your brothers [and sisters whom you forgot].
And theres nothing more deceitful and ignorant than turning a blind eye to the historic divestment of property and capital from the black, native, and brown communities and continuing to support structures that carried this out run political hate and evil.
You win those prizes. Deceitful and willfully ignorant. That's you hands down.
1) I shudder to think what you might be "teaching" and to whom. The younger the person, the more likely they'll grow up to perpetuate the kind of crap people like you have foisted upon the good people of this nation. Please don't tell me you teach Christianity, because you've demonstrated an incredible lack of understanding about what it means to be Christian. That's because you're a fraud and a false priest.
2) I never said I don't "show up" for any number of blogs (just a handful) on a daily basis whilst eating breakfast or just before I turn in. How often I can spend great amounts of time is another thing altogether.
That I address Dan at any more than his or my own blog only means that we both frequent some of the same. So what? How is that stalking, especially since I only see your sorry ass showing up hear to pretend you have anything intelligent to say (you no longer disappoint, as I now expect nothing intelligent whatsoever from the likes of you, as this last comment of yours demonstrates)>
3) Only an asshole would think he's making points by suggesting that my comments mean anything less than "mankind". How foolish of me to forget with whom I am dealing. I'm dealing with a fake Christian who will take every opportunity to find fault with another in order to posture his own sorry self as worthy of the respect to which he pridefully feels entitled, but does nothing to warrant.
You again make assumptions invented to assuage your own inferiority. You have no idea to what extent I contribute to the needs of my fellow man. None whatsoever. And certainly, you have no evidence at all to suggest that "the right to vote" is an issue with me, that I in any way do anything to infringe upon the right of anyone to do so. Therefore, I reject none of these policies at all.
As the deceitful and fraudulent false priest you are, you suggest that history is not rife with one peoples taking from another land or power. When you support reparations from the blacks who sold other blacks into slavery, then you will demonstrate some honesty and consistency in your faux concern for the black people, as if they need YOUR freakin' help.
There is no political structure that currently divests property or capital from those of other races. Thus, there are none to support. YOU, however, are doing exactly that by insisting that the people of today donate their own property and capital to those who have not had anything taken from them by the people of today because YOU feel guilt over what people of generations ago did to people of that time. Feel free to donate all that your imaginary rich black wife has received through no effort of her own (since you don't think the black race is capable). She likely won't miss it given how little you regard you have for the intelligence and ability of the black race.
"on a daily basis whilst eating breakfast or just before I turn in. How often I can spend great amounts of time is another thing altogether."
And then you go on for 3, 4 hundred more words?
Damn that's a big breakfast!
"whilst" is pretty archaic. Maybe you write all this nonsense after "turning in."
Maybe a hunter and pecker like yourself needs hours to type a few hundred words. At thirty per hour, 300 doesn't take long. I believe I type faster than that. It isn't hard. Maybe it's even trickier for those like yourself who can't see the keyboard with your head so far up your ass. And considering I'm not responding to a feo who doesn't present complex commentary, but only bad examples of insults, how much time do you think I need.
The thing is, for you, I could be doing absolutely nothing and still not want to take the time. You consistently show you're not worth it. It's what you do best.
"And considering I'm not responding to a feo who doesn't present complex commentary, but only bad examples of insults, how much time do you think I need."
Maybe you spend lunch editing what you write during breakfast. And then post it.
What do you eat for lunch? Chips and melted velveta?
It's incredible how insecure you are.
I'm not the with a blog writing to no one.
You're quite right about that. You're no one.
Post a Comment