https://youtu.be/pSPvnFDDQHk
The above is a short film put out by the Clarion Project about the actual numbers of those who claim to be "moderate" muslims versus the entirety if islam. It demonstrates what many have been saying for some time with regards the notion that "not all" are extremists or jihadists or even in agreement with those who are. It speaks to the incredible task of finding those among the muslim population who are actually more like us than not in terms of rejecting the vile and barbaric beliefs and practices that in recent days have resulted in the murder of 50 people in a club in Orlando, FL.
There was a recent post by leftist looney Dan T regarding what he hailed as a historic event to which someone from his church (if I recall correctly) was a part. This conference saw itself as one that is "doing something" to end the violence associated with the teachings of islam...teachings which many claim are not truly the teachings of the "prophet" at all.
Dan also has done much trash talking about Donald Trump and his call to halt immigration and the flow of refugees from countries with muslim majorities...countries known to have a large radical muslim population or are under radical muslim control. This suggestion has also been put forth by people like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and between the three of them the suggestion shows far more concern for the welfare of the American people than anything proposed or implemented by the current administration and those of his party seeking to step in when he thankfully steps out.
And about that... a curious thing. In 2009, the Obama administration did exactly that which is proposed by those three with regard to halting the flow of refugees from, I believe, Syria. Don't recall too many lefties whining about that being un-American, as if allowing just anyone into the country is what America, or immigration for that matter, is all about.
Immigration policy is not for the immigrant. It's for the host nation who allows immigration. It's for OUR benefit that we CHOOSE to let anyone into the country at all. It is NOT anti-American to deny entry to anyone for any reason whatsoever. Nor is it "unChristian" to totally seal off our borders until such time that we, based on reasons that make sense to our own national security and the benefit and general welfare of our own people, choose to open them up.
It has been the fashion to label Trump as racist for his stance on immigration and border control. That is, it has been the fashion of the typical center-right hating liberal (not that Donnie is a conservative or anything) to so label anyone who dares suggest we take a step back until such time as we can secure those borders, improve the efficiency of our vetting process and find those who have overstayed their visas. That isn't racism at all, regardless of who it is we want to more thoroughly scrutinize. It's called "protecting our own people".
The boneheads who have failed to prevent terror attacks in this country (since Obama first became president) speak of needles in haystacks as regards finding the small percentage of scumbags willing and eager to perpetrate more Orlando crimes. FBI Director Comey has even suggested some of the hay becomes needles. Dan, Obama and other leftist pinheads want to bring in more hay and hope for the best. They think our refusal to do so would incite more muslims to radicalize. What a joke! They don't need an excuse. They are already successful at recruiting and inciting and influencing the stupid to do what they insist they intend to do to the world.
The numbers are too great. Talk percentages of the total all you like and it doesn't change the fact that the numbers are too great. Unfortunately, the numbers of idiots who think like Dan and Obama are great as well. We need conservatives (read: smart people, courageous people, leaders) in positions of authority in this country. All we have right now is Trump, but on this issue, he is correct and Hillary, Bernie and the Idiot-In-Chief don't even understand the situation...AND THEY HAVE ALL THE INFO THAT SHOULD INFORM THEM!!!
Loretta Lynch, who has no business speaking to the friends and families of the Pulse shooting (that's not her job), said something stupid about fighting terrorists with love. This administration is killing us...literally...by their lame notions of how to deal with the issue of terrorism. They want it to be about guns. With this latest crime they want it to be about homophobia. They don't have the brains, the honesty, the integrity to properly deal with the issue and thus protect the people they are sworn to protect.
175 comments:
Marshall, you are voting for a man who almost never tells the truth, and the data supports this. You argue like him... reducing disagreements down to childish name-calling and bullying insults. You are defending his overtly racist comments - comments that even your own party are calling racist and actions that are overtly anti American. On what basis should we care about your little insults? Do you think you have any credibility?
Dan also has done much trash talking about Donald Trump and his call to halt immigration and the flow of refugees from countries with muslim majorities..
You really need to quit treating these claims as if I'm somehow outside of the norm of Christian evangelical conservatives on this point.
"Southern Baptists are one of the most reliably Republican religious groups in the U.S. But in a week when the party's presumptive presidential nominee has expanded on his proposal for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention is taking a different approach."
"It's not the first time conservative Christians have weighed in on the issue. Last November, the National Association of Evangelicals called on believers to welcome Syrian refugees. That came in the aftermath of the Paris attacks as many elected officials — mostly Republicans — called for a halt to immigration of those refugees."
"...Soerens says Donald Trump's proposal to bar immigration from countries with a "proven history of terrorism" would likely keep out Christians and other religious minorities as well.
"Trump's proposal would close the doors of our country to persecuted individuals of all backgrounds from these countries, presumably, and local churches do not want to be a part of turning our backs on the persecuted church," Soerens wrote in an email to NPR."
"...The question of religious freedom — and how it should apply to Muslims — was also part of the discussion at the convention. At one point, John Wofford, a pastor from Arkansas, stood up to ask why a Southern Baptist should support the right of Muslims living in the United States to build mosques when, as Wofford put it, "these people threaten our very way of existence as Christians and Americans?"
Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission responded unequivocally:
"Sometimes we have to deal with questions that are really complicated," Moore said.
"This isn't one of those things."
As the crowd applauded, Moore cautioned Southern Baptists that religious freedom has to be for everyone.
"When you have a government that says we can decide whether or not a house of worship can be constructed based upon the theological beliefs of that house of worship," Moore said, "then there are going to be Southern Baptist churches in San Francisco and New York and throughout this country who are not going to be able to build.""
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482268688/southern-baptists-split-with-trump-on-refugee-resettlement
More...
"Southern Baptist ethicist Russell Moore tweeted multiple warnings during the debate about encroaching on religious liberty, though he did not specify any candidates at whom the tweets were directed.
"If you won't stand up for religious liberty for everyone, stop talking about religious liberty," tweeted Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission [Southern Baptists]. "And sure stop raising money off of it."
Moore, who has criticized Trump's proposed ban on Muslim immigration, also tweeted, "In colonial America, Baptists were lumped in with anti-social forces. Lots of talk about surveilling churches, closing state borders to us."
http://www.bpnews.net/46018/gop-debate-trumps-proposed-muslim-ban-challenged
Set aside the immorality of the anti-American, anti-Religious Liberty proposals, it's NOT A WORKABLE SOLUTION. What are you going to do? Do a "Muslim test" on everyone entering the country? What does that look like and whose in charge of the evaluation? Ban even those who are trying to escape with their lives? Ban even Christians and non-believers coming from "that part of the world..."?
It's just a nutty little support-raiser for the cowardly and racist, not a serious proposal.
Regardless, as I'm sure you know, the opposition to this anti-American, anti-Christian proposal is far spread across conservatism and evangelicals.
You seem to miss the point of what you're calling a "ban". I have no doubt you do this intentionally.
Trump, and others, are calling for a suspension in order to better improve our vetting process to insure that fewer, if any, jihadists and/or criminals enter our country. It is unfortunate that in the process of this suspension some truly oppressed people fleeing persecution (from jihadists) are denied immediate entry. However, even among those would be those unlikely to even want to assimilate, which is essential in the view of many, for allowing immigration of anyone.
For example, there a muslims who are oppressed by other muslims, but who are also those who would oppress as well given the chance, due to their religious beliefs.
In the old days of Ellis Island, many were turned away for lesser "offenses" that related to their inability or unwillingness to be a benefit to our nation. We are not obliged to accept ANYONE at any time for any reason. There's nothing immoral about it simply because Trump haters need to frame the narrative against Trump in as negative a manner as possible by doing so. This is your aim without doubt.
Our government's first priority is the protection of OUR people and OUR borders. To ignore the plainly stated intention of using any means to enter our nation to further their evil aims, we invite the worst of the worst to perpetrate those means to achieve their goals.
I say again, there is absolutely nothing immoral about denying entry based on the religious affiliation of the country from which an immigrant comes. We're not talking about Baptists or Huguenots, here Dan. We're talking about a religion that has murder as a tenet as practiced by way too many of them. Lying to non-muslims is not prohibited. To ignore these facts about this "religion of peace" is what is truly anti-American and anti-Christian, as the consequences for doing so are not the least unknown. Indeed, you prove yourself again to be a great liar.
Those who'd deny religious liberty that they enjoy to others do not understand the concept of religious liberty.
Speaking of lies, you should really read your own claims and recognize their false nature. There are none so blind...
"Those who'd deny religious liberty that they enjoy to others do not understand the concept of religious liberty."
Nonsense. There has never been a time in this country's history (until maybe now) when religions weren't mitigated, suppressed or even outlawed based upon the practices of its followers. This particular religion is especially concerning due to the vast numbers of people who engage in or support barbarism of they type you wish conservative Christians were perpetrating in order to better rail against them. Religious liberty, as with liberty of any kind (including Christian liberty) does NOT mean anything goes. So it is YOU who fails to understand the concept of religious liberty, as you interpret it as you want it to mean.
"Speaking of lies, you should really read your own claims and recognize their false nature."
Such as...?
Pretty much any claims you make. Pick one. Recognize its false nature.
Easy.
I don't put forth false claims. You're lying again.
Lying to non-muslims is not prohibited.
In a time of war - say, you were captured by the enemy - is it okay to lie to save lives? Does God prohibit that, Marshall (in your opinion)?
Your ten times more likely to be shot by a white Christian male than a muslim.
Numbers, Marshall:
"There are approximately 3.3 million Muslim Americans. After the attack in Orlando, The Times reported that the F.B.I. is investigating 1,000 potential “homegrown violent extremists,” a majority of whom are most likely connected in some way to the Islamic State. If everyone on that list is Muslim American, that is 0.03 percent of the Muslim American population. If you round that number, it is 0 percent."
"In a time of war - say, you were captured by the enemy - is it okay to lie to save lives? Does God prohibit that, Marshall (in your opinion)?"
The lying to further the cause of islam is not the same as lying to preserve lives during wartime. I'm not surprised you wouldn't see the clear distinction.
"Your ten times more likely to be shot by a white Christian male than a muslim."
By sheer numbers, this might be true, but only if you include any white male who merely claims to be a Christian, like you and Dan.
Now if you speak in terms of solid and devoted adherents to the faith, you'll never be shot by a white Christian male (unless you're trying to shoot him or someone he's willing to kill to protect), but almost guaranteed to be shot by the muslim (just for not being a muslim like him).
Interestingly, it's almost always white conservative males who self-identify as conservative Christians who do the killings. If data matters to you.
As to your almost answer to my question Marshall, should I gather that you think, yes it is okay to lie sometimes, like in Wartime, in God's eyes? A simple yes or no would suffice.
"By sheer numbers, this might be true..." Exactly. Was that so hard? Now, let's start surveillance on them.
First off, Islam isn't a "race" so being against Islam isn't racism
Secondly, Islam isn't just a religion. It's primarily a political system based on particular religious beliefs; it is a political/religious system and the most violent religion in history.
By the way, the SBC has been exposed as being more and more apostate on a daily basis, especially with their supper of Islam. I can just see St. Paul defending the religious rights of pagans, right? WRONG!
Self-identifying as Christian while murdering people sort of proves against the self-identity. But then again, with people like Trabue and Feodor, they think whatever people self-idenfiy as makes them what what they self-identify as -- sort of like men self-identifying as women, etc.
The thing is, Glenn, YOU do not get to decide who is and isn't a Christian. You do not get to decide who is and isn't a Muslim.
No one died and made you god.
No, I say who you follow is more informative about one's identity. I follow Jesus, the Christ. Even if Glenn disagrees with some of my interpretations, that doesn't matter, because Glenn does not decide and, as a point of fact, I am following Jesus.
Glenn, on the other hand, appears more comfortable following Trump, self-identifying as he does as a Trump supporter in the coming election. So how about that? I'll let you decide for yourself who you are following and you can let me decide for myself who I am following... fair enough?
And who said that Islam is a race? (Although, admittedly, Muslims are, I believe, predominantly people of color, so if one did hold racist tendencies, one could see how Muslims might be included in that prejudice...)
feo,
""By sheer numbers, this might be true..." Exactly. Was that so hard? Now, let's start surveillance on them."
All that education...all those books...what a waste!!
What you find so hard to understand, buffoon, is that your argument is the same idiotic argument that the LGBT crowd makes with regards to pedophilia. That there may be more hetero pedophiles is simply due the fact that there is an overwhelmingly larger population of heteros than homos. But percentage-wise, there are more homo pedophiles (they even have their own club that marches in their parades celebrating sexual immorality) than hetero pedophiles. For example, considering the total populations of each group, the odds of a hetero being a pedophile is far less than the odds of a homo.
The same holds true for this issue. In this country, the odds of being murdered by a white Christian conservative are much lower than of being murdered by a muslim.
"The thing is, Glenn, YOU do not get to decide who is and isn't a Christian. You do not get to decide who is and isn't a Muslim."
"Ye shall know them by their fruits (not a reference to homosexuals)"
Those "fruits" are the tenets of the faith to which one allegedly adheres. A muslim that murders for the faith is acting on the teachings of his faith. A Christian who murders for his faith is acting against the teachings of his faith because there is no teaching of the Christian faith that even hints that it is in any way a Christian behavior. Thus, we don't have to "be made god" in order to see what is clear and decide who is or isn't what they say they are. Said another way, only liars ignore the obvious.
You want to accuse Glenn because of his choice of Trump over the others, as if that act stands alone without details that explain it. Again, something a liar would say when Glenn's position has been laid out clearly (assuming he even intends to support Trump, which I don't recall him actually stating).
And as to race, you continue to accuse Trump of racism, pretending that what a some conservatives say is validation, while you wouldn't ordinarily give what they say the time of day, is also a lie, since I've never seen anywhere a case of Trump saying he hates anyone because of their color, ethnicity or nationality. Dan just can't stop lying, because the truth is no more in him than it is in feo.
Gotta go.
I didn't believe for a second, Marshall, that you'd pay attention to numbers, science, or facts. You're the Mr Ed of bloggers. You're a talking horse, having forgotten to stop believing in make believe.
That's your faith. A made up make belief faith.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits (not a reference to homosexuals)"
Those "fruits" are the tenets of the faith to which one allegedly adheres.
Actually, the quote you reference is from Jesus, and it is not referring to tenets of one's faith, but one's actions and whether or not those actions are good, moral. Later, in Paul's letters, he speaks to this idea of fruit, saying that the fruit of the Spirit is love, goodness, faith, kindness, gentleness, etc... ie, whether one behaves with grace and love, not the various tenets of one's religious theology.
A healthy tree bears good fruit. A healthy tree promotes love, goodness, kindness, respect, purity, etc.
It's not saying "a healthy tree will always agree with what I consider to be the 'right' theological points." It's just not.
So, that passage does not help you to make the case that Glenn (or you) get to decide who is and isn't right because they "believe the wrong stuff" (ie, disagree with your opinions on matters of theology). You just don't get to decide. I think that reality drives you all nuts... you really want to be able to be the ones to say, "Naw, he's not in... but that one's okay... most of those guys are clearly NOT in, though."
That fact is, you don't get to make that call.
Now, when you have those who name-call, who tear down, who act arrogant and presumptuous and engage in false claims and slander and gossip... one might say, "THAT BEHAVIOR makes me question the strength of his Christian claim..." but not agreeing or disagreeing with extrabiblical/extra-Jesusian tenets of modern fundamentalist evangelicalism.
you continue to accuse Trump of racism
No, I don't. I continue to point out that he is making/has made racist comments and has - intentionally or not (I believe clearly intentionally) - used those racist comments to stir up support from the more racist/xenophobic segments of our population, using those prejudices and adding to that many false claims (90+%!) to take the GOP nomination. I sort of doubt that he's racist, actually, not in an intentional, overt way. I just think he is amoral and uses racist comments to stir the crowds and, unfortunately, it works. Amongst some segment of the GOP/conservative wing of the US.
Trabue,
Yes I do get to decided who is or isn't a Christian or a Muslim based on whether or not they follow the teachings of their individual faith. We've been told in Scripture what makes a Christian -- which is why you are disqualified from the Faith. You follow a Jesus not of the Bible.
You lie again because I don't follow Trump, nor do I support him and never said I did. I will vote against any Demokrat and by default that means I have to vote Republican no matter who is running if I don't want to see this nation turn full-blown socialist.
Lots of liberals call people racists when they are against Islam. And no, there is NO WAY anyone with any education about Islam could ever consider it a race.
Trabue can't stop lying any more than can Killary or Obamanation -- their father is the father of lies.
I do get to decided who is or isn't a Christian or a Muslim...
The irony is that you just don't get it.
By their fruit you will know them and, just fyi, a bloviating ego the size of Uranus is not part of the Fruit of the Spirit. Nor is Arrogant judgementalism. Nor is bullying spitefulness.
But, the irony is that you just don't get it.
Trabue,
By their fruit you will know them is about false teachers. Like you.
The Bible tells us what a true Christian believes. The Bible tells us the identity of the true Christ.
Your christ, and the christ of people like you, thinks homosexual behavior is okay, supports same-sex fake marriage, is okay with abortion, etc. This is not the Christ of the Bible, ergo your ilk are worshiping a different christ, ergo you are not Christian.
Your accusations about my supposed ego and bullying are just more of your lies. As for "judgmentalism," that's all you do is judge real Christians by YOUR standards. Those of us who are real Christians judge righteously as the Bible tells us to do, and we expose frauds like you just as the Bible tells us to do.
And why are YOUR opinions and interpretations the ones that get to make the call? "Because you are right," you'll answer. But who says you're right? You do.
That is, you gladly self-affirm you are the one speaking for God. Arrogance, see?
And why are YOUR opinions and interpretations the ones that get to make the call? "Because you are right," you'll answer. But who says you're right? You do.
That is, you gladly self-affirm you are the one speaking for God. Arrogance, see?
...thus, the irony.
"MY" interpretations are the same ones which the Bible teaches, which the ante-Nicene Fathers taught, and which have been taught by solid scholars for 2000 years. YOUR "interpretations" were made up by liberals like you within the past century. SO YOUR side are the arrogant ones, claiming 2000 years of scholarship is wrong.
"The Bible tells us what a true Christian believes. The Bible tells us the identity of the true Christ."
If you love me, you will keep my commandments. They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them. Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love me does not keep my word. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.
[Glenn: who is Christ and what does he tell us to do? Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love...]
"MY" interpretations are the same ones which the Bible teaches
Says who? Who is making that call? You, you, you, those who agree with you and you, so a whole crowd, right?
Self-affirming "proof" is not very impressive.
~Dan
Feo,
He also tells us to hate sin, such as homosexual behavior and abortion. it isn't love to foster either one of those, and it isn't love to lie by saying God/Christ approve of either one.
Right, Trabue. I'm going along with the Crowd, that crowd which has taught the same for 2000 years (and more when you consider the Jews and the O.T.). Theologians, language scholars, etc, all wrong because Trabue calls them the "crowd."
Yep, just those modern blaspheming liberals are correct and everyone else in history is wrong. Talk about arrogance!
God/Christ has literally not given you an opinion on those topics. Quit conflating your word and God's Word. Embrace a little humility, man.
Appealing to numbers is a logical fallacy, Glenn.
Wide is the path that leads to destruction and many who travel on it.
SO YOUR side are the arrogant ones, claiming 2000 years of scholarship is wrong.
My "side" says, "You know what, here's what seems reasonable, moral and biblical to us. Feel free to disagree, we believe that clearly this is right..."
There is no arrogance in that.
Your side says, "WE are the ones who are interpreting these passages correctly. As a point of fact, we can't be mistaken, our 'opinions' are not opinions, they are God's Word. To disagree with us is to disagree with God, because we're just telling you what the Bible says. If you disagree, then you are a liar, or are stupid, or are a false prophet and bound for hell..."
THAT is arrogant.
See the difference? I mean it, Glenn, seriously. Take a breath, slow down and read the difference between what I'm saying and what you are saying. Do you not see how, on the face of it, you appear to be very arrogant and my position is just reasonable and humble and, even if you disagree with it, a position that people of good will can reach?
Open your eyes, humble thyself, embrace grace.
~Dan
Trabue,
God/Christ has indeed given us HIS opinion in the Bible. You're too demented to accept the truth. Appealing to numbers is only a fallacy if the appeal is in error. When 6000 years of scholars say 2+2=4 and your crew comes up with 2+2=5, appealing to the numbers is not a fallacy, rather it is factual. Your citing "wide is the path" is an abuse of the passage, which is common for you because you twist the scripture worse than any cultist.
Your side is abjectly arrogant and bases your beliefs on feelings. You continue on your hell-bound system: I'm finished with this conversation as you've once again proven you are not a Christian and ARE a fool.
God/Christ has indeed given us HIS opinion in the Bible.
And the questions remain: WHO gets to decide what is and isn't God's opinion? Says who? On what bases?
You're too demented to accept the truth.
I sincerely read the Bible and have done so for all my 53 years (having it read to me those first few years). I do so seeking God's Ways and Truth. And when I read a passage and sincerely hold a different opinion/interpretation of a text/idea than Glenn, that is equivalent to being "too demented to accept the truth..."
Where is there grace in that?
Where is there humility in that?
Where is the love of God in that?
How is that anything but a rather childish form of bullying arrogance?
So many unanswered questions.
~Dan
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," Glenn
Not much time today, but I will say this: It is quite a joke to hear both feo and Dan lecture anyone on what Scripture means, what Christ teaches and how those teachings should be interpreted. I can't wait until I can sit down and shred these comments as well for their lack of both "grace" and reason.
There's a difference between studying Scripture to learn it, know it, understand it and die unto it, versus what either feo or Dan does with it.
Marshall, 53 years of study. For probably a third of that time, it was daily. For 30 years, it was under conservative guidance.
By what authority would you make such a baseless and ignorant (and false) claim? Do you know how many hours spent in serious, prayerful study was involved? Of course not.
Embrace grace and humility, men.
Marshall's way out of hell:
"So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."
But he cannot call upon the promise because of the answer he cannot give:
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
It is quite a joke to hear both feo and Dan lecture anyone on what Scripture means, what Christ teaches and how those teachings should be interpreted.
Interesting, this. I offer my opinion on some texts and respectfully disagree with you and Glenn. THIS is called "lecturing..."? But Glenn can say HE IS RIGHT and those who disagree with him and his tribe are liars and wolves and children of Satan and he knows this because he can't be mistaken on his interpretations and that's cool?
Do you see the difference between humility and arrogance? The difference between offering an opinion versus demanding that you and those who agree with you alone are right and all others are liars and deceitful? The difference between offering an opinion and "lecturing" as if you can't be mistaken?
No, I guess not. Such a shame.
For Trabue, if one says 2+2=4, and says that means 2+2 can't =5, that is arrogance and lack of humility. He considers 2+2=4 to be nothing more than an "opinion."
Ah, the foolishness is strong in this one!
"Marshall, 53 years of study. For probably a third of that time, it was daily. For 30 years, it was under conservative guidance."
Wow. You're quite the master at wasting peoples' time. You're very much like feo as I am astonished by all that education he had...all those books he read...and he's still nowhere near the intellect he deludes himself in thinking. Time spent means nothing. What are the results? With you and your unchristian positions, they are quite poor. Thank God there's still time if you remove your head from your backside and think of Him rather than the world.
"By what authority would you make such a baseless and ignorant (and false) claim?"
What "baseless and ignorant (and false) claim" do you think I've made now, Dan? If it has to do with your unchristian positions, beliefs and behaviors, the only authority I need is Scripture itself, as I don't find it so hard to understand. As such, it is quite easy to compare what you say and believe with what Scripture says and teaches in order to find you (and your sock puppet, feo) quite lacking. Again, there's plenty of time for the both of you, God willing, and you both could easily turn it all around...so long as your lust for the regard of the world can be overcome in favor of a true reverence for Him.
"Do you know how many hours spent in serious, prayerful study was involved?"
"To whom?" is the definitive question, as everything you've said over the years suggests a god of your own making. As such, number of hours to such a false god is worth nothing. I've asked this question before, because it so directly speaks to your "years of study": How far astray can one be before one is no longer believing in, or praying to, God? At what point is one now imagining someone so unlike God that God will not regard one as actually believing in Him? I think you've crossed that line long ago despite your claims of serious, prayerful study.
"Interesting, this. I offer my opinion on some texts and respectfully disagree with you and Glenn."
Actually, you don't. You offer nothing more than that you don't agree that we have the true understanding of any section of Scripture with which we disagree. That is to say, you offer your opinion that we're welcome to our hunches. But we know you don't agree. We want to hear your explanation expressing a clear description of what your alternative "interpretation" of...pretty much anything at this point is and what brings you to believe it. In those rare moments when you've cited anything from Scripture to support a position, we so commonly find abject abuse of the verse from your injecting your desired meaning into it where the text itself does not imply that meaning. Then you hide behind this lame defense regarding man's inability to know with certainty what the author intended.
As to defending our position, we have and we do. You don't. You just accuse us of arrogance for our level of conviction. Where's the grace in that, Dan? There is none. The fact is, we are indeed NOT mistaken until such time as someone can demonstrate that we are. That's all we've ever awaited from you, assuming you actually have some argument or proof to dissuade us from straying off the path of righteousness. It seems clear you don't, or you would provide it rather than whining about us lacking grace and humility.
I'm sorry, feo...did you say something? It sounded like completely irrelevant drivel posted to make yourself feel like you've said something that deals in reality.
What other things have you made up about me? Your desperate fantasies are entertaining. If you ever feel like actually trying to support your accusations with something akin to substance, that would be even better!
if one says 2+2=4, and says that means 2+2 can't =5,
Okay, so I'm reading the Genesis text and it says it equals myth. That is, Genesis = Myth is comparable to 2+2=4.
On what basis would we assume your claim that 2+2=5? (that Genesis is a literally scientific description of the creation?)
Why are YOU the one who gets to say what 2+2 equals?
~Dan
And that's the problem with you LEFTISTS. Genesis equals facts. The entire narrative is presented as history and not myth.
Genesis as fact destroys evolution, destroys same-sex fake marriage, etc, which is why your bias forces you to read it as myth. You can't accept the truth because it is too hard for you to swallow and still support all your heresy.
Genesis indeed = literal scientific description of creation, etc and there is no proof against it otherwise. It is indeed 2+2=4.
GOD is the one who said it is fact and Jesus said it is fact, but Trabue says it's myth. I think I'll stick with Jesus and God.
All mathematicians say 2+2=4, which is why I get to say it equals 4. But you say all the mathematicians are wrong and it really equals 5.
Which is more proof you are not Christians --- you worship a god of your own making.
The fact is that people, Scholars, scientists disagree with your hunch, Glenn. The question then is on what basis do you get to decide Genesis equals fact?
The reality is many Christians many scholars many scientists disagree with your hunch and affirm Genesis does clearly equal myth.
Why do YOU get to make the decision?
Fact is, you don't.
The fact is that people, Scholars, scientists disagree with your hunch, Glenn. ... The reality is many Christians many scholars many scientists disagree with your hunch and affirm Genesis does clearly equal myth
I know, us real Christians just have "hunches" while your ilk of idolaters always have "facts." The reality is that there are billions of people following false teachings but that doesn't negate what the truth actually is.
Again, the plain reading of the text, without practicing eisegesis, says Genesis is historical fact. The REAL Jesus of the Bible said it was historical fact. The various New Testament writers said it was historical fact. That's why I get to make the decision that it is historical fact.
You remain a God-blaspheming, Christ-hating pagan false teacher. End of discussion.
the plain reading of the text, without practicing eisegesis, says Genesis is historical fact.
Says YOU. I say it clearly says Genesis is myth.
Look, Dr Seuss books don't SAY outright that there was no talking cat who wrecked a house. By your measurement, then, The Cat in the Hat is reporting factual history, because apparently genre doesn't matter.
The point remains, YOU YOU YOU think that Genesis reads like factual history. I think it doesn't.
ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU GET TO DECIDE WHAT GENRE IT IS WRITTEN IN?
And before you say, "it's the plain reading of the text" one more time, I'll remind you that I'M looking at what seems to be the plain reading of the text, so that still begs the question: Why YOU? Why is it all about you and your friends and those who disagree with you disagree with God?
Do you not see the colossal arrogance of the claim?
And as a point of fact, Jesus never called Genesis literal history. It didn't happen. Never. Nor did God.
THAT is actual eisegesis, not what I'm doing.
~Dan
the plain reading of the text, without practicing eisegesis, says Genesis is historical fact.
Begging the question. Fallacy.
The REAL Jesus of the Bible said it was historical fact.
Never happened. Not one time. YOU said it, not Jesus and Glenn, YOU ARE NOT JESUS. If Jesus said that, you could quote him, but you can't because he didn't.
The various New Testament writers said it was historical fact.
Never happened. Not one time. YOU said it, not the NT writers and Glenn, YOU ARE NOT the NT writers. If they had said that, you could quote them, but you can't because they didn't.
That's why I get to make the decision that it is historical fact.
Stop conflating yourself with God. I'm embarrassed for you.
Seriously, Glenn, try stepping back a second and reading this exchange objectively, setting aside your emotional snits and irrational arguments and baseless claims... if an objective person read this exchange, do you not recognize how you are coming across as an incredible megalomaniac? Is that how you want to present yourself? Why?
~Dan
Allow me to illustrate:
Glenn says...
the plain reading of the text, without practicing eisegesis, says Genesis is historical fact.
The plain reading of a text, near the beginning of Seuss' Cat in the Hat...
and then something went BUMP!
how that bump made us jump!
we looked!
then we saw him step in on the mat!
we looked!
and we saw him!
the cat in the hat!
and he said to us,
'why do you sit there like that?'
'i know it is wet
and the sun is not sunny.
but we can have
lots of good fun that is funny!'
Now, a "plain reading of the text" would have us believe that there are talking cats who wear hats. That's a plain reading of the text IF we pay no heed to the genre. However, rational people pay attention to the genre. Given its many clues, clearly, the Cat in the Hat is written in a fantasy/children's style of writing. Similarly, Genesis is written clearly in a mythic style.
The first thing a responsible student of a text will do is determine genre.
So, given its obviously mythic genre, at least to many, many people, on what basis do you get the authority to "decide" it's a literal history?
The obvious answer is, you don't. You just don't. It's not your call to make.
No matter how long you insist "I REALLLLLLY think 2+2=5!" you still don't have the moral or scholarly or biblical authority to claim authoritative status to make that call. You just don't.
Sorry, I know that must hurt.
~Dan
God said He created everything in six days, and uses the days of work vs the day of rest as the comparison for man — i.e., six days labor, not billions of years or thousands of years or some inordinate number of years. Days. Exodus 20:11. If Genesis 1 isn’t literal history, then God is a liar.
Jesus pointed to the beginning, Gen 1, when he taught about marriage and divorce (Matt 19:4 ff, and others). If there was no beginning with one male and one female, then Jesus is a liar. Jesus also talks about Noah and the Flood, meaning he is teaching it as literal history.
Paul points to the first three chapters of Genesis every time he discusses Adam and his sin. In 1 Tim 2:14 Paul specifically uses the Adam and Eve story as to why women are not to be teachers over men.
Jesus speaks often of Abraham, as does Paul — that’s in Genesis. In fact, the origin of the nation of Israel is in Genesis.
Throughout the Bible all authors refer to Genesis as literal history.
Genesis is written as history and all the prophets and Jesus and Paul all refer to it as history, and yet YOU and your liberal ilk decide that it has to be myth so you can duck accountability to God for your idolatry, blasphemy, and heresy.
Again, the plain reading of the text says it is history and to say otherwise is bringing bias into the text.
I never conflate myself with God and to say such a thing makes you a fool. Anyone reading this exchange objectively would say you are a fool — unless they are fools themselves.
Do you even know the meaning of the word “megalomaniac”? Your use of it suggests not.
Oh, and to compare Genesis with Dr. Seuss only demonstrates YOUR contempt for the Bible.
And, yes, I do have the moral, biblical and scholarly backing to make the call that Genesis is history. You've got nothing but LEFTIST bias to pretend God approves of your perversion of His Word. You remain forever a fool.
God said He created everything in six days
Where? Answer: It didn't happen. YOU ARE INTERPRETING THIS, God has not told you this.
Straight up fact vs your hunch.
Don't speak for God, mortal.
If Genesis 1 isn’t literal history, then God is a liar.
Your inability to imagine and understand figurative language is not a failure on God's part.
Jesus pointed to the beginning, Gen 1, when he taught about marriage and divorce (Matt 19:4 ff, and others). If there was no beginning with one male and one female, then Jesus is a liar.
Your inability to imagine and understand figurative language is not a failure on Jesus' part.
YOU have extrapolated out meanings from Jesus' words that Jesus literally did not say. Don't conflate your hunches with Jesus' words.
Jesus speaks often of Abraham, as does Paul — that’s in Genesis. In fact, the origin of the nation of Israel is in Genesis.
SO DO I! And I speak of Adam and Eve, too. Doesn't mean that I take the stories in Genesis literally.
Your inability to imagine and understand figurative language is not a failure on God's part.
Genesis is written as history and all the prophets and Jesus and Paul all refer to it as history
No, Glenn. They very literally did not. You can not quote the place where they refer to it as literal history. You can't do it. Just back down and admit you've misspoke, man. Quit embarrassing yourself.
Last chance: Provide the quote where Jesus or Paul said, "Yes, Genesis represents literal history" (or words to that affect) or admit you misspoke/over-stated your case. You. Can't. Do. It.
If you could, you would. But you can't, so you don't.
Do you even know the meaning of the word “megalomaniac”? Your use of it suggests not.
Megalomaniac:
1. a person who is obsessed with their own power.
Glenn:
That's why I get to make the decision that it is historical fact.
"MY" interpretations are the same ones which the Bible teaches
Your failure to understand is not an indication of my not knowing what the word means.
Glenn's conviction in what he believes is not an example of megalomania except to grace-free false Christians looking to smear him.
At this point I stand waiting for Dan to present evidence that Theodor Seuss Geisel ever intended anyone to regard his children's stories...books of fiction...as actual historical events. That Dan would offer "The Cat In The Hat" as a legitimate comparison to any book of the Bible for any reason further indicts him as a liar, as well as one who does not hold the Bible in high regard.
Rather than insist that the Genesis stories are not factual or to be taken literally, I would suggest that Dan needs instead to provide any reason why it should NOT be taken that way, beginning first with some evidence that the authors are untrustworthy or were NOT intending them to be taken as such. Science cannot refute them, but can only state what data suggests at best. No outside source can be trusted without the some first hand knowledge behind them.
While references to OT stories by others in Scripture do not confirm those OT stories are actual events as described, neither is there anything whatsoever to suggest that those later characters didn't regard the OT stories as actual events unfolding exactly as described. More to the point, there isn't the slightest hint that later characters, including Christ, didn't.
So, as written, those later characters are more confirmation of the truth of the OT stories than not. The problem only exists when Dan insists that Scripture MUST refer to itself in a manner of Dan's choosing in order for it to be what others like Glenn (and myself) are convicted it is. Without that, Dan is free to reject all that does not fit with his preferred worldview.
The bottom line is that Dan cannot do what he demands of others, but hides behind the cowardly "I only said it's my opinion, not fact" defense, as if we didn't already know that.
Glenn's conviction in what he believes is not an example of megalomania except to grace-free false Christians looking to smear him.
There is a difference between believing strongly in one's opinions and conflating those opinions with God's Word or one's place with God's place...
That's why I get to make the decision that it is historical fact...
"MY" interpretations are the same ones which the Bible teaches...
...I CAN'T be mistaken on this point...
This is the definition of megalomania, at least from a non-psychologist's point of view. But then, you all don't believe in psychologists, do you?
At this point I stand waiting for Dan to present evidence that Theodor Seuss Geisel ever intended anyone to regard his children's stories...books of fiction...as actual historical events.
Never said he did, you appear to once again be unable to understand the meaning of my words.
But if that's the standard that YOU hold, by all means, present some evidence that God intended us to take Genesis as literal history.
Rather than insist that the Genesis stories are not factual or to be taken literally, I would suggest that Dan needs instead to provide any reason why it should NOT be taken that way...
I've done so multiple times. Are you suggesting I haven't? Here, very quickly, some valid reasons...
1. "The Bible" does not insist that we should take them as literal history.
2. God has not told us to take them that way. Nor has Jesus. Nor did any biblical authors.
3. We have no internal-to-the-Bible reason to take them literally.
3a. The fact that there are early stories referenced in later stories is not a compelling reason to insist upon taking them as history.
4. The text of Genesis READS like other mythical stories from that time period. It sounds mythical on the face of it.
4a. If you read any other "history" stories from the same time period, written in a similar style, YOU WOULD INSIST, "this is fictional... it's mythical..." and you'd be correct. You're holding the Bible to a different standard for no rational reason.
5. History scholars will tell us that writing literal history in the modern linear, factual sense evolved over time, beginning about 500 BC and still evolving for the next 1000 years. It simply did not exist as a genre back in the time period of the Genesis stories.
5a. Just as it would be silly to suggest that the text in Genesis was written in a science fiction genre would be silly, because the genre simply did not exist at the time, so too, is it not compelling to say that it must have been written in a literal history genre when it did not exist at the time.
5b. If it did exist at the time, where are other examples of literal history from the same time period? There are none, it simply didn't exist as a style.
5c. To suggest that, IF the authors didn't write in a modern history style, then they were not trustworthy or that they were liars is to impose a modern prejudice on ancient writings. It's a reading into the author's intent something that is not reasonable.
6. Known scientific data precludes a literal reading of the text.
...
7. Everyone - conservative Christians included - agree that there are some metaphorical, poetic or allegorical (ie, non-literal) writings in the Bible, so it's not the case that some insist that every line in the Bible is a literal history, factually told. We simply disagree on which ones are literal and which ones are not and to what degree, but we agree on the principle: Some stories in the Bible use imagery/are not literal. Additionally, not all of the imagery stories are identified as non-literal, but we use our reason to understand that they are not literal. Some of Jesus' parables, for instance, some of the Psalms, for instance.
These ARE reasons why we A. Should not insist upon a literal reading of Genesis as the only option and B. Why, indeed, we should reasonably consider at least to some degree, the Genesis stories to be using imagery, not telling literal history. Many very traditional but NOT Young Earth Creationists do this, to their credit. So again, it's a matter of where we draw the line on what is and isn't reasonably historical vs imagery, not IF we should draw a line.
Now, you may not agree with these reasons, Marshall, but they are very sound, legitimate reasons to consider my position to be rational. You simply can't say I haven't provided reasons.
beginning first with some evidence that the authors are untrustworthy...
As noted already, that an author writes in a non-literal history style is not a sign of untrustworthiness.
or were NOT intending them to be taken as such.
No one can prove an author's intent 5000 years later, Marshall. You certainly can't prove they intended them to be taken literally and I certainly can't prove they intended them non-literally. This is a moot and unreasonable point.
You DO agree that you can't prove at all the author's intent, right?
Science cannot refute them, but can only state what data suggests at best.
Science can and does refute a 6,000 year old universe, one created in six 24 hour days.
You'll have to take that up with all of Science.
~Dan
So, as written, those later characters are more confirmation of the truth of the OT stories than not.
An unsupported hunch. You're welcome to it, but it's not a given, just as a point of fact.
The problem only exists when Dan insists that Scripture MUST refer to itself in a manner of Dan's choosing in order for it to be what others like Glenn (and myself) are convicted it is.
I insist nothing of the sort. I merely note that there is nothing at all inherent in Scripture that insists Genesis is a literal history. Just as a factual reality. One could guess that, when Jesus references Adam or Abraham that he is endorsing a literally factual historical version of all their stories, but that's reading into the text something that isn't there.
So, people like me say that, given no internal biblical or "God"-reason to insist upon a literal history AND given that Genesis reads like a myth, comes from a time of myth, not history; and that a literal take is problematic from a biblical and rational and scientific point of view, why WOULD we guess that it must be literal history? There's nothing arguing in favor of a literal history except for tradition and emotional attachment to the stories as literal.
Now, I am certainly fine with you all holding your opinion by way of conviction that you ought to hold that opinion. That's completely fine with me. After all, I held that position for at least the first half of my life. I do not belittle or demonize folk who, like me for years, hold that opinion. I just expect them to be intellectually honest enough to admit it's an opinion and not one they can prove and not one that they should insist upon others agreeing.
That is, I'm giving you all a grace and a liberty that you (or at least Glenn, probably you) do not extend to others.
Without that, Dan is free to reject all that does not fit with his preferred worldview.
This of course is not my reasoning. Remember, I moved away from this position after being raised in it/believing it for ~30 years and I moved away from it not to support my "preferred worldview" but simply because I no longer held it to be a biblical, morally or rationally convincing opinion.
Disagree with my conclusions, Marshall, but this silly demonizing and making up false shit about my motives is beneath the dignity of a reasonable and moral adult conversation.
~Dan
I wrote that God said he created everything in six days and gave the passage. Trabue asks where God said that!!!!
Then Trabue says Gen. 1 is all figurative, but if it is figurative then there is no literal Adam and no literal fall and then the whole Christian faith is a lie.
I gave N.T. passage where Jesus actually made statements about marriage and creation and Trabue says it is all figurative and Jesus didn’t say it.
Trabue admits that he doesn’t take literally anything in the Bible and yet he claims to be a Christian.
Without the Bible being literal there is no Christian faith. Trabue has proven in his own words that he is not a Christian, and a rank false teacher and heretic.
Conversation is over for me. I can’t waste time with such foolishness.
(I’m still trying to figure out how I can be obsessed with my own power when I have no power over anything. More proof of Trabue’s foolishness — and rank stupidity and ignorance.)
Science can and does refute a 6,000 year old universe, one created in six 24 hour days
Um, no it does not. All they give is speculation based on assumptions and then make assertions. And they change almost daily.
Trabue accepts their speculations and assertions all the while denigrated factual evidence from Scripture.
I wrote that God said he created everything in six days and gave the passage. Trabue asks where God said that!
And I'm still waiting for an answer. You make claims as if your word is all we need. Thus saith the Glenn!
That doesn't cut it, man. Humble thyself and enter a debate with reason and support like an adult, not bluster and childish name-calling.
I gave N.T. passage where Jesus actually made statements about marriage and creation and Trabue says it is all figurative and Jesus didn’t say it.
What you said was, and I quote, "If there was no beginning with one male and one female, then Jesus is a liar."
What I pointed out was that just because you can't imagine it being possible does not make Jesus a liar. Jesus is under no obligation to make sense to you. I did not say that Jesus didn't make quotes about Adam and marriage. It didn't happen. I disagree with YOUR HUMAN (and, really, rather childish and shallow) interpretations of these passages.
See the difference?
Trabue admits that he doesn’t take literally anything in the Bible and yet he claims to be a Christian.
Glenn makes up fake stuff and yet he claims to be a Christian and, well, an adult capable of reason and honesty. Let's see some honesty and see you admit that I did NOT say I don't take anything literally in the Bible.
Can you do it?
Humble thyself, dear man. You can do it.
~Dan
I wasn't going to continue but this just had to be responded to.
I wrote that God said he created everything in six days and gave the passage. Trabue asks where God said that!
And I'm still waiting for an answer. You make claims as if your word is all we need. Thus saith the Glenn!
The man is abjectly stupid. Exodus 20:11 God is talking and says, “For in six days the LORD mad the heavens and the earth.”
And then he says Jesus could say such things but not mean what he says. Pure idiocy on Trabue's part.
Proof FOOL Trabue never read his Bible.
He tells everyone to be humble but is so arrogant about his being the only real understanding of the Bible that it makes me want to puke.
Now I'm finished with the most foolish person I've ever come across.
Okay, very good, you could find a verse where the author quotes God as saying "the Lord" made the world in six days. My apologies for doubting you could provide such a verse.
The obvious and immediate next question, however, is on what basis do you think God is insisting that this is six literal days? How do you know this isn't to be taken as metaphorical?
And I am glad to admit I was wrong in thinking you could find no verse like that, when you could, clearly. Will you, likewise, admit your errors in your many false claims? Just as a reminder, you wrongly claimed:
The REAL Jesus of the Bible said it was historical fact.
The various New Testament writers said it was historical fact.
Both false claims. Will you admit as much?
~Dan
"Does not the law also say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”
Is it for oxen that God is concerned."
Glenn would have to say, yes, because that is the literal meaning. Paul, however, does not. He rather finds the real truth of scripture belongs for us. That's why Paul allegorizes.
"Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop."
Not to mention the next chapter talks about baptism into Moses by clouds and sea and drinking from the rock that is Christ.
Allegorizing scripture to get meaning for us. Paul leads the way.
Back to the post, titled By The Numbers:
Toddlers killed more Americans than terrorists in 2015.
Feodor,
Taking the Bible "Literally" does not mean wooden literalness. It means taking the writing as the author intended it, including metaphors, analogies, similes, etc.
Here are some articles to teach you and your ilk how to apply proper hermeneutics when studying Scripture:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/08/basic-bible-interpretation.html
http://thecripplegate.com/literally-taking-the-bible-literally/
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/03/hermeneutics.html
It means taking the writing as the author intended it, including metaphors, analogies, similes, etc.
...and you read the Bible and strive to do this and I read the Bible and strive to do this. On what basis is YOUR conclusion/opinion the right one and given priority over mine and those who think as I do?
That is the Golden Question that you always leave abandoned, or just bluster through with something along the lines of "Because I AM THE ONE WHO IS RIGHT! And you are wrong!"
Which begs the question, "Says who? According to whom?"
Which always either goes ignored or blustered through with some version of "Says the Word of God! As I already told you!"
Which begs the first question which just goes or ignored or gets recycled around with this circular and self-serving reasoning.
See the problem, Glenn? Your appeal is to your own genius, and that is a faulty appeal.
~Dan
Glenn reads "pluck your eye out..." and takes it as hyperbole (rightfully so) and thus does not take it literally. He and I agree on that.
Glenn reads Genesis and takes it as fairly woodenly literal history. Other Christians disagree with that interpretation, to varying degrees. The question is, why should Glenn and his tribe be the ones who decide what genre/how literally to take it? ARE they the ones who decide?
The clear answer is a flat No.
What is there to disagree with in this obvious answer?
Yes, Glenn, that is the point we are making: And Genesis through Conquest is all mythic, spiritual literature that has to be read allegorically or analogically. These are the only ways Jesus and Paul interpret scripture. And sometimes, in transforming scripture by radicalize get it in love, you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye, but I say...
Radicalizing it in love.
Feodor,
Genesis was never meant to be mythic. It is written as literal history. The only reason you don't want it to be literal history is because it contradicts your worldview.
Again, if it isn't literal, then there is no literal Adam and Eve, no literal fall, no real sin and Judaism and Christianity are based on lies.
You are as foolish and stupid as Trabue, and as with him, I'm am finished with this conversation with you. Pearls before swine, ya know.
Genesis was never meant to be mythic. It is written as literal history.
Says who? On what basis must anyone accept your unsupported and shallow claim? Because it upsets you too much to consider anything else?
The obvious question remains unanswered, dismantling any credibility in the rather silly claims Glenn makes.
~Dan
Literal history, Glenn, has only been a concept since the scientific revolution that began slowly with Copernicus and Galileo. You are such a modernist.
And the only way Paul ever read Adam and Eve was as allegory. Paul leads the way in how and why we read scripture.
Generis itself reads Adam and Eve allegorically. After all, their story with a garden, a serpent (only ever recognized by Genesis as a serpent, nothing else, talk about myth), the Creation stories draw from a few older Summarian and Babylonian creation stories.
Feodor, may I ask, what is your case for thinking Paul read Adam, Eve as allegory?
Paul sees Adam as a type of Christ in Romans 5. Paul sees Adam and Eve as a typology of the marriage of the church and Christ, which is itself an allegory in Ephedians snd Timothy. Paul allegories the serpent as Satan.
None of the ideas that Paul introduces are literally there in Genesis.
And these are just some of the ways Paul allegories and analogies his scripture.
So, something more than just, "The text doesn't say it isn't literal, therefore it IS literal... that's how it seems to me so no other explanation can possibly be and thus, I CAN SPEAK AUTHORITATIVELY for the author and for God..."?
Interesting.
Thanks,
Dan
Paul pretty much allegories Adam throughout Romans. Romans is a brilliant, extended piece of allegorizing, typological theology.
Of course, I'm not disagreeing at all. Just wondering about the reasoning on your part vs the lack thereof on their part.
~Dan
If Glenn were true to himself (if deceit were honest, would be the same contradictory miracle), he'd have to accuse Paul of eisegesis for all his own ideas that he puts into the Genesis texts.
"The obvious and immediate next question, however, is on what basis do you think God is insisting that this is six literal days?"
As you insist that because Scripture does not tell us to take it literally, you are left with explaining how you can justify not doing so, since it also doesn't say anything about when not to take it literally. So, you use this crappy argument as just another dodge.
But since we aren't told one way or the other, the default would then to be take it literally, since it actually says "six days". That is, the first legitimate option for understanding. From there, one needs to find something IN SCRIPTURE to defend any notion that it is NOT to be taken that way. Going outside of Scripture is all fine and dandy if you consider that humankind is imperfect and thus not a reliable source to cite to negate the 6 day conclusion. (I say it is unreliable because there is no way to prove the conclusions of humankind based upon its scientific study.)
You continue with this dishonest line of questioning regarding "on what basis" or "according to whom" in order to avoid stepping up and fully defending your positions. You insist on doing as little as possible and when your faulty explanations provoke more questions, you cowardly fall back upon "it's my opinion" or "I don't see it your way" or some such "no shit" response (as in "no shit it's your opinion...the question is how you come to hold it).
All of your dancing with regards to which verse is metaphor or which one should be taken literally is diversion and smoke screen. There's no way to judge what you believe as worthy of adoption because you don't have the spine and/or honesty to defend it. We use Scripture easily enough to support our positions, and just as easily to demonstrate why yours is the crap it is.
So anytime you wish to question "by whose authority" or "on what basis", choose instead to make an actual case why our position is wrong, or why your alternative might be more than just your "please the world" attitude prefers.
"Generis itself reads Adam and Eve allegorically. After all, their story with a garden, a serpent (only ever recognized by Genesis as a serpent, nothing else, talk about myth), the Creation stories draw from a few older Summarian and Babylonian creation stories."
So it has been said. So it has never been proven. Atheists and false Christians like to cite this alleged "fact". Honest people don't put forth theory as fact. Find and honest person and ask him.
Look Marshall, the Bible speaks of the Earth's four corners and you do not think the world is a cube. Why not? Because it just isn't! You don't have to give it a second thought as to whether to take it literally or not because anyone can see it can't be literal.
Same thing! Exact same thing for taking Genesis literally.
What is your reasoning for not taking the four corners text literally?
"So it has been said. So it has never been proven. Atheists and false Christians like to cite this alleged "fact"."
All it takes to prove the fact is to read them, Marshall. Such a shame that you can't read.
"What is your reasoning for not taking the four corners text literally?"
First of all, a cube has eight corners.
Next, you're really comparing an expression with the entire text of a book? What's more, we have verifiable evidence of the earth's shape, not to mention various places in Scripture that refer to it as either round or spherical. We still have no verifiable evidence that the earth was created in whatever span of time suits any individual's belief or desire.
"All it takes to prove the fact is to read them, Marshall. Such a shame that you can't read."
I read quite well, feo, and unlike yourself, I understand what I read. I've never read anything that proves what you claim. There is only speculation, and that would be speculation of a type that serves atheists and false priests and false Christians. You're so common.
What's more, we have verifiable evidence of the earth's shape, not to mention various places in Scripture that refer to it as either round or spherical. We still have no verifiable evidence that the earth was created in whatever span of time suits any individual's belief or desire.
And there it is.
Marshall, whatever hunches you hold, we do have verifiable data that demonstrates the world is not 6,000 years old. Multiple layers of verifiable data in multiple fields of science based on multiple scientific laws. For the world to be 6,000 years old, it would undermine many basic observable scientific understandings and laws of nature.
So, EVEN IF you deny science, you can understand, I hope, that JUST LIKE you can know the the earth is not square (sorry about the cube) because the data is clear and so the expression CAN NOT be literal, so too, we all know that the earth is not 6,000 years old, wasn't created in six days, the flood didn't happen, etc, etc. We know that Genesis can't be literal for the exact same reason you know that "four corners" is not literal.
The other thing, Marshall, is that the 6,000 year old thing is a human invention that you are reading the Bible how you want to "fit" that idea. The Bible does not say that the earth is 6,000 years old, that Adam, Eve, or the ark story are literal, that the earth was created in six literal days, etc... that Genesis ought to be taken as literal history. THAT is a human theory. You all hold to the theory and then deny anything that would raise a question about that theory.
In other words, you're begging the question, assuming that the Young Earth Theory is the "right" theory and then denying other ideas because they contrast with the YET and an insistence on a literal Genesis, and it becomes a circular argument for you... doing that instead of asking "is the YET a rational and biblically sound idea...? and going from there.
Begging the question is a rational fallacy.
"I've never read anything that proves what you claim."
Meaning you have t read the creation narratives themselves. Such a shame you can't read.
"Meaning you have t read the creation narratives themselves."
Meaning "I've never read anything that proves what you claim." Such a shame you're you.
"Marshall, whatever hunches you hold, we do have verifiable data that demonstrates the world is not 6,000 years old."
We have no way to confirm any of the conclusions of anyone with regard to the age of the earth, be it the Old Earth people or the Creationist. None whatsoever. That we have data that leads some to conclude one thing rather than another is not proof on any level. It is, at best, evidence that might suggest one thing over another, but not proof of it.
"... so too, we all know that the earth is not 6,000 years old"
No. We DON'T "all know" any such thing. Unless of course you can cite the works of someone from 7,000 years ago, along with subsequent people from following generations so that there is no gap anywhere in between until we can get to someone who's existence is known to more than one culture. Then maybe, you can prove the earth is 7,000 years old. But millions? Those are just guesses at best based on calculations...not verifiable proofs.
And BTW, I don't "deny" science. I simply don't worship at its altar as you do. I'm aware of its limitations and those of...people...who comprise the scientific community. They are imperfect.
"We know that Genesis can't be literal for the exact same reason you know that "four corners" is not literal."
That is more untrue than your suggestion that you can use the same reasons one uses for not taking "four corners of the earth" literally. There's no similarity between them, even if you could make an intelligent argument for it.
"THAT is a human theory."
Sez you. You're not reliable on such things.
"You all hold to the theory and then deny anything that would raise a question about that theory."
For the umpteenth time (and that's a lot), I don't bother with whether or not the Genesis story is or isn't true BECAUSE it can't be proven either true OR false. I simply state, as I have for, like, ever, that God is fully capable of creating all things in whatever span of time He chooses, be it millions of years, six literal days or the blink of an eye. How it looks to us means nothing with regard to how it actually happened.
I also state that my faith in the gods of science is no where near as solid as my faith in God and His abilities. This is just one more area where we are vastly different.
"Begging the question is a rational fallacy."
This marks the first time where there has been any hint that you understand what "begging the question" actually means. Did you actually look it up this time? So sad it doesn't describe anything I've been doing. Pathetic, really.
You haven't read them. Because you wont. Because you're scared of what truth will do to you. Can't read. Can't not because you can't read the balloon words in comics. Can't because it will break you to read the truths of the world.
"THAT is a human theory."
Sez you. You're not reliable on such things.
As a point of fact, ideas about what genre this text or that text SHOULD be interpreted as ARE human theories. God simply has not told you otherwise. So, if not human, what else? You been speaking to the devil on the matter?
Marshall, you are a science and reality denier, there's just not really any room for discussion when one denies reality. Admit you made a simple human mistake with the quote above if you hope to carry on a rational adult conversation. Otherwise, well, I just don't have time to deal with delusional people.
"... so too, we all know that the earth is not 6,000 years old"
No. We DON'T "all know" any such thing...
And BTW, I don't "deny" science.
1. Scientific law:
Light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second, or 186,000 miles per second.
Do you understand and accept that reality, or do you deny it?
2. "The furthest objects visible, quasars, have been detected 13 billion light years away. After allowing for the metric expansion of space, this puts the lower limit of the age of the universe at near 13 billion years."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Starlight_problem
So, when you say...
Unless of course you can cite the works of someone from 7,000 years ago.. Then maybe, you can prove the earth is 7,000 years old.
We have some source from 7,000 years ago. We have some source from 13 billion years ago. The stars, which are so far away that given the reality of the speed of light, can't possibly be anything like a few thousand years old.
Do you deny this scientific reality?
It seems you do.
And that's just one reason to cast aside a literal interpretation theory (that humans like you have created/held on to) of Genesis. Seems you do deny science.
feo,
Evidently you're all about making unsubstantiated assertions as if they are actual fact. Whatever helps you sleep at night, dude.
"As a point of fact, ideas about what genre this text or that text SHOULD be interpreted as ARE human theories."
As a point of fact, you rely upon ambiguity to provide you the liberty to believe what you want to believe regardless of the genre of the text.
"God simply has not told you otherwise."
It's what God does tell me that is of concern. It is not mysterious. It's spelled out rather clearly. It is you who needs to believe so much is up for personal interpretation.
"Marshall, you are a science and reality denier..."
Not that you've ever been able to demonstrate or prove. What's true is that I do not worship at the altar of science as you do, choosing to believe scientists and their methods and tools are totally infallible with regard to determining that which they cannot prove.
"...there's just not really any room for discussion when one denies reality."
As you demonstrate time and time again with regard to the reality of what Scripture teaches.
"Admit you made a simple human mistake with the quote above if you hope to carry on a rational adult conversation. Otherwise, well, I just don't have time to deal with delusional people."
I've made no mistake that you've been able to point out and argue against. Your assertions do not equal such an argument nor do they equal proof of anything. And again, we find that you deride those you cannot convince with your weak debating skills as delusional. If one doesn't agree with Dan, there's something wrong with that person, not Dan. Got it.
1. I have no problem with scientific law. The speed of light is neither at issue nor something I dispute.
2. There's no way to determine that beyond the extent of man's ability to actually measure. From there it's only speculation. What's more, it in no way accounts for the miraculous. Thus, while from a scientific standpoint it might stand as most likely, when considering we're dealing with a most powerful God with abilities the extent of which mankind cannot begin to imagine, anything is possible, including a six-day creation and 6000 year old earth. Which is actually the case I'll find out when I go to meet my Maker. Until then, it has nothing to do with God's will for our behavior or how we are to understand it.
"Do you deny this scientific reality?"
I deny we can know with absolute certainty that it is indeed the reality, regardless of how it appears to those trying to ascertain such things. You simply accept it as gospel because it, to you, means you're more sophisticated than rubes who put all their faith in God and not men of science. You're free to worship who you like. I worship God and no one else.
In the meantime, you can continue pretending I deny science, when all I deny is the perfect infallibility with which you evidently believe scientists possess.
"...put all their faith in God...
The thing is, you're glomping ahold of a human theory, saying that theory equals god, then worshiping at the feet of a fundamentalist god, confusing the human for the divine.
Back on the Trump thing, Marshall, I'd love for you to read this article and respond to it...
http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-donald-trump-running-a-false-flag-campaign-to-help-h-1723925057
The gist is that Trump is a Clinton-supporting Democrat (as, in fact, he has been in the recent past) who has run this campaign to embarrass the GOP.
My question to you:
If you lend support to him/vote for him and it turns out it was all a ruse to expose the depth of racism and lack of morals or sound reasoning amongst GOP supporters, and that ruse works - the GOP is bankrupted and exposed and, of course, loses horribly - will you be embarrassed, ashamed, angry at yourself and the many other conservatives who were duped? What would be your response? Would you try to blame "liberals" for this or would you accept the blame amongst yourself and your own wing?
~Dan
As to your original comment here...
Immigration policy is not for the immigrant. It's for the host nation who allows immigration. It's for OUR benefit that we CHOOSE to let anyone into the country at all. It is NOT anti-American to deny entry to anyone for any reason whatsoever.
I believe our nation's founders would disagree and I am relatively certain that you can't back this up with anything other than your hunch and belligerence.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about immigration, in part...
"It [has] been the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them of whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom, and... the benevolence of this practice as well as its salutary effects [has] rendered it worthy of being continued in future times." --Thomas Jefferson: Proclamation, 1781. Papers 4:505
"America is now, I think, the only country of tranquility and should be the asylum of all those who wish to avoid the scenes which have crushed our friends in [other lands]."
--Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. Church, 1793. FE 6:289
"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular."
--Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
George Washington...
[L]et the poor the needy and oppressed of the Earth, and those who want Land, resort to the fertile plains of our western country, the second land of Promise, and there dwell in peace, fulfilling the first and great commandment.
...The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.
Ben Franklin...
Strangers are welcome because there is room enough for them all, and therefore the old Inhabitants are not jealous of them; the Laws protect them sufficiently so that they have no need of the Patronage of great Men; and every one will enjoy securely the Profits of his Industry.
======
To be sure, Jefferson (and others) were wary of too large of an influx at one time and expected people to adopt to our laws, but clearly, immigration policy is for "us" AND "them," in the eyes of at least these great thinkers.
fyi.
~Dan
Dan,
Regarding your link, it will be at least another day before I can peruse it properly. However, seeing "unrepentant bigot" in the very first sentence does little to assure me that I won't be engaged in another abject waste of my time, your offerings being routinely such. This one pejorative expression tells one all one needs to know with regards the leanings and biases of the author of the piece. The article to which this hyperlink takes the reader refers to Trump's citation of some study that deals with rape in Mexico, as if that's all that is available that documents rape by Mexicans, immigrants or otherwise, legal or otherwise. I've noticed some time ago how common it is how more common it seems that perpetrators of sexual crimes, as reported in my local newspaper, have Spanish names. To make note of this in no way is an indictment on all of Mexico, but to pretend the culture of another country might result in a higher percentage of sexual assaults is to make baseless assumptions regarding the similarities of all cultures. We know, for example, that the muslim culture has demonstrated and entirely unique regard of women. Why would you suspect similar differences are impossible in other cultures? You lefties prefer instead to pretend Trump's notice of this phenomenon indicates bigotry rather than to do your own honest due diligence on the matter. Far easier to tarnish opponents than to truly seek understanding.
A further skimming of the article suggests that there is nothing new there that has any real bearing on my position. It actually underscores one of the main points of my possible decision (which I might not actually make until I'm in the voting booth) to cast my vote for Trump: that we really don't know how he'll do the job as president, whereas we absolutely do know how Hillary will...and that can't be allowed.
I have absolutely no illusions about Trump, only the most desperate of hopes given that he has managed to, as did Obama, lure away so many who should know better, from backing actual conservative candidates. But he did so by understanding actual concerns of those who did support him throughout the primaries, and keying on those concerns.
Thus, ruse or not, the worst case scenario, that he either backs off to let Hillary win, or wins and "rules" as Hillary would have, is a possibility that has not escaped my personal observations on the situation. The fools are those who view him as the savior the nation really needs. They are every bit as foolish as are those who think that either Hillary or Bernie is what the country needs.
As to the GOP, I have no doubt you'd like to see Trump as the death of it. People like you have been hoping for that for some time, pretending you're seeing its demise happening before your eyes. Conservatives have been lamenting the failures of the GOP for at least as long, but for actual reasons, the most serious is its capitulation with leftist policies and notions. THAT is the bankruptcy of the GOP, not any bullshit assertion regarding the imagined "depth of racism and lack of morals". No party celebrates and cherishes those qualities as does yours. And that's been documented, analyzed and explained for a long time.
With regard to your weak attempt to pretend the founders saw immigration as you do, you couldn't be more wrong. Note the emboldened bits below:
From Jefferson:
"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules."
From Washington:
"[L]et the poor the needy and oppressed of the Earth, and those who want Land, resort to the fertile plains of our western country, the second land of Promise, and there dwell in peace, fulfilling the first and great commandment."
"...whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment."
The Franklin quote you chose does not refer to the character and behavior of immigrants, but I have no doubt that he would have concurred with the notion that particular expectations of those we admit are paramount, as it seems clear by my highlighted portions suggests of Jefferson and Washington. It is absurd to pretend that they had an "open borders" mentality, or one that simply allows for absolutely no discretion with regards who we let in, how many we let in and IF orSHOULD let in anyone. Those highlighted portions clearly indicate a priority in immigration policy, and that priority is the United States. Thus, you have actually supported my position rather well with your selections. All of what you offered is no more than three founders speaking to OUR decision and prerogative with regard to immigration policy. We admit based first on what it means to and for US.
? Who doesn't expect immigrants to be decent, hardworking people?! Of course they will be/have been! That misses the point I made: that immigration laws are not just for those here already, as you said.
Then you miss the point entirely. ANY expectation by the host country indicates that the purpose of immigration law is for the benefit of the host country. That we take in anyone at all may be a benefit to the immigrant. But that's not the same as asserting that OUR immigration laws are meant to benefit them. They're not. Once they are here, our laws, customs and way of life WILL BE a benefit to them, as they already know to one extent or another. Even the criminally-minded will see that, and bank on it as well.
Prove your hunch. I rather doubt you can.
~Dan
I know a far leftist "progressive Christian" who insists that all who post comments on his blog do it his way because it's his blog, his rules. This morally corrupt individual who claims he's an Anabaptist and constantly speaks for them all, only allows comments on his terms for the benefit of his blog. While he only has two readers, based on the numbers of those who actually post comments, no one is allowed to make their own rules with regard to content, tone or choice of words or terms. Yet, he welcomes all who wish to "enter", but only based on criteria of HIS choosing.
No one I've ever met, has ever allowed free access to anyone into their homes. Everyone, including the owner's own children, are required to act in a manner dictated by the homeowner and their presence is at the pleasure and for the benefit of the homeowner.
The nation works in exactly the same manner. Setting rules and standards for behavior or citizenship indicates that the benefit of the nation takes priority over any concern of anyone allowed to enter for any reason. Whatever benefit the visitor, immigrant or potential new citizen receives is contingent on first satisfying the benefits to the nation, just as is true of the homeowner and the wacky "progressive Christian" blogger.
None of this is proof of the fact (not hunch), but it is self-evident. No one purposely and routinely puts himself in a bad position in order for others to ungratefully take advantage and to one's own detriment.
Read this. In it you'll find quotes of the founders that brings clarity to the misused quotes you've offered.
While finding that, I also found this, which well describes the abuses of Scripture by those like yourself and those you support with regards to immigration.
Let's take a second to notice that Narshall cannot do anything with Genesis' borrowed mythic narratives other than deny them without any argument. "Why, no, that's not a Jewish star."
There's nothing I need to do with a mere speculation of Genesis plagiarism. YOU, on the other hand, must bring to bear proof that such borrowing ever actually happened that isn't more than a mere comparison of similarities between Genesis and any other culture. I'll wait here while you do nothing but pretend you know anything at all.
Here's a little something regarding a candidate with values that feo shares.
Oh no! Hillary allegedly said a bad word in 1974!
Trump:
“It’s true you have better hair than I do, but I get more pussy than you do.”
“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”
“If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?”
“26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?”
“Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers."
And all more recent than the 1970s. And all not disputed, he boasts about his sexual conquests and flings with married women. The man is an unrepentant pig and proud of it. So, by all means, take racial/religious slurs seriously and hold in contempt those who say them. But be consistent. When you point out an alleged quote like that to denigrate one candidate when YOUR candidate that YOU will support with a vote regularly makes racist, sexist and vulgar claims of the worst sort, then you expose they hypocrisy amongst many on the right.
Also, there's this account, if we're taking alleged events into consideration...
"Trump reportedly ripped out fistfuls of Ivana’s hair and stripped her naked. “Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified…It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”"
Or how about the alleged rape of a 14 year old sex slave girl!?
But it's all in good fun when it's a good ol' white rich spoiled boy, right?
~Dan
Here's an honest and moral conservative telling it like it is about Trump. God bless Russell Moore...
1. “Donald J. Trump stands astride the polls in the Republican presidential race, beating all comers in virtually every demographic of the primary electorate. Most illogical is his support from evangelicals and other social conservatives. To back Mr. Trump, these voters must repudiate everything they believe.”
2. “Mr. Trump tells us “nothing beats the Bible,” and once said to an audience that he knows how Billy Graham feels. He says of evangelicals: “I love them. They love me.” And yet, he regularly ridicules evangelicals, with almost as much glee as he does Hispanics.”
3. “In a time when racial tensions run high across the country, Mr. Trump incites division, with slurs against Hispanic immigrants and with protectionist jargon that preys on turning economic insecurity into ugly “us versus them” identity politics.”
4. “His personal morality is clear, not because of tabloid exposés but because of his own boasts. His attitude toward women is that of a Bronze Age warlord. He tells us in one of his books that he revels in the fact that he gets to sleep with some of the ‘top women in the world.’ He has divorced two wives (so far) for other women.”
5. "We should also count the cost of following Donald Trump. To do so would mean that we’ve decided to join the other side of the culture war, that image and celebrity and money and power and social Darwinist ‘winning’ trump the conservation of moral principles and a just society."
6. “What concerned me was the cloaking of Trump in spiritual garb, saying that he has as Jesus taught us, borne fruit. If character matters, as evangelicals have been saying for fifty years, then character matters. This is a man who has broken up two households, who had made money off of breakup families and exploiting the poor in the casino gambling industry, and has used racially-charged slurs against various people and groups.”
7. "Trump has made his living as a casino mogul in an industry that preys on the poor and incentivizes immoral and often criminal behavior,"
...
and I can't find the quote, but Moore points out the ugly hypocrisy of the religious right in their bitter opposition to Clinton because of an affair which he repented of and the support of this clearly brazenly immoral (by evangelical terms) man. Russell Moore, at least, has some consistency and recognizes the hypocrisy of evangelicals, even if most evangelicals don't.
~Dan
"... isn't more than a mere comparison of similarities between Genesis and any other culture."
Marshall, if this is as far as your little pea brain can go, I'm fine with that. Because, unwittingly, you've acknowledged that Genesis is myth "similar" to other culture's creation stories. You've acknowledged that Genesis cannot be taken as science any more than any other "similar" culture's creation stories.
If all you find is myth comparable to myth and not necessarily used as a source, I'm fine with that. Not knowing it, and soon denying it, you just revealed that you really know the deal... you know what Genesis is and you agree with me, with Dan, with all real scholarship. You know the game your whirlybird mechanic idiots play.
Thank you, Marshall. Let me say thank you for that little peep at an unconscious conscience tucked way back into a puny corner of your little pea brain. You did it!
Wow, Dan. You're really incredible with the level of your hypocrisy. Bill Clinton was a known womanizer and was accused by at least ten women of sexual assault and/or harassment. He carried on affairs with at least seven women. His history and Hillary's enabling of it are detailed in a book called The Clintons' War On Women. So once again you're highlighting Trump's sins while attempting to downplay or outright dismiss Clinton's. Make all the comparisons you want. Like feo, you actually support Clinton, as you supported Obama (who supports Clinton) and I have no doubt you supported Bill Clinton. You support sexual immorality as it is, unless you can use it to smear someone you oppose as do now with Trump.
Don't talk to me about hypocrisy for considering Trump for president, since my hand is pretty much forced should I go ahead and cast that vote. YOU, on the other hand, vote for the Clintons, Obamas and Sanders of this world willingly and eagerly and they all support sexual immorality of one kind or another (unless they think they can get votes by saying they don't).
And now you're saying that Trump speaking proudly of his dalliances and exploits is somehow worse than your people when they try to hide and cover up theirs???
You're too much.
"Because, unwittingly, you've acknowledged that Genesis is myth "similar" to other culture's creation stories."
Good gosh you're stupid. You're so desperate to get the upper hand that you'll say just about anything that forces its way out your backside, won't you? My statement does not in any way acknowledge Genesis is myth, no matter how badly you wet yourself.
There is this meme regarding a novella that describes the sinking of an "unsinkable" ocean liner. It is fiction. But by your logic, that makes all books about the Titanic disaster fiction as well. I wonder how often you walk into walls with your head so far up your ass. Speaking of which:
"You know the game your whirlybird mechanic idiots play."
You're still outgunned by that "whirlybird mechanic", never having made one move to dispute, refute or prove false anything he and his partner said with regard to why some Levitical laws apply and others don't. Not only are you a false priest, you're a sorely ignorant one and a coward to boot. However, I'm sure you totally impress the other inmates at the home.
1. Hillary Clinton has had no affairs, so you can't blame her for her husband's sins.
2. Bill Clinton had the decency to at least act ashamed.
3. There is a huge difference between being shamed by your misdeeds and celebrating them, like Trump does. He us amoral.
4. I voted twice against Bill Clinton precisely because of his character problems. Even though he was, by most measures, a very good president. I pushed for him to resign after the Lewinsky debacle.
So you can see that I have the character and integrity not to vote for someone I believe to be a fatally flawed candidate because of his character. You appear willing to set aside your morality. That's on you, not on me.
I felt Clinton was reprehensible for taking advantage of a 20 year old woman because she was so young. You're prepared to vote for a child and wife rapist.. and that is fair because you appear willing by your measure to accept innuendo as evidence.
Actually, that's a good question. If it were proved that Trump raped his wife, would you then be unable to vote for him? Or if it were proven true he raped a fourteen-year-old child who was a sex slave! would that be enough for you to not be able to vote for him? Or as Trump said, himself, if he killed someone in the middle of the street, would that be enough for you to not vote for him?
Show me a photo of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox, Marshall, and you'll have won.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic
"... isn't more than a mere comparison of similarities between Genesis and any other culture."
You're comparing Genesis to other creation myths and concluding that they are similar.
At least, that rational remainder of your brain that you're not aware of concluded that other creation myths and Genesis are similar: all various cultural efforts ("similarities of culture") of ancient mythologizing times to make stories that explain things.
Dan,
You again are standing on the very weak argument that one morally bankrupt person is better than another. Doesn't work that way. Either one is morally bankrupt. That you prefer the bankruptcy of one over the other means nothing, but instead indicts your own character for even daring to use such a weak defense. That is, unless you're saying you're not going to vote. But assuming that possibility is reality, you're among those willing to let the worst happen because you haven't the courage to endure the lesser possibility, as if 400 dead isn't preferable to 4000 when there's no viable third option. But let's look at your list:
"1. Hillary Clinton has had no affairs, so you can't blame her for her husband's sins."
Actually, there are those who insist there have been, including lesbian affairs. Don't be surprised to hear Trump bring them up at some point, because that's what he does. To the extent that they're true can't be known without either her or her alleged partners admitting it publicly. But as you're throwing around allegations, you can't dismiss ANY of those leveled against your candidate without dismissing those against Trump.
"2. Bill Clinton had the decency to at least act ashamed."
"Acting" ashamed works in your world, Danny-boy? I'm not surprised. He's a serial philanderer. When is real contrition proven?
"3. There is a huge difference between being shamed by your misdeeds and celebrating them, like Trump does. He us amoral."
All you can say is Bubba "acted" ashamed. The numbers don't suggest he can be trusted to NOT be as proud of his misdeeds as Trump appears to be. It's easy to be ashamed when another shot at the White House is on the line.
"4. I voted twice against Bill Clinton precisely because of his character problems."
So, in '92 you voted for Bush? Perot? Marrou? Fulani? Hagelin? Lyndon LaRouche? Or in '96 you voted for Dole? Perot again? Probably Moorehead or Harris? I'll have to take your word of it. But then again, you support the Democratic Party, which, like you, supports sexual immorality. So you pick the immorality you like, and use that which you don't like to paint others as too evil. Typical.
What's more, you ignore the fact that women came forward to insist that Clinton forced himself upon them. Is it that he didn't always succeed in penetrating that you don't feel he's the equal of Trump? Or you just aren't willing to consider that Hillary enabled that behavior by attacking Bubba's accusers for political gain. She may as well have sexually assaulted them herself. She's like the freakin' getaway driver!
"Actually, that's a good question. If it were proved that Trump raped his wife, would you then be unable to vote for him?...etc."
Actually, that's a stupid question. If Trump was found guilty of any of that stuff, he couldn't possibly continue his campaign, much less win. I'd be forced to find another viable possibility for halting the further destruction of the United States of America by leftist forces.
But, hey! You're likely not supporting someone so morally corrupt as Hillary, anyway, right? So who will it be? A write in for socialist Sanders? Or perhaps Gloria LaRiva? Emidio "Mimi" Soltysik? Jerry White? Alyson Kennedy? Or are you going all out for Monica Moorehead?
If indeed character counts to you (even assuming what passes for character in YOUR world), I am not impressed by any leftist possibility given what leftist philosophy has done throughout history and the world. That's not "character" at all.
And please keep in mind what I continue saying: I don't support Trump. Thus, I'm not so much voting for him as I am against the alternatives...the Democratic Party/socialism. I don't want ANY scumbag in the Oval Office. Period. Not voting for one means I'm helping the other. All I can go on is probabilities for the future of the nation. THAT'S what I'm voting for. More acceptable probabilities.
"Show me a photo of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox, Marshall, and you'll have won."
I don't have to. I've already "won". You're just too stupid to see it.
What's with the Titanic link? Are you trying to suggest I'm unaware there was actually a ship by that name that hit an iceberg? I'm not comparing actual events with a fiction book, you sorry and pathetic child. I'm comparing a fiction book against books that speak of actual events. By you're logic, because one is fiction with a similar story-line, I must regard books of the actual events in the same way. THAT'S what your comparison of myth to Scripture does. It assumes the books on the actual Titanic cannot be taken seriously. Similarities between the creation stories of other ancient cultures and Scripture are only that...similarities. But false priests and atheists need to believe those myths make Scripture myth as well. Thus...
"You're comparing Genesis to other creation myths and concluding that they are similar."
...stands as just one more lie because it falsely labels Genesis as myth. I am not comparing Genesis to "other" myths. I'm comparing Genesis to myths. In order to use the word "other", Genesis would have to be myth as well. I'm not a false priest, so I don't view Scripture as myth. I've never denied similarities between any story of Scripture and the tales of other cultures. I simply don't have a false priest/atheist speculation about why such similarities exist. I don't fear BS accusations the result from not accepting as fact that which is not proven to be so, especially that which has no possibility of being so proven. YOU, on the other hand, are a blithering idiot.
Briefly back on topic. Michael Medved was interviewing a Muslim woman the other day who did a fine job making the point that many/most American Muslims are committed to peace and assimilation. Where she lost credibility was her insistence the the death penalty for apostasy was not something that was a part of Islam at all, while ignoring the fact that there are a significant number of Muslim countries which have codified the death penalty for apostasy in their legal systems. But even if you take the death penalty off the table, what kind of religion would think it's appropriate to punish someone who chooses a different path?
Besides Scientology.
I wonder what their "holy book" says about dealing with apostates. Will have to do some research. But as if that isn't enough, there are quite a few other practices that need to be justified as well.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Galatians 1:8-9
Feo, that passage applies to you and the false gospel you've been spreading for years.
So you think Paul and Islam are in the same basket, Glenn? It doesn't seem that Craig and Marshakk would agree with.
I'm not fearing you, Glenn, you have a gospel of hate. I know where youre headed.
How in the world did you come to the conclusion that I think Paul and Islam are in the same basket?!?!? I was addressing YOUR false gospel and applying that passage to you, moron.
I have no gospel of hate -- that is another lie from your lying mind, which you inherited from your father, the father of lies.
I "hate" only false teachers and false teachings because they blaspheme God. Oh, wait, you are one of those false teachers!!!!! It's called righteous hate -- sort of the way God hates divorce.
Go back under your rock little boy.
Indeed, Glenn. The irony of feo posting Ga 1:8-9 is astounding given his constant promotion of non-Christian doctrine! He is very much like Dan when he cites passages without drawing the line between it and his accusations. For example, he has not demonstrated that either of us have preached a gospel other than the true Gospel. He merely makes assertions. I believe it's because he knows he cannot, otherwise he would. Watch for his response. I'd wager that he'll assert it would be a waste of his time.
Craig asked, "But even if you take the death penalty off the table, what kind of religion would think it's appropriate to punish someone who chooses a different path."
I gave an answer: Cgristianity in Galatians.
Glenn, you agreed that the passage in Galations does indeed promote punishing someone "who chooses a different."
So, in Craig's book, you and I find the Christianity does the same thing that Islam does, that is if one slavishly thinks God lives in a two thousand year old text rather than that the text serves God.
Therefore, we've taken positions opposite what Craig infers and Marshall concurs.
Can't help if you two are so obtuse you cannot follow your own statements.
Feo,
You lie to misrepresent people. And you are too stupid to understand the truth.
You have no use for the Bible except to abuse it for your agendas, which makes you a son of Satan.
Can't deal with logic, Glenn? So you hyperventilate?
Wow. feo thinks "eternally condemned" is the same as having one's head hacked off. Incredible.
"Craig asked, "But even if you take the death penalty off the table, what kind of religion would think it's appropriate to punish someone who chooses a different path."
I gave an answer: Cgristianity in Galatians."
To condemn isto:
1. express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure. or
2. sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death.
However, it isn't the execution of the sentence. One can be condemned to death (in the case of false priests and homosexuals) by their own actions. That is, by their actions they condemn themselves. I believe it is in this sense that you are eternally condemned, feo, for being the false priest you are. Said another way, it isn't Christianity that condemned you (or "punished" if you want to use that word). You have condemned yourself.
So your response to Craig is as false as you are.
I think the Galatians passage about being "eternally condemned" is about eternal punishment for not accepting the true faith and preaching a false one. Everyone who refuses to accept the salvation of the true Christ is eternally condemned.
Marshall thinks I am a God in that I can do something by my own power that is eternal. Glenn, as usual, doesn't have the guts to commit either way. Who's the agent of condemnation according to Paul, Glenn?
Feo,
You aren't worth wasting my time on.
Because you can't answer. You've been stabbing at trying to participating so far. Why stop now? You can't get out of the corner you're in.
Would you like some help, Glenn?
Feo, you're an ass. You are unteachable. I'm not in a corner, I just find you worthless for wasting time on.
Glenn senses danger. Give him his due, Glenn would rather curse the silence created by his abdication from the argument rather than try some stupid nonsense. Marshall, on the other hand, realizing he's lost, doesn't have enough self-respect even to commit dialogic suicide like Glenn. Marshall will just start denying things, blowing up his own arguments to try to cover up failure.
So, noble, suicidal, Glenn, let me help you with setting the stage before you fall on your sword just so we're all clear about the logical trap that's driving you to this:
Craig set the terms of comparing Islam with any other religion on the issue of punishment for choosing another path. His words, not mine. Galatians 1:8-9 is killing Glenn. At least in his own mind due to his logical rigidity reduced to absurdity.
Namely, who is carrying out the eternal condemnation on those who choose another path froth one Paul laid out?
1) If it is God, then Christianity is just as cruel as Islam in Craig's terms.
2) if it is Feodor, as Marshall argues, then Feodor has the power of gods to carry out an action that lasts for eternity, keeping him in condemnation for perpetuity.
Poor Glenn. He doesn't know what to do. Now look at all that blood.
Marshall and I both run circles around your illogical foolishness. You have such an ego that you think we are required to engage you in your foolish arguments and assertions. Marshall may enjoy putting up with you but I have better things to do than to debate someone who doesn't listen to rational discussions and has no intent of every learning anything from people who just happen to know a lot more about truth than you do.
So I'm not going to bother responding to you again on this string. Your ignorance and foolishness is so astounding that it is a waste of time. Of course that is because you are spawn of Satan -- why else would you claim that large portions of Scripture is myth while at the same time claiming to be a Christian? Go play with your snakes.
"Marshall thinks I am a God..."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!
OH. MY. GOSH!!! WHAT an idiot!!!
You simply are incapable of following along, or worse, you consciously pervert the clear meaning of my words in order to posture yourself as some kind of intellect. The problem is, your every attempt exposes just how lacking in intellect you are.
But thanks for the laugh.
As to the point, even in civil law, one convicts one's self by their actions. The law stands already. No one has any excuse for their condemnation if they are in breech because the law stood as warning. The same is true with God's will. He states what pleases and displeases Him and the consequences for YOUR choice in how to proceed in life is already known. It doesn't make you a god. It speaks to the ramifications of assuming you can dictate right and wrong apart from Him. Any remedial student of Christianity would know this. You need to sue whomever instructed you in the faith you know so poorly.
On the other hand, islam teaches its followers to take action against the unbelievers and apostates. Christianity teaches us to leave them to their fate when all attempts to remind them of God's will fails to reach them. Indeed, I should have shaken the dust off my sandals a long time ago with the likes of you. But I find you too entertaining in your vain attempts to posture yourself as intellectually and theologically superior. If you're an example of higher learning, seminaries and theological institutions need to be abolished.
You're not keeping your eye on the ball, Marshall. We're in Galatians not Leviticus and Paul is writing about the good news if Jesus Christ.
But you go again, you Judaizer, you. When you hear "gospel" you think law. What a spiritual prison you're in.
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!"
This a new thing. Not a law. And, in answering Craig, it's a primary place where Christianity punishes someone with eternal condemnation should they follow a different path.
600 years later, the Holy Quran will do a similar thing.
In fact, Galatians is all about you, Marshall. You're the kind of Judaizer whom Paul is so kissed off about. You make the Gospel into laws and require everyone else to follow them. You're all over the first few chapters.
I'm newly reminded that it's people exactly like you that Paul thinks should be condemned. Congratulations, you made it to the New Testament only to be damned by it.
"You are unteachable. I'm not in a corner..." "I have better things to do than to debate someone who doesn't listen to rational discussions..."
But, as the superlative teacher that you want to be, Glenn, you don't have a rational answer for an easy question:
"Namely, who is carrying out the eternal condemnation on those who choose another path froth one Paul laid out?"
Poor Glenn, takes so long to shut up because he's busy writing how he's going to shut up now.
feo, you sick and twisted child,
My eye has not left the ball. But you swing without hope of making contact, because you don't even recognize the ball. This is likely due to the inadequate Christian training you received at Skeeter's Bible Unavercity & Bait Shop.
"...let him be eternally condemned!"
This constitutes a self-inflicted status. To "be" is one's identity, the qualities of an individual, one's condition or state of "being". One IS condemned by virtue of having preached a different gospel, NOT because of any overt mandate of Christianity.
What's more, Paul did not ignore the Law. He did not encourage anyone to ignore the Law. He merely affirmed that it was no longer adherence to the law which gave us any hope of salvation. But in doing so, he most clearly and unambiguously affirmed that the Law provided us with the guidance to know what sin was. That is, to be in breech of the law is sinful and thus is behavior not pleasing to God. Our adherence to the Law, most particularly moral/behavior law, is an indication of our true acceptance of Christ.
So, as I've often asked Dan without response in return, I now ask you: Just how far astray from God's will can one be and still be saved? That is, how much of a scumbag can feo be before his alleged acceptance of Christ is no more than lip service? Likely you're way too far gone at this point to even know you've crossed that line. Acceptance of Christ is not liberty to do what you like.
Oh my God, Marshall, you are way too funny trying to parse out the Greek using the English be and being! Stop it!! You're like a15 year old nerd moved to try to philosophize from reading a Stephen King novel!!!
ἀνάθεμα ἔστω!
Present Imperative Active, Marshall!!!!!!!! Oh, Lord Jesus, help him please!!
Try again, but please be careful... you'll kill us from laughter!
feo,
As far as I can tell, you're an idiot. "Present Imperative Active"? That might be true of the command "to let", as in "Let him be..." or "Let him be eternally condemned" (or let him be accursed, or let him be anathema).
But I'm speaking of the concept of being. Paul says "Let him 'be'..." In other words, one already is, so let him remain so. So the command (present imperative active) is "to let" the person who gives a false gospel remain the accursed his giving of the false gospel has made him.
As I review commentaries on the verse, with particular attention to this command to let the person be accursed, the translations range from eternal punishment, which is not ours to give as Christians (hence the "letting" of what already exists), to merely separating ourselves from such a person so as to prevent his false gospel from leading others astray.
In any case, to suggest in any way that this verse is some kind of parallel to the mandates of islam to kill apostates takes a real feo to make such a case. It's a ludicrous stretch no matter how you look at it. But then, that's what you do, isn't it?
Craig's question then, goes unanswered by feo, despite his desperate attempts to draw a parallel that does not exist. The difference, in fact, is stark:
---islam commands the killing of apostates and heretics
verus
---Christianity encourages separation from apostates and heretics
The former is a direct action of punishment every adherent is mandated to carry out. The latter is allowing God deal with the apostate/heretic in His own way. Craig's question, once again, was this:
"But even if you take the death penalty off the table, what kind of religion would think it's appropriate to punish someone who chooses a different path?"
Christianity does not in any way suggest as appropriate the punishment of one who chooses a different path. We are not in any way encouraged or mandated to do so. Letting someone be anathema is not a command to punish, but a command (if you will) to allow the person his fate which is the result of his own actions. This admonition, to separate from the feo's and Dan T's of Galatia, was a warning to pay attention to what the Gospel really says (that is, read your Bible), and not be misled by those who seem to be teaching what superficially sounds like the same thing. If this isn't a lesson with the likes of you and Dan in mind, I don't know what is.
But to any extent that it can be called a punishment, it would be one of marginalizing the feo's and Dan's, not killing them, where repentance and re-alignment with the true Gospel is no longer possible. Yet still, they (you) have only punished them(your)selves by doing that which is clearly prohibited.
Jesus God what an idiot.
Present tense in Greek: ongoing act with no end.
Imperative mood: a command
Active voice: If the subject of the sentence is executing the action, then the verb is referred to as being in the active voice.
Paul is newly announcing that people who follow a different are condemned by him forever.
This is why Glenn was smart enough to shut up. He knew the implications to Craig's question. Whereas you, Marshall, did just as I said: deny, backed up in your own arguments, destroy simple reason in a smoke and mirrors effort to obfuscate. Such is your sellout of what disassociated scraps of intelligence you let dangle.
I'll let Craig decide for himself if this better or worse than having one's head chopped off. I admit I couldn't choose. No moral scheme ought to dredge up some difference in these ancient, outmoded codes of condemnation.
Paul is newly announcing that people who follow a different gospel are condemned by him forever.
I can't help it if you can't read scripture.
I read Scripture just fine. You haven't demonstrated that I'm lacking in any way in that regard. Nor have you demonstrated that you clearly understand the passage. To that end, I purposely spoke of various commentaries on the specific point of anathema. Various translations have varying implications. One commentary, for example, insists the original doesn't use the word meaning "eternally". But the consensus suggests separation from the rest of the church, rather than hellfire. And you couldn't choose between that and decapitation? Yeah. You're really smart.
As to who's doing the cursing, you are incredibly foolish to presume it is Paul. First of all, nowhere in the passage, despite my comparing several translations, does it suggest Paul is doing the cursing/condemning, if you want to abide a version from which you are inferring the feo (false teacher) is cursed or condemned. "Let him be" denotes that he already is, not that he is about to be. Paul is saying that the rest of the church should accept that the feo (false teacher) is cursed/condemned.
Secondly, Paul doesn't have the authority to condemn anyone. This is because, and this is something they might not have stressed at Skeeter's Bible Unavercity and Bait Shop, Paul is not God. So again, if the feo (false teacher) is condemned or cursed, it is by virtue of his being a feo and God's Will has been violated.
Thirdly, Paul said:
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.” (Romans 12:14)
Is Paul a "Do what I say, not what I do" kinda guy? I don't think so. So as he has no authority to condemn, preaches that one is not to curse others and is really concerning himself in the passage with adhering to the proper Gospel message in the first place, your interpretation is total crap and you should seek out Skeeter to get your money back.
Can't help you with the inconsistencies of Paul or the New Testament. I can't help you that in Galatians Paul writes things that are hard if not impossible to agree with. I can't help you with your Judaizing misconception of faith.
And I can't help you if you're too fragile to accept truths with the confidence that faith is up to the task and even grows with receiving hard truths.
All I can do is to read Galatians honestly for what it is. Scripture deserves that. And in Galatians 1:8,8 Paul is not talking about persecuters.
That's just your inner cowardice unable to deal again and so making up nonsensical lies.
I don't believe I've posited that Paul is inconsistent. Indeed, I certain my comments assume he is consistent and therefore you are full of crap with your lame and forced interpretation.
I also don't see that I've asserted in any way that I don't agree with the things about which Paul writes. You're projecting again because you haven no real charges to level against me. Boo-hoo.
You can't help that I don't have a "Judaizing misconception of faith". You certainly have yet to prove that I do.
"And I can't help you if you're too fragile to accept truths with the confidence that faith is up to the task and even grows with receiving hard truths."
YOU don't even know what you mean here. I can't conjure and example of any actual truth that I have any trouble accepting. YOU, on the other hand, wither in the face of more than a few.
"All I can do is to read Galatians honestly for what it is."
While that's certainly a noble and righteous pursuit, you aren't demonstrating that you're the least bit successful in the endeavor. Mere lip service won't get it done.
"And in Galatians 1:8,8 Paul is not talking about persecuters."
So glad, then, that I never said he was. However, do you believe Paul encourages cursing people for any reason? That there is some case where he can assume the authority to curse anyone, especially for eternity? Are you really suggesting that Paul ignores or rejects the notion that vengeance is the Lord's to mete out? Do you ever read any of Scripture honestly?
I know you have that pathetic need to believe I'm all manner of evil. You really need to see someone about that. False allegations won't disguise your abject failure as an intellectual. It just confirms you're a false priest.
"And in Gslatians 1:8, [9] Paul is not talking about persecuters."
"So glad, then, that I never said he was."
Don't be stupid about what you inferred (although you may not know the word, "inferred." If you agree that Paul is not talking about persecutors then Bringing up Rimans is senseless (your favorite genre.
"However, do you believe Paul encourages cursing people for any reason?"
Never said that, liar. I'm simply quoting him. Paul announces a brand new thing: he condemns for termite anyone who chooses a different gospel from the one he preached (salvation by faith not law).
That's why I can't help you. You're in disputes with Paul and you better work it out fast with him before eternity sets in.
Or, you can go a less severe route, convert to Islam, then discount it and go see ISIS. All they'll do is chop off your head. In your case, a better outcome than your current position.
I know this is beyond you, though I can't see how for such a highly educated and well read intellectual, but citing that passage was for the purpose of demonstrating that Paul does not go around calling down curses on people. Yeah, he did cuss out the High Priest who had him slapped, but he repented of it knowing it is wrong. It doesn't in the least matter that the verse I cited referred to persecutors, unless you now rank violations for him in terms a false priest being worse than one who persecutes another, if there is any real difference harm done to an individual.
But it really doesn't matter. The point is that Paul is not condemning the false teachers, because it isn't his job to do so. Again, the verse says "LET him be cursed/condemned/anathema" and in doing so, the punishment, be it eternal or mere separation from the people, is self-inflicted by the false teachers' actions...very much like your punishment will be for YOUR false preaching.
"Never said that, liar."
I can't be lying if I'm asking a question for the purpose of having you clarify your position. But you can't help projecting your own character flaws on others, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
"That's why I can't help you."
No. You can't help me because I only seek out intelligent people well versed in Scripture. That isn't you, or you wouldn't insist my better(that is, "accurate") understanding doesn't demonstrate in any way that I'm "in dispute" with Paul.
All those books...all that education...so very sad.
You are lying now about scripture, Marshall. Yet another sellout on your faith. The Greek verb form is present imperative active. Paul is the subject of the verb doing the cursing (active voice) and those who choose another gospel are the objects of the verb getting cursed. It is s command (imperative mood)) and there is no end to Oaul's action (present tense).
Stop lying about scripture.
Again, please don't drink so heavily when commenting.
But it doesn't matter what verb form you say Paul is using. It doesn't result in Paul doing the condemning. He doesn't possess the authority to condemn anyone. That's God's job. This is Christianity 101 stuff, which they apparently didn't teach you at Skeeter's Bibul Unavurcity and Bait Shop. A real Christian education would have served you better.
You're the one denying to Paul what Paul says. No one teaches that. Dumb and stupid can't be taught.
I'm denying what you think Paul is saying, because the text itself doesn't support it. This is common with you. Maybe if you read an actual Bible for a change you wouldn't be so twisted. (Doubtful, but we can hope.)
It's not me, Marshall. I'm not the one who defines the Greek grammar. Your foolish denials are not about me... you're denying koine Greek. Present Imperative Active is not my definition. Even your whirly bird engineers know that ἔστω has to mean that Paul is doing the action and the action is ongoing without end.
Your denial is the epitome of your character. Even strict biblical reading from your own side will be denied by you rather than admit that your wrong.
You do belong with Trump. Sellout.
"I'm not the one who defines the Greek grammar."
That's good, because you're not capable.
"Your foolish denials are not about me... you're denying koine Greek."
No, boy. I'm quite certain my logical denials are about you...you and your bad interpretations of the original language. I side with the interpretations of the several Bibles I've checked that all say "Let" the false teacher be cursed/anathema/condemned, which implies the feo is already cursed. It would be like your momma telling your daddy, "let feo sit in his own poop". It denotes that you already are full of shit.
I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I have a problem with an idiot insisting I'm wrong without actually proving it. You never have, idiot. But you have sold your soul to adhere to the corrupt values of Hillary Clinton, as you have "proudly" admitting you have them in common. I, on the other hand, have not so much as hinted by accident that I share anything with Trump except the goal of defeating your woman for president. God knows full well my intention of voting for Trump, should I do so. My conscience is quite clear. Your support for Hillary proves you have no conscience.
Listen, son, "let" is not a Greek word. "Let him be cursed" is the closest we can get to the Greek. Your whirly-bird engineers know better. And you're selling them out. You have yet to deal with the imperative mood and active voice.
Here's the NIV for evangelicals -- even more disturbing to Craig's plea that Christianity is kinder; "8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!"
God, of course, is not mentioned in the Greek. The NIV is very sloppy.
Here's the KJV for either stuck in the mud purists or those who like literary language and can dismiss the archaic values: "8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."
Notice how Paul reiterates that he himself is proclaiming -- both times -- the curse. That's active voice for you, Marshall.
And the RSV for old time scholars: "8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."
Paul curses "even an angel from heaven," Marshal Now that is a command!!!
And then the NRSV for up to date scholars: "8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!
The seemingly little change from "let him be..." to "let that one be..." makes it a little clearer that Paul is doing the condemning of anyone who does such a thing.
As one commentator says, the force is an edict from Paul: "If any child messes up their room, let that one clean it up!"
Marshall, clean up your room, son.
"Listen, son, "let" is not a Greek word. "Let him be cursed" is the closest we can get to the Greek. Your whirly-bird engineers know better. And you're selling them out. You have yet to deal with the imperative mood and active voice."
I'm not your son and wouldn't be surprised to find that I'm older than you. You certainly act childish. If I was your son, I'd disavow any knowledge of you because you're an embarrassment now without being at all related. I can't imagine the pain of having you in the family.
As to the Greek, as at least a half-dozen Bible translations say "Let", it's unlikely that they are so off base as to so poorly translate something that would be more accurate to say "I curse him!" as opposed to "Let him be cursed." if the meaning so suggests. As all the translations I looked at say "Let", it seems likely they felt it did not. Stop pretending you're smarter than all the scholars that worked on all these various translations. You wouldn't be even if they were all comatose.
"Here's the NIV for evangelicals...etc"
This translation likely seeks to express what is believed by the translators to be the intention or spirit of the original language, which is how some do it. It also reflects the truth that cursing is God's job, not Paul's, which supports my position, so thanks for that.
"Paul curses "even an angel from heaven," Marshal Now that is a command!!!"
You keep saying that, but it continues to be wrong. So wrong in fact that it proves just what a liar you are to continue saying it. Paul is not doing the cursing. It is not for us (and Paul is one of us) to curse anyone. Vengeance is God's. Paul is acknowledging that such a person is already cursed for spreading a false Gospel. He is suggesting that it remain so.
"The seemingly little change from "let him be..." to "let that one be..." makes it a little clearer that Paul is doing the condemning of anyone who does such a thing."
Wow. You're just a stupid person and really enjoy proving it. "Him" versus "that one" changes nothing except how he is referring to the feo. It would be as if your momma said, "Let feo sit in his own poop." on Tuesday, but then on Wednesday said, "Let that little turd sit in his own poop." It's two ways of referring to the same person (or type of person, in this case a feo, or "false teacher").
" As one commentator says, the force is an edict from Paul: "If any child messes up their room, let that one clean it up!""
What the voices in your otherwise empty head says makes no difference and doesn't change a thing. And still, if it were so, the child was to clean up the room either way. He's merely affirming it. In fact, it's the exact same dynamic. The consequence was the result of the action. It stands because of the action. It is required and automatic because of the action.
Action: messing up room or being a feo
Consequence: janitor or cursed
Wanna try again, loser?
Post a Comment