"Marshal, you are a coward and a pig and a defender of rapists. You are
the enemy of women and shame on you, you low life rapeboy. You will NOT
comment here again until such time as you apologize to women for your
pathetic, misogynistic attacks on them and promise to never utter such
words again, at least here.
Do you kiss your mother/daughter with those filthy lips, you pig?"
So, apparently, to call a porn actress "a whore" is somehow misogynistic. To call women who, by their own admission, engaged in sex with a married man "sluts" makes me an enemy of women. Wow. I wonder what my disgust with the married man makes me? Is it OK to refer to them by words defined by their actions? Can I call them adulterers without having scorn heaped upon me?
Worse, these words I correctly apply to the women in question reflect a proven reality, while "rapist" is merely an accusation leveled by a fake against Donald Trump without any evidence whatsoever. That is, without proof, Dan Trabue accuses the president simply because Donald Trump won the election as a Republican and continues to do great things for the country. This is what really drives "progressives" like Danny-boy absolutely nuts. It's bad enough that the nation elected a rude, crude, socially unacceptable guy like Trump (after twice electing the racist, Marxist defender of abortion and sexual immorality who preceded him). It kills them that the dude is doing such a great job. Indeed, the more he succeeds, the more it infuriates them and thus, the more they inflate the egregious aspects of his character to levels satanic! Yeah, Danny-boy...we get it. He's a scumbag. But he's earned a second term and I intend to vote for him so that he gets it.
But I'm done defending my wise and righteous choice of Donny over Hillary and soon, Donny over whomever floats to the top of the Democratic cesspool of candidates. This post is about the idea that calling a whore a whore is somehow an attack on women...that it is somehow misogynistic to do so. And what is a whore? The word is a synonym of prostitute, though it is also used to describe any sexually promiscuous woman, as well as to simply disparage the character of a disliked female. I used it in reference to Stormy Daniels, who, after claiming to have had an affair with Trump while he was married, was paid a sum to shut up and go away rather than further disrupt Trump's campaign for president. Dan loves this woman. She provides him with another reason to blast Trump's character. He doesn't care about Daniels. He only cares about exploiting her story to further denigrate Trump, as if it matters now that he may have indeed had an affair with her, something he denies.
So why call her a whore? Simply because she is one. A whore takes money in exchange for sex, and that's how she made her living...by taking money to engage in sexual behavior in front of a camera to sell to those who love pornography. The same is true of Playboy model Karen McDougal, who by posing nude for money also earns the title.
"Slut" is also an appropriate word to apply to women like these two. Setting aside Daniels' career choice, which alone makes her a slut, these women, if we're to believe their allegations, admit they had sex with a married man. And here's the thing: there's no way to look at these situations and regard these women as anything other than whores and/or sluts. It's not misogyny or an attack on women to tell it like it is. They don't get to claim victim status after having chosen to engage in the affair. They don't get to play the damsel in distress after accepting big bucks to keep their mouths shut about their alleged affairs that were consensual, which also cements their reputations as whores, considering they took money later.
To pretend that these women are victims is a true attack on good women everywhere. To defend their actions as if they did not engage in immoral behavior is insulting to women of virtue. Again, these women were not "exploited" if they chose to engage in the affairs they insist took place. Indeed, if there was any exploiting going on, it seems it was at best a two-way street, and at worst, a case of these women seeing Trump as a potential payday...which it became, even if not what they may have had in mind. They knew that Trump left one wife to marry another. It's not so hard to imagine that they saw the potential that he'd do it again with them being the new Mrs. Trump. There's simply no way to regard these women as worthy of defense.
Frankly, being accused by someone like Dan, for whom "embrace grace" is just lip service, doesn't at all compel to me to reassess my position on these women. I have no intention for apologizing for speaking factually about the situation and Dan, like his troll, want to believe that these women are somehow more worthy of their support than Trump. That somehow, their word is more trustworthy. They're blatantly sexually immoral, they broke a contract into which they entered and received money and now we're to believe their accusations against Trump rather than his denials of those allegations. Dan supports the ongoing murder of unborn females, as well as the harm suffered by so many women who have and will abort, and he dares suggest I'm the one about whom women should worry because I call a spade a spade and a whore a whore? That's laughable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
360 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 360 of 360"It IS an option. Which texts shall we base our moral codes upon? Whose understanding of those texts? WHOSE plain reading?"
As a Christian, I'd suggest that the Bible would make sense. Personally, I think "You shall not commit murder." is pretty clear and needs very little interpretation. But that's just me. Essentially, your argument boils down to the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law. These are things that are disagreed about, yet somehow we figure out a way to make it work.
"What of those who don't care about those texts and find any claims that THOSE particular interpretations of THOSE particular texts are what defines morality? You and I both love and highly value the texts of the bible and yet, we disagree on some fundamental points. If even within the same religion, there isn't consensus on what is and isn't the "plain meaning of the clear tests" then why would anyone else go along with one or the other of our opinions, based solely on our opinions of these texts?"
Then those people are likely in other "groups and societies"(per the definition you gave) and have their own moral code based on their sacred texts. Who are you to tell them that they're wrong? Unfortunately, if you are using the definition you gave (groups and societies) then you have no basis for a universal code that defines objective morality. The best you can hope for is some level of consensus in areas that overlap, and tolerance in areas that don't.
The reality of a truly Christian moral code within a Christian worldview is that it is chosen, not imposed. Imposing a Christian moral code is pretty much antithetical to authentic Christianity.
Craig... "
Yes, if you try to take the moral guidance we find in the Bible and expect it to make sense outside of the Biblical meta narrative, (rip it from it's proper context) then it isn't going to make sense. "
I disagree with your opinion on that front, then. That seems to neuter and emasculate Christianity, making it an impotent and useless theory in the real world that needs good answers. To Glenn's point, that seems to take God's name in vain. To me.
Oh, as long as you disagree that’s all that matters. Because your disagreement is all that matters.
“Do you recognize that YOU can't objectively prove someone's action is immoral, either?”
Do you realize that I’m not the one who keeps insisting that slavery is immoral in all times, and places. I’m not the one who continually refers to people as immoral.
Thank you for admitting that you have absolutely no grounds to do so.
I think Glenn was referring to you literally taking God’s name in vain.
And thanks for demonstrating that you have no interest in the actual answers to your questions.
“And I'm telling you that a moral code that begins with "do no harm, Golden Rule, human rights" IS a moral code that is largely applicable to all people everywhere, in general terms. THAT is the advantage to this reason-based moral code as opposed to a moral code based upon an arbitrary group of people's arbitrary interpretations of and dedication to their holy texts IF those codes are not DO NO HARM based”
Of course, this has nothing to do with the question I answered.
Of course it’s a “moral code”, it’s a moral code grounded in consensus to which you keep adding more meaningless phrases.
But thank you for simply restating your original opinion as if nothing has been said since the first time you voiced this hunch.
If only it was as simple as repeating your hunch over and over as if that made it right.
"If a man, any man in the whole goddamned world, if a man is known to have raped a woman in the past, is he fit for office?"
First of all, don't you ever question the words I choose to use on your blog...EVER...if you think you have a right to use language like that at mine.!! There is no parallel to the words I used appropriately by definition and your description of the world...especially since your feigned outrage at your blog was just a cover for your Trump-hatred. And this question is as well. Don't play freakin' games here. You're talking about Trump and Trump alone and you have no way to know if he's raped anyone or not. An accusation doesn't imply guilt. An accusation, regardless of how many make it, is only an accusation. It doesn't matter what he's ever said about himself, particularly since YOU say his word can't be trusted. All that matters at the moment is that you're presuming that he has in fact raped someone and you do so with no evidence whatsoever. So cut the crap.
"No wonder you have no qualms about calling women you don't know and whose stories you don't know by the same words that rapists and sexual predators use."
I have no qualms about calling one proven to have stolen a thief, so why would I have any qualms about two women proven to have traded sex for money "whores"? "Rapists and predators" aren't the only ones to use such words regarding women, and likely they only refer to actual whores that way, or women they know are promiscuous. WOMEN use those words frequently in reference to other women, both actual whores and sluts and women they just don't like. So cut the crap with your feigned defense of womanhood. It won't fly here. Either make your case with facts and evidence or find another way to express your opinion that is more honest than this crap.
"You have no sense of the indecency of rape and sexual oppression, do you?"
I do. YOU, however, have no sense of the indecency of insisting a man is a rapist/sexual oppressor with no real proof or evidence. But it really doesn't matter, as you wouldn't have voted for the guy regardless. You're just using this nonsense to try and convince center-right voters to reject him and vote for another Republican who won't win, any of the pathetic Dem candidates who shouldn't win or to not vote at all. With whom do you think you're dealing? Someone like you?
"Look, I FULLY get that IF you truly believe that abortion is the exact same thing as murdering babies, you can't vote for a candidate who supports women having that choice. It's insane, because it's not the same (and I don't think you all really think it is or you'd be doing something insane to stop it), but I get that."
You're a moron. Decent people don't do anything "insane", even in opposition to insanity such as the legal murder of innocent children. That's a progressive thing, not a conservative Christian thing. And it is indeed the same because it's murder. The child did nothing wrong. It's life is being taken without just cause. That's murder and even corrupt fake Christians like you know it's true.
"But if I had a choice between a person who supports women having the choice to make the medical decision to have an abortion (which you might view as "murder") AND a man who is a sexual predator, I COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT VOTE FOR EITHER."
You're liar! Are you trying to tell me you didn't vote for Obama? For which Dem have you voted who did NOT support a woman's right to murder her own unborn child? That's what abortion is and you support it and those who support it also. And you vote for them knowing they support it while pretending you know with equal absolute certainty that Trump is a sexual predator and not just some guy who shoots his mouth off like a high school sophomore...which is all the info you really have proof to support.
Maybe if you really care, you'd ask women why they support him:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/16/2020_the_year_of_the_women_--_for_trump_140342.html#!
Or better yet, explain why you support abortion when Planned Parenthood protects rapists, when abortion provides an out for men who don't want to meet their obligations as fathers?
"Have you ever helped support women/girls who've been sexually harassed, assaulted?"
Yes. My sister. A girlfriend's roommate.
"Are you not aware of the harm deviants like Trump cause just by being accepted as a possible candidate?"
No. Let's see your documentation. I would imagine if there are any who are "harmed" by Trump's presidency or nomination, they are left-wing assault victims. Right-wing assault victims will want to see evidence. They'd also feel "harmed" by knowing five punks were awarded millions as if they didn't brutally assault a woman in Central Park which provoked Trump's outrage.
"Establish where your principles par for me, Marshal."
You know where my principles are. You simply don't like that they won't align with your hatred of Trump. My principles don't allow for judging a man on hearsay, on rumor, on allegations by political opponents. My principles don't allow for sitting out an election on such things, especially when the fate of the nation hangs in the balance...when the nation would be led by a woman who herself is an abuser of women and who proposes policies harmful to the entire nation. My principles don't allow for false sanctimony because I risked or allowed the nation to fall into the hands of a Hillary Clinton because her opponent is really no more than a philanderer but accused by his opponents as something worse.
"Why not just answered the questions that are actually put to you? It's like pulling teeth trying to talk to y'all sometimes."
Because they're bullshit questions asked to deflect from your own obligations to defend your positions in a manner that isn't equivocation. Here, the question is idiotic and has nothing to do with the subject, which is Trump. So yeah, if it was known that Trump or anyone else raped or criminally assaulted anyone, I theoretically would not vote for him. I say "theoretically" because my answer depends on distinct details of the hypothetical scenario being revealed. At present, you simply ask, 'would I vote for a rapist or sexual assailant'. With no other details by which to make a decision, the answer is "no". But add more details and it's possible... Clearly I've already proven my principles in the 2016 election season. I voted for Cruz in the primaries because 1. He was the best candidate available, and 2. Trump's low class character loomed large. But you see the dynamic there? Reason 1 was all I needed, but reason 2 sealed the deal. There was no doubt Cruz was a man of better character PLUS he was the better candidate regardless.
But Cruz didn't win. Now I was faced with a choice between two low class people, because there was no third party candidate who stood a chance. Hillary was clearly the far, far greater of two evils for both her low character and her policy positions. The choice was easy, though troubling given Trump was really an unknown quantity.
So your question as it stands has none of those factors to consider. It's simply "would I vote for an asshole". No. I would not. But if the asshole's opponent was a greater asshole, likely to cause great harm to the nation, I can't pretend I'm doing a good thing by allowing that greater asshole to win the election.
Furthermore...and this is the kicker...I fully doubt there's any possibility that a known rapist or criminal assailant would even generate a real following such that there'd be any chance of electoral success. That is, I wouldn't have to vote for such a candidate.
I want only a president of high moral character. But my principles won't allow me to let the nation go down the toilet because my choices don't include such a person. And if my choices are between allowing it to go down slowly as opposed to quickly, I'll choose slowly every time and have no guilt about doing it, even if I have some regret. YOU, on the other hand, have no standing for claiming a moral high ground because you support the Democratic Party candidate.
Art,
I just want to point out the reality that we have both decided to put significant time and effort into answering Dan’s questions while he’s ignoring our efforts, not answering questions, and reduced to short pointless posts. Is it possible that he has no interest in our answers and is more interested in distraction?
"If your interpretations of your texts appeals to only 1/10th of the world/society you live in, on what basis would the other 9/10ths agree... especially if the opinions did not coincide with Golden Rule/Do No Harm, which I'm saying is the most common.
1. Just because you say it's the "most common" doesn't mean anything.
2. If I accept your definitions, then each "society or group" would have their own.
3. Why are you so obsessed with having a moral code that everyone "agrees on"? It's like you want everything that a universal, objective moral code gives you, without actually having a universal, objective moral code. It's almost like all you really want is the ability to label some behaviors as "immoral" without the possibility of being subjected to the negatives of a moral code that would ground your doing so.
"Are you advocating for the 1/10th who agree with those interpretations should heed them but it's irrelevant to all others and thus, there is no moral compunction for them to heed those rules/morals? If so, I agree, but then, that's not any kind of universal/society-wide way of determining morals that ALL (most) of the society can agree upon, is it?"
I'm arguing that you haven't demonstrated anything that demands a "universal moral code".
1. A universal moral code conflicts with the definitions you provided. Are you seriously parsing those definitions to cherry pick the parts that you think help you, while ignoring the parts that don't?
2. Per your definition, I see no reason why that's a problem. Particularly as long as people respect the moral code of the groups or societies that they visit.
3. Universal and society-wide are contradictory as per your definition.
"You don't have to invent the wheel. IF you have some link to some super genius who's done something that no one in history has done and come up with a more objectively sound system of understanding morality, provide the link. It shouldn't be that hard... there must be TONS of people heading to read it.
It's just when I google it, I don't find it. So, IF you have a link, provide it. If not, well, we'll see that you have no links."
I've already given you names, articles, sources, books etc. If you want something else specific, then ask for that specific information. But to pretend like I've given you nothing is simply to lie.
"Me, too. I just think that the values and reasoning and morals that one gleans from the entirety of the Christian worldview is not always the same as what YOU think the values, etc are. What then?"
What when? What happens now when people disagree on significant issues? You're arguing against a universal, objective moral code, yet you seem surprised when I propose a solution that gets you exactly what you seem to want.
"As it stands now, I'm even more convinced of the solid foundation that the GR/Do No Harm criteria is the closest thing we have to an objective standard that is more universally recognized as reasonable and moral and understandable. I've offered that and you all have offered nothing THAT YOU BELIEVE to be better."
I guess as long as you aren't limited to living in the reality of this time/space continuum, you can invent anything you want out of a whole cloth.
"Does the marriage cause harm to innocent parties? "
If you want to ignore the physical harm caused by anal sex, the disproportionate level of diseases among homosexuals, and the increased level of mental health problems among homosexuals, then there's no harm. But that harm comes to people who willingly accept the risks, and that's their decision. But, the whole marriage thing is a canard, and I've answered this question multiple times. It's not even part of the discussion. Part of the reason you find something different scripture is that you've invented this marriage loophole which isn't addressed in scripture. Further, your premise is based on the notion that homosexuality is an inborn, innate, genetic, unchangeable, trait. Yet we're seeing scientific evidence that this isn't the case. Finally, the GR isn't nearly so milquetoast as your "no harm" moral code. But that's another thing you've ignored.
"Please explain why Do No Harm/GR is an "arbitrary set of rules..." in some way DIFFERENT than "Hi, I'm a fundamentalist Muslim and one of our rules that OUR set of humans believe is that Allah wants us to stone to death gay men because Allah finds homosexuality to be an aberration..." and how that's different than "Hi, I'm a conservative Christian and one of the rules of OUR set of human beliefs is that because God finds homosexuality to be an abomination, we should not allow gay people to marry or adopt children..."?"
Clearly you didn't read, or comprehend, what I actually said. I was quite clear that when you disconnect the set of rules from the worldview that underpins those rules, and impose them on people who have a different worldview it's arbitrary. In terms of your moral code, since the only underlying worldview you've articulated is consensus, based on your misinterpretation of the GR, you have no underlying foundation for your moral code.
"How is the personal choice that SOME religious people ascribe to for morality (based on their reasoning of their interpretations of the Bible or Koran, etc) less arbitrary than the personal choice for others to ascribe to a Do No Harm based upon their reasoning that doing harm is self-evidently wrong...?"
Are you stupid or obtuse. when the underlying worldview of the "society or group" aligns with their moral code then it's not arbitrary. In your case, you choose to twist the GR in order to make it superficially align with other worldviews. Based sorely on your notion of consensus. This seems like a good time to note that there are significant numbers of people who don't ascribe to any of the religions you laud. But you just ignore them and want to impose your moral code on them anyway.
"NOTE: I'd suggest that THIS question is perhaps one of the more fundamental ones in our conversations... perhaps THE most fundamental... If you can adequately answer THIS question/this line of questions, then perhaps we can get to the root of some of our disagreements. On the other hand, perhaps in trying to answer this question, you will see that you DON'T have a way of saying why "OUR interpretations of what WE THINK God wants" is a better option over and against Do No Harm."
There is no question in the above, and it completely misrepresents my position. But in the interest of demonstrating that you lie about others answering questions, I'll play along.
"First of all, no, that is NOT my intent or what my words have said. I'm saying that DO NO HARM is understandable by all, it is expressed by Jesus as the summation of morality (I disagree with your hunches that it's a summation of ONLY Jewish law, I think you're interpreting that too narrowly), AND it is expressed by all the world's religions AND it's supported by very likely the vast majority of the non-religious. I'm showing WHY Jesus supported DO NO HARM, not saying Jesus advocated DO NO HARM and it's validated by consensus. I'm saying the consensus recognizes Do No Harm because it's self evident. See the difference?"
1. Do no harm isn't an accurate summary of Jesus"words.
2. The word Jesus used was "law" not "morality". I'm sorry you don't like the fact that I'm simply pointing out the reality of what's being said.
3. You can believe whatever you want. But in the absence of evidence, there is no justification to substitute "morality" for "law"
4. This is an interesting way of dealing with inconvenient realities, just announce that you don"t like reality and that you choose to believe something else.
5. Jesus commanded a much higher level of engagement that "do no harm". The fact that you want to water down Jesus command, to something that can be achieved through apathy. What lets you make that call.
"Secondly, in a free republic/free society sense, that might be one way of looking at it. Why SHOULD we heed the fundamentalist viewpoint held by SOME people that gay folk should be stoned to death or that adulterers should be imprisoned?"
Your question should be directed to Muslims, the only religion that is actively engaging in those behaviors is Islam. Of course by the definitions you offered, this would allow Muslims to adopt their own moral code based on their worldview. This simply misrepresents the views of anyone in this conversation.
"MOST of those who ascribe to the notion of human rights recognize this as an affront to human rights and, well, should we not heed the will of the people, in the context of a society? We shouldn't heed the will of the minority IF it supports causing harm to others. Why would we?"
NO ONE IN THIS CONVERSATION IS ADVOCATING THIS YOU MORON. If you want to decry this kind of thing your barking up the wrong religion.
Of course this question is based on a false premise.
"On the other hand, if it truly were the will of the majority of a people someplace to cause harm to some subset of oppressed people (and I'm dubious as to whether that's truly the case, by and large...), then of course, we would HAVE to stand opposed to it on principles of morality and justice. But if we were in that context (a group of people who truly believed in doing harm to some), then we'd need to find SOME WAY to appeal to why it shouldn't be done."
If the definitions you supplied are to be believed, this is the part of the very definition of morality. You have no underlying foundation to call immoral something that another "society or group" considered moral. If you want an appeal that transcends "societies and groups" then you need a universal, objective moral code. You want the certainty and superiority of being able to call others "immoral" (much like you've called people in this conversation immoral), without the responsibility or blowback of a universal standard. You've made the unproven claim that yours is "near universal", yet that unproven claim doesn't give you the foundation to impose your code on the alleged minority.
"If the appeal is merely, "Look, I know YOU THINK that YOUR GOD wants this to be done, so that makes this harm 'moral,' MY people think that OUR GOD would disapprove..." then you'd just have two groups of people disagreeing about which human interpretations of the will of which god is the "right" one... and how will that resolve itself?
Why in the hell do you ask the same question repeatedly. The question is, "What do we do now when this happens and what's wrong with that?". If you hold to the definitions you offered, you'd know the answer because it's in the definition.
"that is NOT my intent or what my words have said. I'm saying that DO NO HARM is understandable by all, it is expressed by Jesus as the summation of morality"
Except the literal text doesn't support your perversion of the text, and you continually perverting the text doesn't make your perversion right.
I skipped lots of self serving bullshit.
"IF we wanted to marry person X and they wanted to marry us (and we're both consenting adults), would we want someone to tell us we could not?"
Excellent example, you've just announced that the only possible "restriction" on marriage is "consenting adults". Thanks for opening the door wide for any possible combination of humans to marry. Well done.
Skipping more self serving bullshit.
Look, you've misrepresented what I've said with absolutely no attempt at asking for clarification.
I've waded through lord knows how many comments, and dozens of "questions", I've answered the majority of them, even when they were stupid or repeated. So, in the absence of something new, like specific questions aimed at understanding, or proof of your repeated claims of fact, don't expect much more from me, and don't bother to continue lying about my answering of questions.
I've been busy. I'll comment more when I have more time.
Unlike how you roll, I’d say take your time.
If it’s more of the same, don’t expect the same level of response.
“”Marshal, you are a coward and a pig and a defender of rapists. You are the enemy of women and shame on you, you low life rapeboy.
Do you kiss your mother/daughter with those filthy lips, you pig?"”
As we approach 220 comments and as Dan has managed to shift the conversation from one blog/thread to this one, I think it’s important to step back to the beginning of the thread. The quote above is an example of the type of thing that Dan considers moral and appropriate for one Christian to say to another.
Let’s not forget where we started and what this alleged moral code looks like.
Indeed, Craig. And in all that time, Dan hasn't explained why my use of the terms in a specific context regarding two specific women was inappropriate, particularly against his own use of disparaging terms against Trump. Instead, we get this tripe about how the words have been used by men to oppress women, despite the fact that women use the words to describe other women (usually those who slept with their husbands or are known to have slept with other married men). This "enemy of women" NEVER uses such words in reference to women of character, to women I don't know, certainly not to women in general and never to women about whom I have no evidence the terms apply. So where's the problem if it isn't simply found somewhere in his unChristian hatred for this president? He claims I defend a rapist. But with the above disparaging remarks aimed at me, he's once again defending his hateful opinion and damn everyone who isn't in full agreement.
Art,
Clearly using those words to describe the behavior of specific, individual women, is actually an vile, vicious attack on all women who have ever lived or who will live in the future. Because it's much worse to refer to a specific promiscuous woman as a "slut", than to call someone a "coward", a "pig", a "defender of rapists", an "enemy of women", and a "low life rapeboy.". You must understand that this is the Way of Grace, it's WWJD in action. It is truly and example of how Christians should treat each other when they disagree over something so relatively trivial as politics.
Just dealing with these last two comments in a quick moment:
Yes, I have explained. I've explained what should be obvious to all reasoning adults.
In our world, we have a vile history of women being treated as chattel, as property, as sex slaves, as mere objects for the pleasure of men. That has continued for millennia and continues today, although we are finally seeing some significant changes in the progressive parts of the world.
In this real world context where women are STILL raped or sexually assaulted on way too regular of a basis, where nearly all women are sexually harassed and live in a very real fear that has taught them that they can't walk many places safely alone... that has taught them to carry pepper spray or to carry their keys like weapons because on any given day, they might just be raped or sexually assaulted... where women are regularly "slut shamed" for enjoying natural sexual desires, whereas men can wear their promiscuity as a badge of honor...
In THIS world where women are still routinely objectified, to have men to CONTINUE to add to the "slut shaming," to treating women like "whores" to be possessed and used, by using such words routinely, these sorts of language and attitudes lend support to the actual rapists and sexual predators out there who can then feel justified in their abuse and attacks on women and girls.
Do you all know how many women are raped on a daily basis? Do you know that women can't walk down the street - any street - most days without being treated as a sexual object, ESPECIALLY if they were to dress in any way that rapists, sexual predators and people like Marshal might call them vulgar names and feel justified? These sorts of words add to the victimization of women and the empowerment of rapists/sexual predators. Trump being elected does that same thing.
Look at the research. Open your eyes. Stop the support of rape mentality.
"NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU."
These are the words that your Lord used to deal with what you might call a "slutty woman," Marshal. Learn from Jesus, if not the data. But really, learn from the data, too.
But I've said all that before. I don't expect it will sink in this time, either.
Rape culture awareness and prevention:
https://www.marshall.edu/wcenter/sexual-assault/rape-culture/
https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/news-media/news-coverage-rape-research/
Yet none of that has any relationship to the reality of Art’s comments or your behavior.
There are a large number of comments that deal with issues of substance, yet your choice is to double down on your defense of your grace less, vitriolic attacks.
Says the man defending the man of using rape culture terminology (strong words) while condemning the man who called him out on it using strong words.
You see? You have a problem with my "behavior" (i.e., using strong words to condemn a man defending/promoting rape culture), but don't condemn the man using strong words to promote rape culture. Now, if you were calling both me and Marshal out for using strong words, then you'd at least be consistent. But with your defense of Marshal (I believe you managed a "Well, those aren't the words I would use... milquetoast sorts of polite disagreement) and your attack on me ("your grace less vitriolic attacks") you expose your hypocrisy.
Do you see?
Do I see your self justifying attempts to apply standards to others that you don't apply to yourself, yes I see that. Do I see you lying, yes I see that. I haven't defended Art, I actually disagreed with him. It just annoys you when people disagree without hatred and vitriol.
Unfortunately, it's not so much that you used hateful, grace less, and vitriolic words that is the problem. It's that your making accusations that you haven't proven.
Oh, and you're using this as an excuse not to deal with anything of substance.
Your links are laughable and totally slanted toward a leftist view of "rape culture", a mythical culture to say the least. The second link is the more egregious of the two as it clearly plays the "correlation/causation" game. Both links promote a "guilty until proven innocent" view of rape allegations, and indeed, do all they can to see misogyny and rape where it might...or even doesn't...exist.
Worst of all, you pathetic liar, you're boring us with all this questionable, irrelevant information to avoid justifying your attacks on me...which has no justification. You choose, for political reasons, to accept as true, without any hard evidence, every allegation against Trump and pretend you care about women while supporting so much that is detrimental to them.
It is not hypocrisy for Craig to speak of how he'd deal with whores and sluts while defending me for using those terms to describe two specific women whose choice of employment and admitted sexual practices are the definition of those words...in reality, admitting they are what those words describe.
So, to clarify once again, because you think anyone's fooled by your intentional disregard for reality, it works this way:
--Neither Craig nor I defend ANY abuser of women.
--Support for a man of Trump's character over a far worse choice in no way represents support for misogyny or sexual abuse or assault, most especially when the future of the nation...not to mention my children and grandchildren...hang in the balance.
--Neither Craig nor I come anywhere near close to you with regard supporting abuse of women, given your staunch support for the legal murder of the unborn and the harm that is so common among women who choose abortion.
--For you to attack a man on hearsay, while I appropriately describe the character of two women proven to be both whores and sluts, is in no way comparable. It is apples and oranges to label according to hearsay versus according to fact.
--You have provided no evidence that women are in any way harmed by the use of the words "whore" and/or "slut" when applied to women who earn their living by accepting money for sex or who are fornicators. I fully doubt you could provide evidence that it even harms victims of sexual assault in any way. Consider that a challenge.
--While some men may indeed presume that there is some difference between their promiscuity and that of some women, this is not at all true of either Craig or myself and any mention of it is typical Trabue bullshit meant to muddy the water. In other words, it is lying to suggest any connection between such men and Craig and myself.
--Referencing leftist feminist sources does little to support your feeble attempts to rationalize your unChristian comments regarding me or even Trump.
--No "history" regarding the treatment of women by some men has any relevance to the issue of the two women appropriately labeled "whores and sluts" by me. That "history" could be worse than it was and it wouldn't matter. Some women are whores and sluts. If you disagree, you'll need to justify that disagreement with something other than your less than believable word and radical feminist dogma.
More coming now...
Dan,
You continued corruption of Scripture won't make it any less corrupt. Jesus words "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU" was not a case of Him denying the fact of the woman's adultery. It was related to the fact that He had no legal authority to criminally condemn her for her adultery. As the passage says she was "caught" in the act, and that there was nothing in the story that suggests she wasn't an adulteress, he engaging in adultery condemned her to whatever punishment her sin compelled...be it civil according to Jewish law, or spiritual were she to ignore Christ's encouragement to "Go and sin no more". That encouragement affirms that she was indeed a sinner, and the sin in question was adultery. As such, Jesus was acknowledging that she was indeed an adulteress by encouraging her to go and never sin. "Go and sin no more" could be said by Christ to everyone with whom He came in contact. It could be as legitimate a departing wish as "Have a nice day". But unless you want to make the case that this is how He meant it...and that would at least be a reasonable possibility unlike your "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU" perversion...you could not otherwise pretend that He would not have referred to her in some way that indicates just what her sin makes her. It's absurd as Christ doesn't lie. YOU lie and your corruption of this passage at this point is no less.
I guess pointing out that constructing a basis for morality on this passage isn't a good idea would be pointless.
As to the "neither do I condemn you", it's clearly responding to the fact that Jesus (once again) was demanding a higher standard that the law required. According to the letter of the law, she was guilty, but Jesus raised the bar.
Here's the bigger question than defining a moral code. Who among us is without sin, and therefore able to condemn others?
I submit that when Dan condemns you, Art, or Trump, or me, to Hell, that he isn't without sin.
This is another passage that progressives like, but that they don't like all of the implications of.
The facts are that I'm NOT condemning anyone to hell (as if I had that sort of authority). I AM speaking that the ideas of rape/sexual assault and the notion of protecting/promoting/defending those who promote those ideas... I am condemning that IDEA as hellish and debased and NOT something that should be part of living a life in the steps of Jesus or simply living a life within the realm of believing in human rights and basic decency, even apart from any religion.
Just by way of clarification.
There is a difference between saying "Dan has condemned Art to hell" (which has not happened) and "Dan is condemning the defense of rape/sexual assault to hell, MEANING that it is hellish, not good or Godly." I'm doing the latter, not the former.
I'd hope you and all reasonable people could join me in this assault on the idea of rape and sexual assault.
There's next to nothing in which I could ever join someone who is so committed to sexual perversion and the worst form of oppression...abortion. Because by doing so, by your twisted logic, I would then also be supporting the perversion of homosexuality and the evil of abortion. Here's how your twisted logic denies me any connection with you in any endeavor of any kind:
Trump: alleged to have engaged in sexual assault, but as president planned to appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia. To support his presidency because of this plan, I somehow protect/promote/defend his alleged sexual assault.
Trabue: known to support homosexuality and abortion, but takes up the cause against sexual assault. To support his cause, I then protect/promote/defend his support of homosexuality and abortion
Now while you clearly have no problem with the sins of homosexuality and infanticide, this doesn't change the fact that what you call all reasonable people to do is the same to reasonable people what you accuse them of doing by supporting Trump's presidency. The worst part being that it ignores the nation's well-being.
Moving on, it can't be ignored this appeal to "rape culture", a myth perpetrated by radical feminists and bought hook, line and sinker by fools like you.
https://arcdigital.media/the-rape-culture-myth-5e8f968b5c76
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/10/24/statistics-dont-back-up-claims-about-rape-culture
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2019/02/11/the-campus-rape-culture-that-never-was/
http://ndsuspectrum.com/america-not-rape-culture/
An entire book addresses the subject:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1533629404/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_i_6GJCEbS6RDFYC
I've been conducting an informal poll. I've been asking women this question:
"You overhear a man say to another on his cellphone, 'She's a whore.' Do you feel insulted, oppressed or harmed in any way by the mere mention of this word?"
I let them know there is nothing more they can know about the context in which the word is used. That is, they know nothing of the man who says it, nor of the woman about whom it is said. Thus far, with only a handful of women asked, not one answered in the positive. I look forward to asking this question of as many women as I can in the coming week. I wonder if I'll find any who will crumble upon being asked.
Craig,
"According to the letter of the law, she was guilty, but Jesus raised the bar."
This is not much different from Dan's position, but it is not what is happening. Jesus couldn't condemn the woman because he had not legal authority to do so. But even so, His refusal to condemn her doesn't mean He doesn't acknowledge what she is.
What does it mean to condemn? It can mean to show disapproval. Christ certainly condemned her by telling her to sin no more. It can mean to pass sentence, which Christ did by telling the men to go ahead and stone her if they were sin-free. But by refusing Himself to condemn her was a matter of legality.
As to your statement quoted above, this would suggest that we're not to judge the actions of others as being moral or immoral simply because we're not perfectly moral ourselves. But we know this isn't a teaching of Christ or we couldn't have civil law any more than we could have a social standard of behavior by which we could all be compelled to abide.
No. This was a case specific situation, very much like the encouragement to the rich young man that he sell all he had. It isn't meant for us as a general rule. If the woman was truly caught in the act, as the Law prescribed and as nothing in the passage says otherwise, then she was truly deserving of capital punishment, and Jesus didn't do anything to contradict that fact. He simply lacked the authority to impose that sentence...to condemn her. What's more, I don't read it as they were waiting for His approval to impose it themselves, if that's what they actually intended to do. More like they just wanted to hear His opinion so as to hold that opinion against Him.
I'd go even farther to say that He wasn't suggesting hypocrisy as again, laws can't be enforced under such an arrangement that would require a sinless person to carry out a punishment upon a convicted person. Had any of those who brought the woman had a pair, they'd have insisted their level of holiness was irrelevant as to whether or not the woman should be punished. I'm glad they didn't, but look at how "progressives" abuse the passage as a result!
No, Dan has never ever suggested that God should damn anyone or that we deserve hell, ever.
Art,
I disagree. I believe that Dan is suggesting that Jesus was letting her off scott free. That He was giving her a pass on her behavior, when He clearly was not.
I'd argue that Jesus had all the authority He needed to condemn the woman, yet He didn't. He's the author of the law, and the ultimate Judge. I'd argue that he's not condemning her because He knew her heart. He clearly acknowledges the fact that she sinned, and that she was to "sin no more", but He also showed her grace. I believe that part of this was to point out the hypocrisy of those who condemned her. They clearly gave the guy who was caught in the act with her a pass, and they clearly were more interested in testing Jesus to see if He'd endorse their actions, than they were in upholding the law or in justice. Jesus managed to point out their hypocrisy, acknowledge the woman's sin, turn their test around on them, and demonstrate grace at the same time. It's pretty impressive, although it likely didn't happen.
I hesitate to read too much into this passage because it likely didn't happen and therefore really can't be used for too much. I believe that the reason certain folks like this passage is that it seems to endorse the notion that Jesus didn't have any expectation of repentance when He dealt with sin.
Clearly we are called to judge the actions of others and compare them to the law and to Jesus commandants. I'm suggesting the possibility that folx who like to condemn those the disagree with, maybe don;t spend enough time thinking about their own sin.
I fully agree that we are called to confront fellow believers about sin. But, I'm more and more convinced that unless we have a more accurate view of our own sin, that we have a tendency to do that confrontation badly. If we think that we're basically, intrinsically good, and that we live a pretty sin free life, then we're not likely to confront sin in others in a healthy way. I'm suggesting that if you only point out the sins of others, and do so in a way that is condemnatory and belittling, that you probably aren't appropriately acknowledging the sin in your life.
It's essentially like looking at a level of behavior that a lot of people would consider to be good enough, and establishing that as your moral code.
I'm not saying that Jesus was engaged in hypocrisy, I'm suggesting that folx who condemn the sins of others without acknowledging their own, are missing a significant part of the point.
I think I probably didn't do a great job of explaining, because I don't think we disagree that much.
I strongly believe that trying to base any significant theology on this passage is building one's house on the proverbial sand,
Craig... " I believe that Dan is suggesting that Jesus was letting her off scott free. That He was giving her a pass on her behavior..."
I'm saying just what I literally said. That Jesus literally did not condemn her. And he certainly didn't accost her with words of the sort that rapists, sexual predators, Trump and Marshall like to use. I'm just pointing to the reality of what the text says.
If you'll note, I didn't say she was getting off scot-free. I didn't say he was giving her a pass on her behavior. I just meant exactly what I said, that Jesus literally did not condemn her ("neither do I condemn you...") nor did he use the language of sexual predators to attack her.
Craig... "But, I'm more and more convinced that unless we have a more accurate view of our own sin, that we have a tendency to do that confrontation badly."
On this one point, at least, we agree.
I think a lot of the issue with Jesus and the woman is that if she was truly caught in the act of adultery, then they should have brought the man out also. Perhaps what Jesus wrote on the ground pointed that out. So if they didn't bring the man out, who/where are the witnesses?
But we've gotten way off track of the original article.
Dan,
Your inconsistency in choosing when to be woodenly literal is always amusing. In this case your literally arguing that Jesus said literal words in a text that most likely doesn’t represent literal reality.
But you keep on getting woodenly literal when you think it helps.
Please, keep ignoring the more substantive bulk of the conversation to focus on minutiae.
No inconsistency. IF A TEXT says "A, B, C and Mostly fine 123 and for..." then I might refer to the text LITERALLY saying that. If the text literally has Jesus saying, "Neither do I condemn you..." then I note that this is what the text literally says. If the text literally says that "Here are commands specifically for Israelites living in this time... men shall not lie down with men..." then I'll note that this is what the text literally says. I'll also note that it's literally NOT saying "in any and all times, any and all 'gay behavior' is wrong, up to and including guys marrying guys in a loving committed relationship." Because it's literally not saying that.
Perhaps the problem you all are having is that I'm TOO woodenly literal, moreso than you all?
Craig... "keep ignoring the more substantive bulk of the conversation to focus on minutiae."
This is part of the problem in discussing things with you all. So much of what you respond to in my comments are mistaken notions of what I'm saying or false representations of what I'm saying so, I have to stop and clarify that, while still trying to make my main point... my ACTUAL main point. And then in THAT comment, you all will make two-four mistakes in understanding and state those false understandings and then THOSE need clarifying/correcting, all while STILL not addressing my actual first point or answering the actual reasonable questions put to you all and doing so directly.
And so it goes.
This coronavirus thing has had me busy. I'll get around to summing up where I see things when I can. Perhaps if you all quit making false/mistaken assertions of what I've said (when I haven't said it) or what I'm suggesting (when I haven't suggested it), then conversation might be easier and more straightforward? And also, if you'd just answer questions directly rather than have me guess at what you aren't responding to...? Just a suggestion.
No, it’s definitely the inconsistency. The fact that when you decide to take a text literally, you take it to the extreme of wooden literalness. What’s inconsistent is that you pick and choose which texts you apply that standard too. All the while casting doubt on anyone else who suggests that any text you don’t like be taken literally.
It’s magnified by you choosing a text that is most likely not actually literally true, to take in a woodenly literal manner.
Of course, you’ve already opened up the escape hatch. You’re not actually suggesting that the text actually means anything specific, you’re just saying that it’s using certain words.
As long as you throw up more smoke screen to keep you from dealing with the substantive, on topic, comments you’ll call that a win.
You’re now choosing to spend your limited time on this rather than the substantive comments. We understand exactly what you’re doing.
Coward.
Dan,
Obviously, regardless of whether or not you're being woodenly literal, you're certainly using Christ's words to make a point. It's that point, as I understand it, with which I take issue.
1. Of course He condemned her, by showing disapproval of her behavior when He said, "Go and sin no more".
2. He didn't condemn her in the sense of having any legal authority, as a recognized Jewish leader or as a Roman official (He was neither) to condemn anyone to death.
3. He did not suggest she was unworthy of the proscribed punishment for her sin, as He clearly invited a first stone actually be cast were there one who was without sin. The fact that He certainly knew there was no such person...knowing we're all sinners...doesn't change the fact that she was deserving of death.
4. His choice of words does not in any way suggest a mitigated accosting of the woman. He acknowledged her sin. So, to call her sinner, adulterer or slut (assuming being caught in the act didn't represent her first sexual experience) are all synonymous. You can call me homosexual, gay, queer, fag or limp-wristed fairy and I'm equally insulted and offended (as well as slandered) since given the level of sinfulness, there's no acceptable term by which I wouldn't be. And keep in mind, women are no less likely, if not more so, to use the words "whore" or "slut" to "accost" another woman than are men. Regardless, I do not regard calling a spade a spade to be "accosting" anyone. If you take without consent of the owner that which belongs to the owner, you're a thief. Likewise, if you have sex without being married, you're a tramp or a slut. If you have sex for money, you're a whore. If you have sex with someone's spouse, or with someone who isn't your spouse, you're an adulterer or adulteress. If you6any of the preceding, you're a sinner. It's not "accosting". Sayimg it is would be to unjustly accost the person who speaks the truth. It's not like there words are being used to hurt the person's feelings. It's simply speaking the truth. It has nothing to do with anyone else but the perpetrator of the behavior/sin to which the word refers. Once again...and this is important, so pay attention...the two women about whom I used the terms are actually whores/sluts. The consensually participated in an affair with a married man and earned money by trading their bodies for it. You are slandering me in a most unchristian manner to suggest I've done anything wrong by speaking the truth. Indeed, you're lying about me BECAUSE you don't like the truth I speak, as it interferes with the narrative you prefer.
No lies. No inconsistency. In the real world, the words that rapists, sexual predators and people who defend them use have real, negative effects. By using those words embraced by the sexual predators/Trumps of the world, you are normalizing sexual predation and the treating of women as sexual objects for the pleasure of men.
That you don't recognize or acknowledge the data/evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.
You are, unfortunately, being a pig who embraces the worldview of sexual predators like Trump and, thereby, normalizing and thus, defending rapists and predators and the harming/oppression of women and girls everywhere.
That's on you.
May God (or just basic human decency) open your eyes.
Ahhhh, the add lies in top of lies to demonstrate that you’re not lying.
I guess dealing with substance is just too scary.
"In the real world, the words that In the real world, the words that rapists, sexual predators and people who defend them use have real, negative effects. use have real, negative effects."
Crap and nonsense. In the actual real world, calling you a thief harms you if a slander by putting your reputation at risk. Calling you a thief if you are one harms you by exposing your sinfulness.
The same is true with the words "whore" and "slut". Virtuous women are only harmed by those words if others believe the lie, as well as by personally feeling insulted. But those who trade sex for money and who are sexually promiscuous can only be harmed if they hope to hide what they do and fail.
And once again, you lie by presenting your case as if only the "rapists, sexual predators and people who defend them" are the only people who use those words. You lie by trying to tie me to such people simply because I support Trump's effective and proven presidency.
"By using those words embraced by the sexual predators/Trumps of the world, you are normalizing sexual predation and the treating of women as sexual objects for the pleasure of men."
Rank bullshit (meaning you're a liar), especially in light of the fact that I used the words in reference to two women who are both whores and sluts. Calling sexually immoral women what they are doesn't at all "normalize" predation or objectifying of women. It exposes the character of the women by identifying their immoral behavior. For you to pretend these words are the property of sexually immoral men is not only laughingly absurd, but a blatant lie. "Embraced" indeed.
"That you don't recognize or acknowledge the data/evidence does not mean it doesn't exist."
There is none that exists which proves the use of these words, particularly in the manner I used them at your blog, harms anyone but in the ways I described above.
"You are, unfortunately, being a pig who embraces the worldview of sexual predators like Trump and, thereby, normalizing and thus, defending rapists and predators and the harming/oppression of women and girls everywhere."
I stand corrected. You're not inconsistent at all. You're consistently lying, about me and about what I'm doing when appropriately describing two women you choose to defend due to your unchristian, grace-embracing hatred of Trump. You pretend to hate him for his immorality (when I've no doubt it has as much to do with his politics than anything else), while defending two women who are also sexually immoral. There's no consistency there, that's for sure, but the consistency is in redefining morality to suit your purpose
You're also an asshole for daring to suggest that my acknowledgement of the sinfulness of these women (as you feel justified in acknowledging the sinfulness of Trump) somehow means I embrace some immoral worldview...which takes a lot of gall given your blatant celebration, defense and enabling of homosexuality and abortion.
So here you might take offense to being called an asshole, while your actions and words clearly prove that such a term is quite appropriate for you. You lie about my intentions, you're hypocritical in your accusations, and you're claim of Christian faith is a cover for all of it. But then, lies and hypocrisy are your stock in trade, just as engaging in sexual intercourse for money was the stock in trade of Stormy Daniels. Please explain to me what you would call such a woman. I'm sure it's hilarious.
So, at least one thing, in summation. On the notion of whether or not our opinions about what God thinks is moral are actually our UNPROVEN and UNPROVABLE opinions or are they DEMONSTRABLE FACTS, Craig comes down on the side of they are our unprovable opinions, as do I. Marshal, Glenn and others, I believe, disagree with Craig and think that their opinions are not merely their opinions, but are objectively provable facts. This, in spite of their inability to objectively prove it. At all. Or even close.
Just by way of supporting my conclusion about Craig, I asked and he answered...
"So, your opinions about what God thinks is immoral are JUST your opinions (and those who agree with you) and as such, subjective, not authoritatively or objectively demonstrably factual, IS THAT CORRECT?"
Craig: Yes, my opinions are not factual, I've never claimed otherwise and you continuing to ask this stupid question just makes you look obsessive...
Of course, the reason I ask and try to seek clarification is because
1. some conservatives (like Marshal and Glenn) think Craig is wrong and that they CAN objectively prove their opinions (in spite of being factually unable to do so and, really, having never even tried, so far as I can see... pointing to a phrase in the Bible that seems to support your position and then saying, "SEE? It's there, therefore, what conclusion I'm drawing from that line IS A FACT..." is not the same as proving it as an objective fact.)
2. Craig has come across as vague and non-specific... as if he THINKS he really can prove these opinions are objectively provably factual, but doesn't want to say so. But now, I think we can say, given Craig's answer, that Craig thinks that Marshal and Glenn are clearly wrong and that their/our opinions about what God thinks is immoral ARE our opinions and not objectively provable facts. If so, then Craig and I are in agreement.
======
More...
Having said that much, my opinion is that, IF one accepts the very common, nearly universal belief in human rights as self-evident and thus, doing harm is self-evidently wrong/immoral, then we might have a case there for objective harm.
BUT, MY opinion is that if you disavow the notion that doing harm IS self-evidently immoral as a blow against self-evident human rights, then clearly, we have no way of objectively proving a given behavior is moral/immoral.
HOWEVER, I further think that some theories about morality are more reasonable and their innate rationality makes them commonly held and, thus, are more rational than others and more self-evident to others. TO that end, of all the theories I've heard thus far, I think the far and away most clearly rational and supported criteria for morality is the Do No Harm/Golden Rule viewpoint.
I can't PROVE this (if one is not allowing that harm is self-evidently wrong), but nonetheless, I think it is far and away more rational and practically functional in the real world than other theories (survival of the fittest, for instance). That is MY OPINION.
I don't think Craig has ANY other opinion that he prefers over that one, but can't tell for sure, since he won't/can't answer that.
Marshal and Glenn, on the other hand, appear to reject the Do No Harm/Golden Rule criteria for deciding morality in the public sphere and appear to hold to the "Trust us that WE are speaking for God when WE say that WE think some behaviors are 'factually provable' to be what God wants and thus, our opinions on this are what should decide morality..." (Where, by "our opinion," they mean not theirs specifically, but those subset of Christians who agree with them on what God thinks and wants).
Craig and I appear to agree that Marshal and Glenn have no basis in reality for claiming that their opinions about morality are objectively provably factual conclusions.
And that's where we appear to sit on the question of criteria for morality. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood. But be specific. And if you're going to say that your opinions ARE factually provable, then prove them (or point to a source that does, objectively factually).
"1. some conservatives (like Marshal and Glenn) think Craig is wrong and that they CAN objectively prove their opinions"
I'll simply point out that you can't prove that anyone you mentioned has ever claimed that they can "prove their opinions". But please do so.
"2. Craig has come across as vague and non-specific... as if he THINKS he really can prove these opinions are objectively provably factual, but doesn't want to say so. But now, I think we can say, given Craig's answer, that Craig thinks that Marshal and Glenn are clearly wrong and that their/our opinions about what God thinks is immoral ARE our opinions and not objectively provable facts. If so, then Craig and I are in agreement."
Interesting use of your subjective opinion to make claims that sound objective.
Excellent job of dodging the multitude of specific responses to your endless questions, and examples of the problems with your subjective moral code. It leads me to two conclusions.
1. You don't ask questions to gain knowledge or to move discussion along, you ask questions as a way to obfuscate and move the discussion away from the flaws in your own positions and the fact that you don't like to answer questions.
2. You are simply too much of a coward to actually engage in a true dialogue.
Craig... " you don't ask questions to gain knowledge or to move discussions along you asked questions as a way to help you skate.."
As a point of fact, that is precisely why I asked questions and why I answer questions. The irony here is that appears, at least to me, that you all are the ones who don't answer questions oh, not me. That you all give vague responses that don't answer the actual question, not me.
Craig,
You have to remember that if we take God's Word as it says about homosexuality, that is just our opinion that God condemns homosexuality. And you can't prove that opinion is right. It's just our opinion that abortion is murder, and we can't prove that opinion is right. Etc.
He calls facts "opinions" and any reading of God's Word which contradicts HIS opinion of what God says is just our opinions that can be proven from God's word.
No, Glenn. I don't.
I can note that, factually speaking, there is a line in Leviticus that says men shall not lie with men. That is a demonstrable, observable fact.
I assume we agree on that much.
Likewise, in the New Testament, there is a line that says, and here I'm paraphrasing, whatsoever things are good, true, pure, loving, Etc, think on these things. That is factually objectively a line that exists in the New Testament.
Those are what I'm referring to as facts. Observable, objectively demonstrable facts. Those lines do exist.
What is an opinion, however, is, "given these lines in the Bible, I think that God is opposed to gay guys marrying..." THAT is an opinion, by definition, not a demonstrable provable fact.
Do you agree with that reality?
Craig, I'm looking and reviewing your many comments and I'm not seeing any questions that you've asked me that have not been answered multiple times in multiple ways. If you have a specific question that you think I haven't answered, I would encourage you to review my responses, because I have, almost certainly. But after reviewing my answers, if you think a question still remains unanswered, feel free to ask it again.
Like, for instance, I'd still like you to answer if you think you have any criteria for determining morality at a societal scale that's better than the Do no harm, Golden Rule model? I don't believe you do have one that you believe in more so then this, but if you do, please share it. Because how can we know unless you say?
One possible question that you may think is going on answered, but which I have answered, is this...
Craig... "then those people are likely in other "groups and societies"(per the definition you gave) and have their own moral code based on their sacred texts. Who are you to tell them that they're wrong?"
This is precisely the beauty of the Do no harm measure. Who are we to say that ought not to harm innocent people? The answer is, weople who affirm human rights and the self-evident notion that we ought not harm innocent people.
The Do no harm / Golden Rule criteria appeals to people across cultures and eras. It's reasonable and common sense-based. If, on the other hand, our appeal is, because I think the Bible says so, then that will not appeal to people who do not confirm your views of the Bible. The Do no harm / Golden Rule measure is a more Universal appeal and that is why it is, I believe, a more reasonable basis for deciding morality.
And where I said... " If, on the other hand, our appeal is, because I think the Bible says so, then that will not appeal to people who do not confirm your views of the Bible."
...just to be clear: I AM speaking about society-wide norms. It is reasonable for legislators to create rules and people, in general (outside/beyond the scope of the legal system) that people can find common ground upon.
I have no problem at all if, within a Southern Baptist congregation, they want to have rules for behavior in their circles based upon agreed upon ideals they share in common. If gay folk find a SB church's rules against gay folk wrong, they can leave.
But in a mixed culture society or world, we need SOME common ground and the most reasonable set of criteria that I've seen thus far has been the Do No Harm/GR guidelines, as at least a starting point.
“Like, for instance, I'd still like you to answer if you think you have any criteria for determining morality at a societal scale that's better than the Do no harm, Golden Rule model?“
I’ve given you multiple options, yet you continue to pretend that I haven’t.
You choose wooden literalism, yet choose to pretend that the actual GR/Great Commandments don’t say what they clearly say.
So you have no criteria to actually tell a society that the moral code they’ve chosen is wrong, all you’ve got is that it doesn’t agree with your hunch.
Unfortunately the definition you provided indicate that morality is literally defined by choices made by “groups and societies” for themselves.
There’s a reason why I didn’t ask a lot of questions, we’ll two, because I was pointing out problems with your hunch, and giving you things to rebut.
You’ve done neither.
Glenn,
I I completely agree. Dan has simply decreed certain things to be opinions, and continues to act as if that decree means something.
My point is that neither you or I have ever tried to pass of our opinions as facts. Regardless of Dan’s decrees, we’ve never actually done what he keeps claiming we’ve done.
Dan... "I'd still like you to answer if you think you have any criteria for determining morality at a societal scale that's better than the Do no harm, Golden Rule model?“
Craig... "i’ve given you multiple options, yet you continue to pretend that I haven’t."
Dan... I'd still like YOU to answer if YOU think YOU have any criteria for determining morality at a societal scale that YOU think is better than the Do no harm, Golden Rule model?
Craig... Regardless of Dan’s decrees, we’ve never actually done what he keeps claiming we’ve done.
No decrees. I'm saying MY UNDERSTANDING of your positions based on what you all have said in the past.
So, you are clarifying that you, Craig, DO NOT have a way to say that your opinions about God's opinion on abortion or homosexuality or gay guys getting married and other issues of morality are OBJECTIVELY DEMONSTRABLY PROVABLY factual. They are your unproven and unprovable opinions.
If I'm understanding you correctly.
I BELIEVE that Marshal and Glenn disagree with you on this point. I believe that they think they can KNOW as an objective fact that their opinions on those topics (and some others) are objectively provably God's opinion. That God is objectively, provably opposed to abortions and gay guys marrying.
I'm asking for clarification. I'm saying this based on what they've said in the past, but they can clarify here and now if they wish.
Maybe we all agree that none of us can prove God's opinion on abortion and marriage as an objective fact. Wouldn't that be something, all of us in agreement.
Marshal, Craig, Glenn... do we agree?
Jumping back to one of the first comments Marshal made here... That is, a clear she said/he said in which feo and Dan choose sides according to who is accused. Would they give these women the time of day if they were accusing, say, Barack Obama? Of course not
1. I don't choose sides according to his accused. I listened to the arguments and gauged the known history and character of all involved. Trump has a history of perversions and treating women like sex objects. It's all been on public display. He has been a serial cheater on his wives and he has publicly boasted about trying to bed women down, including married women. He is, based on his own words and public character and behavior, a vile, vile, pathetic slutty rich boy who has lived a life of ease and privilege and learned to abuse people for his own pleasure all his life. He is a sick, deviant man, and publicly so. This is not a secret.
That you all continue to defend such a publicly vile man as a reasonable candidate for office says a lot about you... that, TO YOU, his public perversions and oppression of women is not a line too far. You look at his public perversions and oppressions and say, "I could still vote for him." (At least, "you all," as in white evangelical conservatives.)
2. I look at the weight of the testimony against the known deviant and rich boy elitist who's lived a life of privilege and abuse and see not one, not two, not five, but over TWENTY women who have accused him of various degrees of sexual assault/harassment. It's one thing to have one woman accuse a decent man of harassment/assault, but we have TWENTY women accusing a publicly deviant and oppressive man of harassment/assault and it defies reason to continue to defend such a man as worthy of your vote and/or defense.
And yet you do.
3. Bill Clinton didn't have 20 women accusing him of misconduct, but he DID have about three women make accusations against him, over and against his slightly sleazy (NOTHING like Trump, but still...) public character as regarding women. And you know what? I DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM.
I don't know if he engaged in sexual harassment/abuse/rape, but the evidence - WITH ONLY THREE WOMEN making accusations - was too far for him to get my vote. So, what would I say if some women were making accusations against a candidate from my party? We can already see what I'd do. I'd stand by my principles and give the women the benefit of the doubt.
And that was with NOTHING like the overtly public perversions and indecencies of your favorite sexual predator.
So, we know what I'd do (not vote for such a man for much less) and we know what you would do, Marshal (and others like you): Look at such a predator and decide, "eh, I can still vote for him."
And that's the difference between you and me.
And that's the difference between even you and Al Mohler. Because, although I disagree strongly with Mohler and people like him, at least they had the decency to stand by their principles AND to warn other conservatives that you all are ruining your testimony and character by abandoning principles to stand with a sexual predator.
I see. So it's a matter of adhering to one's "principles". That's hilarious given your principles.
---Your principles include constant reference to Al Mohler as if doing so elevates the sanctimony of your objection to Trump while further discrediting the rational reasons for my support of his presidency. It does neither. Al Mohler's opinion is just as specious as yours, though honorable...because until the general election, it mirrored my own.
---Your principles include defending/celebrating/enabling homosexuality, a form of sexual immorality God calls an abomination and then presuming that with that reality you can still maintain there's some possibility that He would bless a "marital" union of two of the same sex. This is a form form of sexual immorality for which God mandated death during the time of Moses and thus is no less a grievous sin than any of Trump's affairs.
---Your principles are based on that which you call "self-evident", yet you ignore and suppress the self-evident sexual complementarity of male and female (anatomically, physiologically, psychologically) before defending homosexual behavior.
---You principles are based on that which you call "self-evident", yet you ignore the self-evident truth that what was conceived by the procreative act could possibly be anything other than a human being endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life.
---Your principles compel you to attack the character of a man for his sexual immorality while defending two women who are equally guilty of the same immorality, as well as prostitution, who claim to have willingly engaged in sexual behavior with the man you hate, and even broke the contracts they had with the man that required they keep from speaking about the alleged immoral tryst.
---Your principles lead you to presume the absolute guilt of a man for whom you have no solid, irrefutable evidence other than the word of women of unknown character (except for the two and at least two others) and the word of that same man who, in any other situation, you insist is a liar whose word is untrustworthy.
---Your principles suggest that one must refuse to vote for a sexually immoral man when the alternative is extreme harm to the nation.
At least in the case of Al Mohler, only the last "principle" can be held against him or legitimately argued as insufficient a reason to withhold my vote.
more coming...
"So, you are clarifying that you, Craig, DO NOT have a way to say that your opinions about God's opinion on abortion or homosexuality or gay guys getting married and other issues of morality are OBJECTIVELY DEMONSTRABLY PROVABLY factual. They are your unproven and unprovable opinions."
This lame and equivocating argument is tiresome and petulant. It relies on the premise that because not all buy into the Christian faith, therefore nothing in Scripture is a legitimate source of fact. Worse, it relies and the suggestion that even those who believe in the reliability of Scripture cannot prove to each other what is factual based on what Scripture contains. You're obviously of the first group and certainly not one of the second. To you, Scripture is just something to use when it serves your agenda to do so, more so when you can pervert what it says or inject meaning the words themselves can't possible impart or imply. When it serves you, a passage is solid and unassailable. Otherwise, it's "not a rule book", or more blasphemously, "a magic 8 ball".
Unlike your strained gyrations and contortions, honest reasoning easily extrapolates God's prohibition against homosexual behavior to a prohibition against any form, scenario or context in which it might take place, thus making the notion of a "God-blessed" homosexual "marital" union a laughable suggestion on top of the impossibility it is. For those who respect and revere Scripture then, Lev 18:22 alone is proof alone and makes the immorality of SSM "self-evident". But then, the entirety of Scripture and all it says on human sexuality also makes it clear.
The same it the case with abortion, as if "Thou shalt not murder" isn't enough, Gen 9:6 should be. Only through the union of man and woman in the procreative act can a new person be brought into existence. It can be nothing else. Your cheap rationalization demonstrates just what "principle" is to you...morality based on self-gratification.
So, I don't "think" I know what God's opinion on behavior and morality is. He straight up tells us in Scripture and only those for whom His word is inconvenient dare attempt to rationalize away what is so crystal clear. And then to pretend such is the result of "serious and prayerful study" is the ultimate assault on reason.
More coming...
"1. I don't choose sides according to his accused. I listened to the arguments and gauged the known history and character of all involved."
Yes you did, and then no you didn't. You chose the side of the two whores and ignored their history and character which, unlike Trump, is displayed on film and video. The two women you defend clearly and unquestionably prostituted themselves. Then, they claimed they had an affair with a married man. Then, they ignored the terms of the contract into which the willingly entered in exchange for money, thereby prostituting themselves again assuming their stories about having affairs are true.
On the other hand, aside from Trump denying the stories of these two women, we have no proof of any sexual improprieties aside from his cheating on his wives, except for his own story telling about other sexual incidents...stories from a guy who you otherwise warn that he lies "all the time". Now we're supposed to believe THESE stories.
So what you "gauged" was what you want to believe, not what you know, in order to portray this guy in a worse light than his known history already does. "Principles" my ass.
"That you all continue to defend such a publicly vile man as a reasonable candidate for office says a lot about you..."
Not as much as what your defense of homosexuality, abortion, disregard of property rights, and other bad behaviors says about you, particularly cloaked in pearl-clutching sanctimony. I don't defend his low character. This has been said countless time, yet you wish to falsely portray me/us in this lying manner. And yes, it's a lie because it's been explained to you over and over and over again and yet you continue to lie (hypocrisy given your talk about Trump being a liar).
At first, I took a chance on the guy in order to prevent a far worse individual from taking office and implementing more of what drove the country in a harmful direction. That risk paid off and the nation has greatly benefited. Now, with a stellar track record, and no evidence of continued sexual impropriety...and, not to mention, facing a greater risk given the horrendous positions of his current Democratic opponents...I have actual reasons to vote FOR him rather than simply against horrid Democratic alternatives.
"2. I look at the weight of the testimony against the known deviant and rich boy elitist who's lived a life of privilege and abuse and see not one, not two, not five, but over TWENTY women who have accused him of various degrees of sexual assault/harassment."
Yet you haven't done jack to investigate any of the stories of any of his "accusers". Your defense of the two whores is proof enough of that, but here's a sampling of a few of the others:
---Ivanka accused him of rape and then recanted later, saying he'd make a great president.
---One accuser claimed he grabbed her butt, but she first thought it was a camera case. How can having a camera case pressed against one's butt be confused with a grab? Who would simply press one's palm against a woman's butt if he was going for a cheap feel, and not actually squeeze it, too? Does that make sense even to a rube like you? This accuser had no other details that suggest anything worth even making a public accusation.
---Another accuser claimed Trump groped her on an airplane while seated next to her. But another man who sat close enough to easily see the two of them insists there was nothing happening between the two to suggest Trump made any such move.
---I'll add one more that, as a husband, I simply find hard to believe. A woman claims he cornered her in a room with her husband nearby outside the room and supposedly Trump accosted her. What the hell is wrong with her husband that she could have extricated herself and not given any hint to him that she was just in any peril? I don't buy it. I don't know about you, but I can tell when something is bothering my wife, and something like that would be like a freaking siren!
The point here is that your claim to "weigh the evidence" is crap and more a matter of swallowing anything that is negative with regard to Trump without truly delving into the charges. I have no idea which, or if any, of the allegations are true. You don't either. There's no witnesses to the stories of greatest alarm. But that doesn't matter to you. I, too, do not like hearing such stories and were he to have run against someone of character with a platform that would benefit the nation, I would not have voted for him. If he continues another four years doing as good a job as he has so far, and then these allegations are proven true, I will still not regret my decision to vote, but only will regret that he was the man you hope he is.
"3. Bill Clinton didn't have 20 women accusing him of misconduct, but he DID have about three women make accusations..."
He had A LOT more than three and the fact that you don't know that proves my point your double standard "principles".
"I don't know if he engaged in sexual harassment/abuse/rape,"
Nor do you "know" about Trump, but not only are the allegations more credible, given the testimony of his state trooper body guards and others in his circle, but the stories go back a long way, to his college days by some accounts, and so much of it happened while he was in public office.
"We can already see what I'd do. I'd stand by my principles and give the women the benefit of the doubt."
But you supported the wife who didn't and whose character is far worse than Trump's.
"And that was with NOTHING like the overtly public perversions and indecencies of your favorite sexual predator."
Worse and far better substantiated. But you don't care enough to investigate either to get an accurate assessment.
"And that's the difference between you and me."
There's a vast difference between you and me. I deal in reality and I don't pretend I can judge what I can't possibly know. And when it comes to what's best for the nation, I don't play games in order to posture myself on blogs as a person of "principles" after proving I don't have any.
Dan- I know you’ve given me multiple science and data based alternatives to my hunched about morality, but I’m going to deny those and continue to make excuses to hide my fear and ignorance.
Craig, once you deal with what I’ve offered, then you can politely ask for something else.
How do we know when Dan has nothing or substance or can’t/won’t/is scared of dealing with something? He falls back on demanding that we do something else. It’s how he stalls until he can manufacturers a reason to leave in faux indignation.
Craig... I can't offer you EVEN ONE SINGLE idea that I, CRAIG, think is better than the suggestion you and Jesus and countless others have offered to determine morality - the GR/Do No Harm model. Especially in a mixed society.
Dan... Well, then, it appears we agree. Or not, it's impossible to tell since you won't answer the question directly. Let me know if you ever decide to do so.
Marshal, you and yours come across as vile, dirty-minded old men who are fine with offering words that encourage rapists and sexual predators like your president. I'm not fine with that. Every discussion I have with you on this topic where you continue to debase and attack women and offer support for rapists and child molesters, etc, leaves me feeling dirty.
I pray that one day your eyes are opened to just being a decent human being on this point. Until such time, I leave you with a rebuke in the name of Jesus and all that is holy and good and a prayer that other pervert-defenders like you don't attack your loved ones the way you have attacked others.
With that, I'm wiping the dust from my feet and going to take a shower.
We’ve all been waiting for it, Dan finally tries to paint his failures as a victory so he can run back and hide behind his delete button.
I guess this is when he either realizes that all his questions have been answered and he can’t adequately address both the answers and the holes in his hunches, So he’s chosen to leave in a burst of vitriol and sanctimony instead of engaging in a conversation.
I’ve been expecting this, although I thought I’d be the faux outrage dismount, rather than the passive aggressive.
Coward, science denier, liar.
Dan,
I'm not at all impressed with your fake sanctimony. As Craig rightly points out, it's cheap subterfuge.
"Marshal, you and yours come across as vile, dirty-minded old men who are fine with offering words that encourage rapists and sexual predators like your president."
Your understanding of who "I and mine" are and what we think and believe is conveniently corrupted to your advantage, but not at all a truthful assessment whatsoever. How we might "come across" to you does not speak for anyone else, particularly since anyone else is likely more honest in how they regard what I say, doing so for understanding rather than pushing an agenda as you are.
It's idiotic to think that actual rapists and sexual predators need take any encouragement from me, given that I offer none in anything that I've said, especially given the fact that I am totally opposed to such behavior, as I am with all sexual immorality, including that which you champion, defend, enable and celebrate as something God might actually bless. As you're an example, the evil engage in evil due to their own corruption, not because they're encouraged by those who oppose them.
"Every discussion I have with you on this topic where you continue to debase and attack women and offer support for rapists and child molesters, etc, leaves me feeling dirty."
The dirtiness you feel is the result of your own filthy attempts to portray me is as evil a manner as you need in order to push your agenda. You have yet to explain how anything I say encourages more evil or harms those who aren't. You simply assert in order to stifle opposing positions you can't truly overcome with your baseless beliefs.
For example, you haven't provided an alternative means of referring to, say, women who earn their living by having sex with strangers, or, say, women who engage in sexually promiscuous behavior in a manner, such as having affairs with married men like Donald Trump. No. YOU'RE purpose is simply to attack Donald Trump in whatever manner you think is going to persuade, ignoring that you're not dealing with people as stupid and dishonest as you.
You haven't explained, much less proven, that anything I've ever said is akin to "debasing" women in general. You again simply assert because it serves your evil to do so. You wallow in the filth of your attacks on those with opposing positions and then complain you feel dirty. Such hypocrisy!
You regard as "support for rapists and child molesters" that which is no more a demand that you actually defend your allegations, rather than simply parroting the allegations of others as if allegations are the same as absolute proof of a crime. I've provided a short list of Trump accusers for which there is more than merely reasonable room for doubt about what they say. You counter with nothing by your petulant insistence that he indeed committed the acts for which he is accused, again affirming that accusation is all that is necessary for a liar like you.
Your position is far more politically motivated than by any true concern for women victims, as you are quick to minimize the far more credible and supported behavior of Bill Clinton...presuming your alleged rejection of him means anything with regard to your hatred of Trump. And of course your defense of women who dress provocatively belies any real concern for their safety and honor as nothing I have ever said or done can encourage a sexual deviant as can a woman showing off her body.
So don't bore me with your pearl-clutching, false sanctimony. If you think Trump's sexual immorality is a more important consideration in these times than the state of the nation, just say so. We already know you're an idiot, a liar and morally corrupt.
I would also add that you've done nothing...NOTHING...to provide a basis for your "moral code" that makes it objective...as in, true regardless of our own existence. You dodged that issue by trying to challenge Craig to come up with a better alternative.
God's Will is beyond debate, beyond improvement. It doesn't matter who does or doesn't believe God exists, but whether or not His moral mandates are beneficial and worthy of universal acceptance. If you can point to a behavioral prohibition that isn't so worthy, do so. Don't play games with ritual rules, dietary restrictions and the like. Focus on human behaviors. You can't do it, because you'd run up against that which you is prohibited yet defended by you. You're corrupt and reject God's Will with that which the world, by consensus, deems "moral". You're a fraud.
"come across as vile, dirty-minded old men who are fine with offering words that encourage rapists and sexual predators like your president."
This is clearly a situation where Dan has transferred his hatred of Trump onto people who don't share his hatred. He has absolutely nothing to suggest that we "encourage" rapists and sexual predators. What's interesting is that he also has no problem making claims about people that aren't proven, kind of like slander or something.
"very discussion I have with you on this topic where you continue to debase and attack women and offer support for rapists and child molesters, etc, leaves me feeling dirty."
Perhaps it's more about Dan's addiction to vitriol, expletives, hatred, and slander that makes him "feel dirty". I have to note that his problems are all in his mind more than in reality.
Dan's problem is that he doesn't want an objective moral code. He's been pretty clear about that. He certainly doesn't want an objective moral code that is transcendent. What he does seem to want is the benefits of an objective moral code. He wants to be able to assert his superiority by labeling other people as "immoral" without realizing that the very definitions he offered don't support his doing so.
He's made it quite clear in the past that asserting any sort of moral code that comes from God is completely and totally in the realm of opinion, and isn't to be taken seriously. I've pointed him to some people making really good arguments, but he's dismissed them based on his problems with their biographies.
I think that much of this stems from his hunch that everyone is created sinless and good. Specifically, his hunch (argued at length elsewhere), that he is a good person. Since he's good (according to his subjective standards), then he's in a position to make pronouncements about others.
It's clear to me, that if he was truly interested in alternatives to his bastardization of the GR as a moral code, that he'd have investigated what I've given him. It's also clear to me, that his only real support for this moral code is that it's "nearly universal". This is made clear by his insistence that as long as a religion claims to accept some formulation that is similar to his bastardized take on the GR, that he's not really going to have issues with their failure to live up to his moral code, because mistakes. He ignores the fact that Islam has multiple doctrines that conflict with his hunches about morality, and other contractions. He also ignores the non religious worldviews that represent billions of people, yet don't buy into his hunches.
Finally, his complete inability to deal with the flaws in his hunch, to the point that he just pretends they don't exist, tells us all we need to know about his moral code. Well, that and the fact that he's full of excuses for why he can't live up to it.
Just because I have time and not because I think it will help...
Craig... Dan's problem is that he doesn't want an objective moral code. He's been pretty clear about that.
This is, of course, stupidly false. You all can't be this blind to reality, can you? Of course, I want an objective moral code. I would love to know perfectly what is right and wrong and objectively so. Why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't most people? We want to be able to know, Should I eat meat? Red meat? Factory-farmed red meat? Drive a car? Daily? What is and isn't objectively right and wrong? Isn't this what everyone (most of us) want to be able to know definitively and authoritatively so that we don't make mistakes? Maybe all the times I've said things like, "IF you have an objective and authoritative source for morality, PLEASE LET ME KNOW" were confusing to you. Of course, I would want this and of course, I've been pretty clear about it and of course, why WOULDN'T we (any of us) want this?
The thing is, no matter how much we may want it, we just don't have an objectively provable moral code. IF YOU HAD IT, YOU WOULD HAVE OFFERED IT. It would be much celebrated and vaunted and EVERYONE would know about it. Why would you hide something like that IF YOU HAD IT?
The thing is, you don't have it or you wouldn't hide it. You'd be glad to offer it up.
That you haven't says that you don't have it.
Indeed, you APPEAR to agree with me when you say your opinions about what God thinks ARE your opinions and not facts.
As you have said, "Yes, my opinions are not factual, I've never claimed otherwise and you continuing to ask this stupid question just makes you look obsessive and monomaniacal."
And yet, THIS is the reason I continue to ask, is because, on the one hand, you clarify that your opinions ARE your opinions and not facts AND YET, you attack and demonize me for saying we don't have an objective authoritative source for a moral code that is objectively provable. WHY attack me, if YOU AGREE your opinions are your opinions and not provably facts?
Craig... He certainly doesn't want an objective moral code that is transcendent. What he does seem to want is the benefits of an objective moral code. He wants to be able to assert his superiority by labeling other people as "immoral" without realizing that the very definitions he offered don't support his doing so.
What I've made clear is that, while none of us, YOU included, have an authoritative provably objective moral code, nonetheless, morality, writ large, is not that difficult to understand. Most reasonable adults in most places and times have understood the innate clarity if the Golden Rule, of Do No Harm to innocent people. And while living that out may be less than precise, we recognize that generally, we ought not to harm others, we ought not to rape others, we ought not to grab women by the crotch because you can get away with it, you ought not BOAST and laugh about such obscene, perverted behavior, you ought not kill, you ought not put people in power who brazenly do such things and laugh about them.
It's just not that hard, objectively provable or not, MOST of us can agree on this very basic set of decency.
That you continue to not offer a source that YOU THINK is a better alternative just points to the reality that you have nothing. And yet, you continue to attack and demonize me for being in the precise same place that you are in.
And that's where things sit. Marshal and Craig and Glenn, etc, have nothing to offer that is authoritative or probably objectively better, and yet they ignore these questions and demonize people for being in the same position that they are in.
What we have as authoritatively objective moral code is what God specifically states. Your problem, Trabue, is that you call our appeal to God's Word just our opinions of what God says and you totally disregard 3000 years of Jewish and 2000 years of Christians, including outstanding scholars who agree with us. You just say it is only our opinion for thousands of years which says God speaks as homosexuality as being an abomination.
The fact that it's only been in the last 50-60 years or so that people like you have "discovered" Christians and Jews for thousands of years were wrong and just had opinions that really didn't line up with God's Word when it comes to sexual morality is what your are spewing. In reality, you KNOW we are right and just look for excuses to promote that which God condemns.
Dan,
Your continued choice to hide from the alternatives presented, and to exclude the possibility of knowable objective, universal moral code, tells me all I really need o know.
The problem is that you've established arbitrary rules about what is and is not provable based on your preconceptions, makes your repeated demands simply absurd.
"That you continue to not offer a source that YOU THINK is a better alternative just points to the reality that you have nothing. And yet, you continue to attack and demonize me for being in the precise same place that you are in."
That you continue to ignore the fact that I've offered you multiple options that DO claim to be objective, that DO claim to be supported by data, that DO have peer reviewed science to support them, indicates that you're not interested in actually discussing alternatives. That you're using your assumptions about me as a further dodge, just confirms that impression.
Of course, the person who's stock in trade as vitriol, expletives, and personal attacks, pretending that I've sunk to your level is both amusing, and additional evidence that you're not interested in alternatives.
FYI, I've offered you plenty of resources that make incredibly compelling arguments for the objective Truth of the Christian worldview, if you weren't interested then, I can't believe that you'd be interested now.
But, if your hunch says build a "nearly universal" (still unproven claim of fact)moral code based on a bastardization of the GR and an appeal to some alleged consensus, you go right ahead.
As I said, I suspect that your prior commitment to homosexuality as a wondrous thing, and that humans are born sinless and remain intrinsically good, has caused you to create a moral code that encompasses those two preconceptions, and exclude (a priori) any competing moral code that might exclude those preconceptions.
As Glenn just said, and I've said before, a Christian worldview based on scripture, provides a perfectly reasonable foundation for an objective morality.
For example, if the claims of those who advocate for this sort of moral code are True, then it makes absolutely zero difference if anything can be proven to the point that you'll put aside your preconceptions and prejudices. Further, if you're not even willing to look at those arguments (I know, your excuse is that you've seem every possible argument 40 years ago and debunked them all. Even if you can't do so now, we just need to trust you on this and accept it as objective truth.), then what possible reason could you have for demanding that they be spoon fed to you? I've spoon fed you enough to look at numerous options that ALL claim to be objective and you've looked at precisely zero.
This is the problem when you exclude certain positions a priori and declare (without proof) that you were familiar with some arguments 50 years ago. If you're not going to start by being open to following the evidence of logic to it's natural conclusion, then why demand something that you're going to ignore?
Glenn... What we have as authoritatively objective moral code is what God specifically states. Your problem, Trabue, is that you call our appeal to God's Word just our opinions
Craig, ARE Glenn's opinions (yours, Marshal's, mine) about what God says about morality Glenn's opinions, OR are Glenn's opinions objectively factual?
Glenn appears to think his opinions are objectively factual (and thus, not a matter of his personal opinion and he can't be mistaken, they're just facts) and, of course, by definition, HIS opinions ARE his opinions and, IF HE CAN'T objectively, authoritatively prove them, then they are SUBJECTIVE opinions, by definition. Care to clarify? (Ie, give a DIRECT answer?)
that humans are born sinless and remain intrinsically good, has caused you to create a moral code
As a point of reality, a newborn infant HAS NOT sinned. They are very literally demonstrably sinless in that sense. That's just reality.
What you want to say, I think, is that they have a "sin nature," which is an opinion which is not provable (that such a thing as a "sin nature" exists or can be measured). I agree that all humans are imperfect and WILL sin, given the chance. But a newborn infant has literally not had a chance to sin, to choose to do wrong. That's just reality. Do you disagree with reality or do you AGREE with me and reality that a newborn has not had a chance to sin (which is what I mean by "is sinless," and would be definitionally so).
I've never said and don't believe that humans are "intrinsically good." That's your phrasing, not mine. So, if you want to talk about MY positions, then talk about what I believe and not these false assessments of what I believe.
Finally, I have not "created a moral code." I've acknowledged what Jesus and reasonable people have always acknowledged... that the Golden Rule is the sum of any laws we might have... it's the very basic starting point for understanding morality. I'm noting what others have always noted. I'm creating nothing. As much as I'd be honored to think that I created the Golden Rule as a way of understanding morality, that's not me.
Trabue,
What God's Word says are NOT my opinions. It is an objective fact that God in His Word (the Bible) says homosexuality is an abomination. It has been an objective fact understood by Jews and Christians for thousands of years. You only deny it as factual and claim it's only an opinion because you want to support homosexual behavior.
Just because you don't like the fact that 2+2=4, that doesn't mean you can claim it's just my opinion and that you believe 2+2=5.
What is and isn't written in the text of that book are literally there. Genesis 1:1 LITERALLY says, "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." THAT is an objective fact.
What interpretations WE HUMANS read into those texts is, by definition, OUR opinions, literally OUR opinions. The first of Genesis says what it literally says. BUT, does that mean that there is a God who inspired the author(s) to compose Genesis or was it just stories passed on from human to human? The answer to THAT is opinion and, since we can't ask the authors or verify with God (if said god exists) we can't do, so the interpretation MUST BE a human opinion and one that is unprovable, thus subjective. Just as a literal fact. That's how reading works.
There LITERALLY is a line in Leviticus that says "men should not lie with men. If they do, kill them." That the line is there is an objective fact.
BUT, what does that text mean? Is it an objective standard of morality spoken from a God for all people and all times and places? OR, is it a cultural norm from back ~4000 years ago for a particular people and not in any sense an objective moral rule, well, that is the question. And YOUR OPINION on the matter (and those who agree with you) are literally YOUR SUBJECTIVE HUMAN OPINIONS that you can't prove to be a God's will and I doubt highly that it IS God's will or anything other than your own subjective human opinion (and one that turns out to be wrong, since we can recognize and affirm basic human rights would include the right to decide about marriage for one's self.
Just because you don't like the fact that your opinion about a text IS YOUR OPINION does not mean that it's your opinion. Facts are facts and your opinions are YOUR OPINIONS. And if you can't prove your opinion as an objective fact, then it is YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION. As a point of fact.
Understand?
Glenn... "because you want to support homosexual behavior..."
You'll have to remember that I USED TO hold the same opinion as you do and had no desire to change my opinion. It was reading the text that CHANGED my then-conservative opinion. That, and the sorts of bad reasoning like your argument here that pushed me away from the conservative view.
Think about that again: It was NOT reading "liberal gay viewpoints" that caused me to change my position. It was two factors: The text itself AND the arguments made by people like you (and me, back in the day) that were just bad arguments, from a biblical and rational point of view. Conservatism PUSHED ME away from conservatism by their/our bad arguments and reasoning. I didn't leave because of liberals. I left because of conservatives like you (and me).
The same is true for abortion. I was DEEPLY committed to the anti-abortion viewpoint and it was ultimately bad conservative arguments and hubris that pushed me away from the conservative position I used to hold. The more people like you (and me, back in the day) argued AGAINST gay marriage and abortion, the more that some people are pushed away from conservatism.
You really should let that sink in before you continue to make arguments. You're undermining yourself.
Trabue,
You keep saying you used to be like us. That is a bald-face lie. You only say that to give yourself credence.
Lev.18:22 literally says (ESV), "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." And what does it mean "as a male with a woman" It means sexual intercourse between that man and woman. "lie with" means "has sex with."
The NIV makes it very plain: 22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
Chapter 18 starts with God saying, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. From this point God lists all sorts of sexual practices which were done in Egypt and Canaan, and which God found detestable. There are no other topics in this chapter; God just says don’t do any of these things because these are a reason why God is punishing the nations by having Israel drive the people out of the land. It was these practices which made the land unclean. The Scripture is very, very plain: God says all the listed sexual behaviors are an abomination to Him, and that those who practice these things are worthy of severe punishment.
Lev. 20:13 literally says: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death." What does "lie with" mean? Context means sexual intercourse with.
Notice the same strong verbiage God uses to explain His revulsion to such behavior; it is an abomination. Again, let’s look at the context.
Beginning at 20:10, God again lists numerous sexual practices which He forbids. And again, God gives the reason why at verse 23: And you shall not walk in the customs of the nations that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things and therefore I detested them. God said that the pagan lands where he was bringing them were detested - another strong word - because of these sexual practices.
The context of the meaning to "lie with" is spelled out in Leviticus 18 and 20! But, Dan says taking that meaning is just an opinion, regardless of what scholars and normal Jews and Christians have said for over 4000 years.
Leviticus has many ceremonial laws and social order laws which are meant only for Israel as a way to set the nation up as holy - separated - to himself. Scripture tells us these laws were just for Israel (Deut. 4:7-8; Lev. 27:34; Ps. 147:19-20, et al). However, in His discussion about sexual practices He found abhorrent, God says these are behaviors that those outside of Israel are even disallowed, and because they practice such abominations they are being destroyed.
The point is, that the Leviticus passages aren’t just relegated to some ancient prohibition for some people. These passages speak of these sexual practices as something that God detests among people no matter when or where.
There are some claims by those promoting homosexuality that we misunderstand these passages. They say that it is only about homosexual behavior in conjunction with idolatry. But this leaves a problem: Does God then condemn incest, adultery and bestiality ONLY if they are done in conjunction with idolatry - that at any other time they are okay?
Okay, Trabue, now let’s look at Romans 1:26-27, but start at verse 24 to get more of the context:
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (ESV)
The HCSB translates it this way:For even their females exchanged natural sexual intercourse for what is unnatural. The males in the same way also left natural sexual intercourse with females and were inflamed in their lust for one another.
This Scriptural passage is clear: homosexual relations for any reason are considered dishonorable and impure. There is no room for claiming that it is only about those whose “natural” inclinations are for members of the opposite sex and not about those whose “natural” inclinations are for members of the same sex. There is no such thing as “natural” sexual desires for members of the same sex.
Last one for Danny Boy,
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
The ESV combines two terms from the Greek and interprets them as “men who practice homosexuality.” The NIV translates the passage as “male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders,” the NASB says, “nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,” NKJV says, “homosexuals, nor sodomites,” and the KJV says, “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.”
With this many versions, let’s look at the original Greek to know exactly what was said here. The first word is arsenokoites. Where does this come from and what does it mean?
When looking at the Septuagint’s Greek translation of Lev. 18:22 we have the following: meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos. Arsenos means “male” and koiten means “to have sexual intercourse.”
Next, when looking at the Septuagint’s Greek for Lev. 20:13 we have this: hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos.
Notice in both these passages the use of arseno and koiten, and especially the latter passage where the two words are together. It becomes obvious where Paul got this word which means a man who has sexual relations with another man. He is referring back to the Levitical commands against homosexual behavior. It is this word which is translated as “homosexual offenders,” “homosexuals,” “sodomites,” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.” It’s meaning is “male bedder.”
What about the word translated as “male prostitutes,” “effeminate,” and “homosexuals?” This is the Greek word malakoi, which literally means “soft ones.” Supposedly this refers to those who were usually a passive partner in homosexual relationships (or should we say, the one who plays the receptor?)
Nevertheless, both terms are used by Paul to describe those who practice homosexual behavior, and he states without equivocation that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God. Again, it is very plain that Paul is here saying that those who practice homosexual behavior are among the “unrighteous.”
There is nothing in any of these passages that allows for twisted interpretations to claim God permits homosexual relations as long as they are conducted in a committed relationship. The relations are not permitted at all.
So, YES, it is factual an not just an opinion that God has LITERALLY called homosexuality an abomination.
Craig, you going to correct him?
Glenn... "You keep saying you used to be like us. That is a bald-face lie."
Of course, the reality is you're just factually wrong. I not only used to be conservative, I used to be ultra-conservative. For the first 25 years or so of my life I was a super conservative. Reading only the Bible and Dobson, CS Lewis, Jonathan Edwards, AW Tozer, Ravenhill, Swindoll, etc, etc. Going to a conservative Southern Baptist Church where only men could preach and be Deacons. Voted for Reagan. Opposed to abortion. Opposed to any gay Behavior. Took the Bible literally as an inerrantist. On point after point after point, I was a deeply serious conservative.
You all just sound like reality deniers when you say things like that. As if you don't like what you hear and so you make up irrational nonsense. On what possible basis would you suggest that I was not a conservative? Are you so blinded by your worldview that you think it's impossible for anyone to leave it?
The equivocating never stops with Dan.
Dan,
"Of course, I want an objective moral code. I would love to know perfectly what is right and wrong and objectively so. Why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't most people? We want to be able to know, Should I eat meat? Red meat? Factory-farmed red meat? Drive a car? Daily? What is and isn't objectively right and wrong?"
This is an example of the bullshit diversion that does nothing to positively serve your reputation. We speak of an objective moral code and you bring up eating red meat and driving? Are you freaking kidding me? This is what for you constitutes serious, intelligent and honest discourse? This after your GR/DNH blubbering?
"The thing is, no matter how much we may want it, we just don't have an objectively provable moral code."
We do. It's called "Scripture", "The Holy Bible", "The Word of God". Maybe you've heard of it. What's that you say? Not everyone believes in God? So what? How does that change anything. That fact doesn't make His Word any less the definitive source of true morality. It just means more lost souls to save. What's more, the moral teachings of Scripture do not require belief in God in order for those teachings to have mass appeal to honest people, because they're unassailable in their wisdom and benefit. Go ahead. Find one Christian moral teaching that is in any way harmful to anyone. (Helpful hint: One's style being cramped doesn't constitute "harm".)
"...AND YET, you attack and demonize me for saying we don't have an objective authoritative source for a moral code that is objectively provable."
Exactly what in your feeble mind would constitute "objective proof" regarding Scripture as an objective authoritative source for morality? You've never so much as offered a hint as to what that would be. It's just another dodge.
"Most reasonable adults in most places and times have understood the innate clarity if the Golden Rule, of Do No Harm to innocent people."
In a personal, subjective and rather self-serving manner, perhaps. And due to the subjectivity, it cannot be anything more than an ambiguous, undefined code of behavior. You clearly all manner of harm that you prefer to regard in a better light, again proving the self-serving nature of your application of the GR/DNH code. For example, you have no problem lying about Donald Trump, repeating that which has been proven false as if it was true, and insisting every charge against him is true without any legitimate proof. I guess we can all feel good about doing as much to you...it certainly isn't in any way harmful, evidently.
"Marshal and Craig and Glenn, etc, have nothing to offer that is authoritative or probably objectively better..."
Scripture.
more later...
Marshal... Exactly what in your feeble mind would constitute "objective proof" regarding Scripture as an objective authoritative source for morality?
I just mean objective as it is defined. Something is objectively provable when it's NOT dependent on one's feelings or worldview or the people you agree with agreeing with you on the point, but that is visible, demonstrable to all reasonable people, regardless of their political affiliation or feelings or worldview.
If you can only "prove" an idea to people who accept your worldview and your presuppositions on a sacred text, then it's not objectively provable.
Look, I think God exists. And, as a point of fact, God either does or doesn't exist. Objectively so. BUT, I can't objectively prove God exists, not in the sense that I can prove my father existed or that my grandparents once lived in Nelson County, KY.
I think it is clear, given good, common sense reasoning and criteria like the Golden Rule/Do No Harm/affirming human rights that a good God (that I happen to believe in) would gladly endorse and celebrate gay folks marrying. But I can't prove that even God exists (not objectively), and I certainly can't prove objectively that God celebrates gay folk getting married.
At the same time, none of you can objectively prove that God exists or that God has set up rules against and believes that gay guys getting married or women having abortions is wrong. One of us is likely correct, objectively so, but neither of us can objectively prove it.
But we've covered all this before. IF you all could objectively prove God exists or that your opinions about what God thinks about abortion or homosexuality, you would have done so by now. Merely saying (as Glenn does) "Here are some passages in the Bible that I AND PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH ME think means that God calls these actions immoral" is not proving something to be an objective fact.
What part about all of this is not clear?
Marshal... This is an example of the bullshit diversion that does nothing to positively serve your reputation. We speak of an objective moral code and you bring up eating red meat and driving? Are you freaking kidding me? This is what for you constitutes serious, intelligent and honest discourse?
? How is bringing up instances where one may not know authoritatively/definitively the correct moral position to take a diversion?
Look, either everyone eating red meat grown in factory farms and doing so on a regular basis is moral or it's not. But we can't prove it one way or another. And the Do No Harm rule may be harder to discern, especially with so many caveats (what if it's only once a month? What if it's cows from small, organic local farmers raised responsibly?). It would be truly nice to have some black and white authoritative answer to such moral questions.
Why is that not a serious consideration when talking about morality? And how does it take away from the stupidly false suggestion that I (and people like me) OF COURSE would love to know more definitively what is and isn't moral? And that the suggestion that we don't care about morality is nuts on the face of it?
I gave a reasonable example. What's not serious or honest about it?
You appear to be always on high emotional freak out about even the very smallest of discussions and rational conversations.
Dan,
I haven’t seen anything to correct. Of course you want me to do your work for you. Not surprised at all.
Glenn and Marshal have just stated that they know these subjective opinions about morality as objective facts. You have made it clear that YOUR opinions on these matters ARE your opinions and not provable facts. Is it the case that you think that Glenn and Marshal have an objectively provable case that you don't have? OR is it the case that you agree with reality that Glenn and Marshal have not presented an objectively provable case and that they are, indeed, talking about subjective, unproven opinions, NOT objectively provable facts?
Glenn... "So, YES, it is factual an not just an opinion that God has LITERALLY called homosexuality an abomination."
God LITERALLY has not done this. The Bible has NO cases where God has called "homosexuality an abomination."
In Leviticus, there is one place where the HUMAN AUTHOR of that book (or that part of the book) says specifically to the people of Israel specifically at that time, "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." and "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death."
That is LITERALLY NOT God calling "homosexuality" an "abomination." It is literally not stating that, in all times and all places, gay folk getting married, for instance, is an abomination. AND GLENN almost certainly does not believe that gay folk should face capital punishment for getting married and sleeping together. So, the mere existence of a line in Leviticus is NOT SUFFICIENT for Glenn to make it a sweeping rule for all places, since he uses his reasoning to think, "Well, THAT part of the rule should not be carried out..." even if he does want to try to extrapolate out a sweeping general universal rule against all homosexual behavior.
So, first of all, GLENN DOES NOT THINK that the existence of a line in Leviticus is sufficient to generalize a universal rule. He almost certainly recognizes (Good Lord in heaven, let's hope he does!) that at least PART of those rules/lines were not universal. And assuming he does, he does so because he used HIS REASONING to suss that out, and not because God told him to make an exception for that part of the rule.
Beyond that, just because Glenn THINKS in his human mind that "Here is a text and we can glean objective rules that apply to everyone from the text BECAUSE it's in this particular collection of books," does not mean that it is objectively proven that we ought to heed rules in his book (AND his particular interpretation of those rules) because he says so. That is definitionally subjective and not proven authoritatively. After all, if some extremists Muslims (or some extremist Christians) point to their holy text and try to say, "Here is a universal rule that I've gleaned from my holy text: We should kill the gays...," Glenn would hopefully say, "NO! That you gleaned that from your text does not make it objectively factually moral to do so."
But I've said all this and it should be clear by now.
If you all can prove it as an objectively provable and demonstrable fact, observable to ALL who review the case, regardless of personal feelings and cultural partisanship, then do so.
That you all never have is all the proof we need to know that you can't. Because we KNOW you'd love to prove it IF YOU COULD. You haven't because you can't.
There you have it. Dan says GOD isn't the one saying homosexuality is an abomination (detestable, etc), rather it was a human author who wrote that, totally disregarding that the text itself says that GOD told Moses what to say to the people.
While Israel was given the death penalty by God for homosexuals, and that God stated that he is destroying the nations around Israel, God never makes the death penalty for everyone for all time. However, the context that he destroyed the surround pagans for such detestable activities and his demonstrated detest for homosexuality is certainly proving his detest for it for all time and for all cultures, which is why in Romans and 1 Corinthians Paul reiterates that it is an unnatural and despicable behavior which bars practitioners from the kingdom of God. AH, but according to Dan Paul is just another human who put his own ideas into the text, regardless of the fact that Paul says he got his teachings from Jesus
Again, Dan's argument against such texts being factual, objective moral teachings is nothing any reasonable person could opine.
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with irrational Trabue
Glenn... Dan says GOD isn't the one saying homosexuality is an abomination (detestable, etc), rather it was a human author who wrote that, totally disregarding that the text itself says that GOD
The line was LITERALLY written by a human author. The line ALLEGES that God said those words. But where is your proof that God said "men shall not lie with men, if they do, kill them..." in any and all circumstances and times? OBJECTIVE proof?
This is not anything that is irrational. IF YOU WERE ENGAGED with a conversation with a Mormon who tells you they know that Jesus came to the Americas and wrote down some words on a golden scroll, do you accept it just because they told you it's their sacred text and thus, from God and thus, objective/reliable/authoritative? NO. YOU DO NOT.
Why, then, is your opinion/interpretation of your sacred text and the human traditions around it "objectively factual..."? On what basis is it authoritative? Because you say so? Because many others have said so? That is an appeal to numbers, not to objective facts.
Glenn's human reasoning...
While Israel was given the death penalty by God for homosexuals,
and that God stated that he is destroying the nations around Israel,
God never makes the death penalty for everyone for all time.
However,
the context that he destroyed the surround pagans for such detestable activities
and his demonstrated detest for homosexuality
is certainly proving his detest for it for all time and for all cultures
The text does not say ANY of that. This is Glenn's HUMAN REASONING... him working through what the text does and doesn't say (in a flawed manner, but let's set that aside) and then, GLENN is reaching conclusions about what to READ INTO the text, even though it's not there.
In other words, the literal text says that these are rules specifically for Israel back then, the literal text says only "men shall not lie with men, if they do, kill them" (along with other rules about menstrual sex and slavery and other things we don't think are universal rules) and GLENN SORTS OUT which rules HE THINKS should be deemed universal and which ones are not. Which is fine (no matter how flawed the reasoning may be), as far as that goes.
I'm FINE with Glenn holding these subjective opinions and interpretations of the texts. BUT, Glenn then takes it a step further and says that these are NOT his interpretations of the text, but they are THE ONLY and OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL interpretations humans can reach, from these texts.
When obviously, humans and fellow believers of good will can and do reach different conclusions for solid reasons. Rational, reasonable reasons that can be understood by all, regardless of religious biases and partisan feelings.
Which is why, I THINK, Craig has acknowledged that human opinions about how to interpret these passages ARE human opinions, not provably objective facts.
But then, you can answer for yourself, Craig, if you will just do so.
Trabue,
YOU are just like a Mormon -- twisting scripture to suit you agenda. The difference is, with a Mormon I can show them the context of the passage they twist and can usually get them to acknowledge their error. You, being worse than a Mormon in your twisting support you perverted and deviant ideology, are unteachable.
"I just mean objective as it is defined. Something is objectively provable when it's NOT dependent on one's feelings or worldview or the people you agree with agreeing with you on the point, but that is visible, demonstrable to all reasonable people, regardless of their political affiliation or feelings or worldview."
Which behavioral teaching of Scripture does not benefit all people regardless of whether or not they agree with me, Scripture or that God exists? Find it and present it or your objection is worthless.
By your tortured reasoning, there is no way to affirm ANY understanding of morality as "objective". It's ALL subjective and consensus based. By that standard, I'm not at all obligated to abide any of it if I choose to reject it for any reason regardless of the severity of harm it might cause and to how many.
Dan,
I haven’t read what Art and Glenn have written, and may not. I certainly don’t trust your characterization of what they might or might not have said. I know this confuses you, but how about I just speak for myself, not for anyone else.
Finally, given your penchant for vitriol, mischaracterization, and other behaviors of questionable morality, I see absolutely no reason to give you anything that you could possibly manipulate to buttress your unsubstantiated hunches.
I know this is crazy, but if you’re going to make claims, prove them yourself.
I know this’ll shock you, but those of us who are self employed are a little busy right now dealing with our upcoming shelter in place order.
Marshal... "By your tortured reasoning, there is no way to affirm ANY understanding of morality as "objective". It's ALL subjective and consensus based..."
1. Yes. That is the fact that I've been pointing to. That you all cannot objectively prove your opinions about God's opinion about morality, that they are objectively factually correct. You cannot prove it objectively.
Do you now recognize what I've been saying all along?
And do you agree that, no, you can't prove it objectively (as Objectively is typically defined)?
2. In what sense is it "tortured" referring to what can and cannot be objectively proven given the standard definition of objectively? This is just rational conversation based on reasonable standards and standard definitions. Where am I mistaken?
3. And, as I've been saying, that we can't objectively prove an action is authoritatively moral or immoral does not mean that we can't reasonably support the idea to a degree that people from a variety of backgrounds can generally unite behind some common understandings. This is real life in the adult world of a mixed culture Society. We don't rely on the opinions of Islamic Fundamentalists or the opinions of Muslim moderates on what they think the Quran says is moral or immoral because not everybody could agree with those ideas and for that reason. Nor do we rely upon fundamentalist Christian or liberal Christian ideas about what the Bible says is or isn't moral, because not everybody would agree with those groups' opinions.
Instead, we can find at least some reasonable common ground around the ideas of doing no harm to innocent people, the Golden Rule, the notion that it is self-evident that we all have some basic human liberties.
This is all that I've been saying. Can you agree to it now good, maybe, you understand my point better?
"Instead, we can find at least some reasonable common ground around the ideas of doing no harm to innocent people,..."
I feel the need to point a couple of things out.
1. No one is saying that.as Christians, we shouldn't live out the actual Golden Rule/Great Commandments. I think that we all agree that we should live out all of Jesus' commandments.
2. I think it's incredibly strange that after lord knows how many comments and piles of bovine excrement, we all of a sudden get this new wrinkle to the "nearly universal" moral code. All of a sudden, only "innocent" people are worthy of not being harmed. Interesting new twist.
It's always been part of what I've been saying, Craig. I didn't say it every time because after having said it once, I thought it was obvious and implied thereafter. The point being is wrong to cause harm to innocent people. Taking something from someone for no reason the causes them harm. Raping them which obviously causes harm. This, as opposed to arresting someone who raped someone, for instance.
Of course, all of this is obvious and self-evident. Y'all are making this way more difficult than it should be.
Again, if you have a better method or set of criteria for determining morality in a pluralistic society, I'm open to your suggestions. You have never made a suggestion of something that you think is better precisely because you cannot. Of that, I am certain. If you could, you would. You can't, so you don't.
I would also just suggest that admitting that you don't have anything that you think is better would be a moral and rational thing to do, instead of constantly attacking me when you don't have anything to offer that's better.
Craig... No one is saying that.as Christians, we shouldn't live out the actual Golden Rule/Great Commandments. I think that we all agree
And I'm not saying that you all DON'T think that. What I'm saying is that all people, NOT JUST CHRISTIANS, or religious people or God-believers, can and do recognize the inherent value of the Golden Rule/the Do No Harm (to innocents) principle, the self-evident notion that all humans have human rights. THAT is the benefit to the Do No Harm/GR criteria when it comes to the question of what criteria will we use to decide how to live morally.
Craig... I think it's incredibly strange that after lord knows how many comments and piles of bovine excrement, we all of a sudden get this new wrinkle to the "nearly universal" moral code. All of a sudden, only "innocent" people are worthy
Within THIS post, we began speaking about the Do No Harm/GR on March 11. On that day, I referenced Do No Harm to Innocents (and other times afterwards), saying... "NATURAL is good up until the point that it causes harm. IF it causes harm to innocents, THEN it is not good."
The same is true on other posts where we've spoken about this over the years. It's always been part of MY conversation. That you failed to catch it does not mean that I didn't mention it. Just fyi.
Also, the point of the do no harm TO INNOCENTS is merely allowing for the notion that we can reasonably jail folks who do harm to others and that there can reasonably be penalties for bad behaviors/causing harm, thus the GR/Do No Harm guidance is not a free pass to commit atrocities without being stopped. It's the difference between grace and cheap grace.
My bad, I didn’t go back and dig through every comment because you used the term once, then just assumed we’d add it in to allow you the imprecision.
Of course, you realize that you’re saying that it’s now OK to harm the guilty, and that you haven’t defined either innocent or guilty? But, details.
It seems foolish to point out that you’ve been ignoring alternatives to your bastardized version of the GR/2GC for weeks, but intellectual honesty forces me to mention it. The fact that you decided on an arbitrary condition long after these options were proposed, suggests that the arbitrary condition is a result of your inability to address the reasonable, rational, science based alternatives,
The fact is, I have not ignored the suggestions that you don't believe in. On the other hand, you clearly have ignored and avoided any attempt to offer an alternative that you think is a better one.
I'm telling you that is because you don't have a better alternative. That you continue to not even address it demonstrates that fact and also points to a degree of immorality or low character on your part, in that you're willing to admit you have nothing or deal with the question at all. There's no shame in you not having something better. Just admit it.
I didn’t go back and dig through every comment because you used the term once, then just assumed we’d add it in to allow you the imprecision.
Actually, just looked and it appears I included "innocent" at least ten times, not once. Again, this is not rocket science. You're making this way harder than even you probably think it is.
you realize that you’re saying that it’s now OK to harm the guilty, and that you haven’t defined either innocent or guilty?
I'm not saying it's okay to "harm the guilty" for the giggles of harming people. When reasonable adults discuss morality, we recognize that we're talking about morality being Do No Harm as a starting point, with the OBVIOUS caveat that if someone is CAUSING harm to others, then taking actions like subduing them forcibly or jailing them is justified.
I haven't defined innocent or guilty? Again, I think it is self-evident to reasoning, moral adults, but if it helps you to understand what the rest of us are talking about: If someone is just living there lives, not out overtly deliberately causing harm, then in general terms, we're talking about THAT level of innocent. Not perfect, just generally innocent and, thus, having no reason to put them in cages or take their stuff or cause physical harm to them.
In THIS discussion, then, "guilty" would be those who HAVE caused harm to others, like rape, abuse, molestation, grabbing women by the crotch, ogling teen-aged girls for your sick pleasure and using your power and wealth to get away with it... things like that.
And of course, that there are degrees of innocent and guilt should be evident to all, but you all are acting like you've never heard of morality in this context, so, we are all might be guilty of what we might call minor levels of causing harm (passing on a false claim, doing so repeatedly and even after corrected, leaving work a little early, etc... but for someone to, for instance, kill you because you called them a name would be egregious harm by the killer because of the disproportionality of it all.
But you all can't be wholly unaware of all of this. Nonetheless, just some additional clarifications.
Marshal, I would like to take this moment, in our crazy world right now, to apologize for the rape boy wording. I do believe that your embrace of those words does help promote the real tragedy of our rape culture and acceptance of rapists and sexual predators like our president. I know women who are harmed by those sorts of words and I am angered when people use them in the way that you have.
But calling you that name is not helpful and, indeed, is pretty silly and stupid of me. For that, I apologize. Truly.
I'm hoping that all is going well with all of y'all. Peace.
Dan,
You do realize that (as someone who claims to be a Christian), that you’re offering as your hunch about morality a bastardized version of Jesus teaching (GR/2GC), and something that directly contradicts Jesus teachings. I guess it’s ok to sacrifice your personal faith on the alter of consensus.
I probably should have been more clear. 1. Who gets to determine “innocent/not innocent”? 2. Is this an objective determination (legal), or a subjective determination? 3. What standard are you offering to determine “innocent”?
I understand that you keep demanding that I adhere to your arbitrary condition, as a way to dodge dealing with rational, reasonable, scientific options. I guess your love affair with rationality, reason, and science doesn’t extend to things that cause problems with your hunches.
@ 300 comments in and Dan decides to apologize for one part of his attack that was the topic of the post. After weeks of defending his vitriol, and offering self justifying reasons why he was right in his vitriolic attacks, he finally, partially, sees the light. How touching.
Craig... You do realize that (as someone who claims to be a Christian), that you’re offering as your hunch about morality a bastardized version of Jesus teaching (GR/2GC), and something that directly contradicts Jesus teachings.
No, I do not realize that. At all. I think my understanding of the Golden Rule is relatively precisely what Jesus is talking about. And, of course, I therefore do NOT think it contradicts Jesus' teachings. At all. I think it is precisely in line with Jesus' teachings. And with basic good common sense.
But help me out, if you'd like.
First, what SPECIFICALLY do you think I am "offering as a hunch about morality..."?
and how SPECIFICALLY is it a "bastardization of Jesus' teachings..."?
While I'm waiting for your answers (which unfortunately will probably not materialize), here are you questions, answered.
1. Who gets to determine “innocent/not innocent”?
In this world, we ALL do. It is ALL of our responsibility and privilege to work on behalf of the innocent and work against those who'd cause harm (the "not innocent"). I probably should have been more clear the many times I've said it, but I don't really know how to do so.
The problem, I think, inherent in your question is the sense that someone gets to determine who is and isn't innocent, as if innocence or guilt were an arbitrary matter made up by a RULE GIVER who randomly gives rules that are whimsically and RULE-GIVER based. That, as opposed to the notion that some things are self evident and that includes that humans have as part of their innate being some basic rights that ought not be violated. Not because someone somewhere made up random rules and we just need to appeal to the RULE GIVER to determine those rules, but because it is innate to humanity.
God didn't create rules out of thin air, I don't think, for no reason. Rather, morality is that which supports and promotes the good of this world, that which is good innately of this world. Love, health, kindness, decency. Helping someone achieve independence (or better, a healthy interdependence) is good. Enslaving someone is, therefore, innately and self-evidently, bad. Like that.
Maybe I'm not explaining that well, but I'm out of time.
2. Is this an objective determination (legal), or a subjective determination?
Again, IN THIS WORLD, we have no way to objectively prove a given action's morality. At least, that is the case if you don't presuppose that some things are self evident and that causing harm to innocent people is self-evidently wrong.
DO YOU DISAGREE? Do you think you can OBJECTIVELY PROVE an action's morality? If so, please do so. I think you've been quite clear that you can't.
But, do I think some things ARE objectively wrong, even if we can't prove it? Yes. It is objectively wrong, I think, to rape someone, to grab a woman by the crotch, to boast and laugh about doing that because your money and position gives you that "right..." I can't prove it's wrong objectively if you don't see that it's self-evidently wrong, but I'm confident that all morally rational people can agree upon it.
3. What standard are you offering to determine “innocent”?
Having done nothing to deserve it. A woman who is in the presence of a sexual predator who has not invited that man to grab her by the crotch IS INNOCENT. Period. She did nothing to invite that assault. Her having opted to be in his presence IS NOT AN INVITATION to sexual assault, and thus, she would be innocent. And the predator would be guilty.
Again, by the measure of Do No Harm/GR/Human rights, this is all self-evident, I think, to all morally rational people.
Do you disagree?
“No, I do not realize that. At all. I think my understanding of the Golden Rule is relatively precisely what Jesus is talking about. And, of course, I therefore do NOT think it contradicts Jesus' teachings. At all. I think it is precisely in line with Jesus' teachings. And with basic good common sense.”
I’ve posted the GR/2GC text earlier. It’s interesting that you choose to interpret that text incredibly loosely, while choosing wooden literalism, depending on which suits your hunch. Jesus clearly taught “love your enemies”, and other similar things, If you’re advocating harm to the not “innocent” that seems to contradict Jesus teachings. But, it fits your hunch, so you’ll stick with it.
2. Nicely done, you pivoted away from the question I actually asked, and responded with a hunch based on your preconceptions.
The question I actually asked was who and what standards determine “innocent” and not “innocent”? “Innocent” of what? Are you suggesting that “innocent” not “innocent” are subjective? Are you applying an objective legal standard or something else? Are you equating “innocent” with moral? Is “innocent” a state of 100% “innocent” or are there degrees?
3. So you’re using “innocent” is a subjective manner? Try using a more universal example.
Once again, you use the self evident standard, without having dealt with the obvious failings I pointed out earlier.
Again, I’ve pointed out multiple options that are reasonable, rational, and grounded in science that you’ve dodged for weeks.
So, given the fact that you haven’t solved the “self evident” problem and you haven’t explained why your hunch/bastardized version of the GR/2GC, is more rational that anything I’ve offered.
But, please keep dodging.
First, what SPECIFICALLY do you think I am "offering as a hunch about morality..."?
and how SPECIFICALLY is it a "bastardization of Jesus' teachings..."?
Still waiting. Which is to be expected.
Craig... Jesus clearly taught “love your enemies”, and other similar things, If you’re advocating harm to the not “innocent” that seems to contradict Jesus teachings. But, it fits your hunch, so you’ll stick with it.
I'm saying what is reasonable: That IF you harm others, THEN it is reasonable that you would be stopped from harming others. That does not violate the Golden Rule, nor does it violate the Do No Harm rule (which is "Do no harm to innocent bystanders," to put it yet another way). Now, SOME MIGHT say, "holding those who do harm accountable IS violating the GR," but I'd disagree. The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you'd want them to do unto you... IF I have harmed someone, I would want to be held accountable, as I don't think cheap grace helps anyone.
Are you familiar with the concept of Restorative Justice? If not, I'd encourage you to look into it.
Also, do you think that by "Love your enemies," Jesus meant, "if someone rapes your loved ones or you, they get a free pass... don't hold them accountable..."? Do you think that is Love? Because I'd say that such an approach is sick and harmful, itself.
More questions to go unanswered.
Craig... I’ve posted the GR/2GC text earlier. It’s interesting that you choose to interpret that text incredibly loosely, while choosing wooden literalism, depending on which suits your hunch.
The GR, in Matthew and in Luke, is found in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. This is Jesus' sermon where, as you all know, Jesus spends a great deal of time in talking about morality and following God.
Interestingly, Luke 6 begins with Jesus being criticized, again, by the religious Pharisees. Those who spent a great deal of effort and time in "knowing" what morality is and telling others how to be moral, often in a harsh, negative manner. They criticize Jesus for breaking the Sabbath laws about working on a Saturday because Jesus was "harvesting" some grain to fill their bellies. A violation of the strict RULES the Pharisees had in place. In that context, Jesus helped clarify the idea of morality, because they were clearly missing the point.
In this same story in Mark, Jesus says to the Pharisees, "The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath." The point being that the rules aren't in place to blindly follow. The rules are there for our benefit. If a HUMAN UNDERSTANDING of the rules dictates action that cause harm, then that human understanding of morality is off, wrong.
Back in Luke, Jesus also heals a man on the Sabbath (again, working on the sabbath, according to the Pharisees narrow understanding of the rules), again angering the Pharisees.
In this context of the rule-giving/living Pharisees and morality, Jesus begins his Sermon on the Mount/Plain. Jesus gives lessons on morality/right living. Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, watch out for/side with the poor, for they are blessed, etc.
Then there's this...
If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also.
If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.
Give to everyone who asks you, and
if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
In Jesus' time, the common people were well familiar with the backhanded slap across their cheek (Matthew 6), used by those in power to keep them down/oppressed/in their place. By turning them their right cheek, this was a challenge to their authority to dismiss them like children. It was a challenge to oppressive authority. Same for the taking the coat and the demand to carry their pack for a second mile. Some argue, and I agree, that these were subtle and powerful non-violent direct action challenges to oppressive authorities.
In THAT context, Jesus says to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. The Golden Rule, then, is NOT being submissive to oppressive authorities in the sense of giving them a pass. It's about confronting oppressive harm in a positive, progressive manner. It's about establishing some common humanity to all people - the oppressor and the oppressed, and thereby forcing the oppressor to acknowledge the humanity and, rights, even of the oppressed (although, of course, such rights weren't recognized at a governmental level back then... this is one way we've progressed, thanks to such teachings).
More...
Dan,
You need to answer this question:
Which behavioral teaching of Scripture does not benefit all people regardless of whether or not they agree with me, Scripture or that God exists?
While I wait, likely in vain, for you to actually answer this without equivocation, I'll take care of a few things. Soon, I'll be repeating other questions you haven't answered.
"1. Yes. That is the fact that I've been pointing to. That you all cannot objectively prove your opinions about God's opinion about morality, that they are objectively factually correct. You cannot prove it objectively.
Do you now recognize what I've been saying all along?"
I recognize that you're using this impossible standard to dodge the point. There is likely more evidence in favor of God's existence than not, despite not having any absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt proof. To use the latter as a ploy to reject that which is inconvenient is an all-too-common ploy of yours and as childish an argument, particularly from one like yourself who pretends to be Christian, as any I've ever seen.
As there is so much, more so now than ever before, that suggests we can rely upon the Bible as a legitimate source and evidence for the existence of God, it is not the least bit impossible to know what God's opinions on the two most common topics related to "objective proof" are.
"2. In what sense is it "tortured" referring to what can and cannot be objectively proven given the standard definition of objectively? This is just rational conversation based on reasonable standards and standard definitions. Where am I mistaken?"
It's not a matter of being mistaken...though you so often are...but a matter of being dishonest. To pretend you're demonstrating the least bit of integrity by mentioning trivialities such as eating red meat or driving cars is absurd, lacking seriousness and dishonest. They are hardly on part with issues such as the abomination of homosexuality and the cruel evil of abortion. As such, it is not at all "rational" conversation based on "reasonable" discourse.
"3. And, as I've been saying, that we can't objectively prove an action is authoritatively moral or immoral does not mean that we can't reasonably support the idea to a degree that people from a variety of backgrounds can generally unite behind some common understandings."
And as I've been saying, the point is, or at least was until you diverted from it, about an objective basis for determining what is or isn't moral. Your desire to unite people doesn't cut it, and it is again, just a matter of consensus and what's fashionable. As such, there's no obligation on anyone's part to abide any of it, short of running afoul of those who might wish to enforce it. And if it becomes a matter of civil law, it is less a matter of morality than legality. Not the same and the subject has thus changed...again.
"Nor do we rely upon fundamentalist Christian or liberal Christian ideas about what the Bible says is or isn't moral, because not everybody would agree with those groups' opinions."
And there you go wrong again, because the point isn't opinion at all, but what is or isn't truly moral. Again, morality is like truth. It exists regardless of whether or not we do or whether or not we agree with it. When you say you don't agree that homosexuality is wrong, it doesn't change the FACT that it is. What you're doing is determining what is or isn't moral by your personal preferences, not according to a true willingness to understand and accept whether a behavior is harmful physically, mentally or spiritually.
"Instead, we can find at least some reasonable common ground around the ideas of doing no harm to innocent people, the Golden Rule, the notion that it is self-evident that we all have some basic human liberties."
Again, you're not talking about morality. You're talking about consensus opinion and what's fashionable regarding any given behavior. God's Word is all we need. But the question isn't whether Dan Trabue is able to figure out how to make anyone, including himself, believe He exists or that His Will is accurately recorded for us in Scripture. It's whether or not His Will is beneficial to all. So again, Which behavioral teaching of Scripture does not benefit all people regardless of whether or not they agree with me, Scripture or that God exists?
In Matthew's telling of this GR line from Jesus, here's the context...
“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Look, Jesus says, it's just not that hard to understand in principle. Who would give their hungry child a stone instead of bread? Just don't be a dick. In everything, do unto others what you'd have them do to you. THIS SUMS up the law and the prophets. And what are the Law and the Prophets? It's a way of referring to how they knew what to do, how to recognize moral and immoral actions.
The religious Pharisees of the time (and before that time) had missed out on the simple grace of understanding the GR as a simple, obvious, SELF-EVIDENT ("Who among you doesn't know this?! Don't be jerks!") criteria for understanding morality.
If you're reading line after line of Leviticus or the Prophets and the conclusion you reach prevents people from harvesting grain to feed their hunger, you've gone astray. If your love of the OT law and prophets has you reaching the conclusion that immigrants are parasites to be chased away or destroyed, you've swallowed rules but missed the Golden Rule. If you live and die by OT rules and think you're taking "god's word" literally and this leads you to wanting to stone "adulterous" women or call them harmful, abusive names in the manner of rapists and sexual predators... if it causes you to oppose two adults in love joining together to live a respectful, loving married life (because they are the "wrong race" or "wrong gender"), then you've missed the point of the rules. Of "the Law." Of morality.
The point is Grace. The Golden Rule. Do unto others. Do no harm. It's not hard, boys. Which of you fails to understand this?
Nor is the point a cheap grace. Submit to the authorities merely because they are the authorities, EVEN IF they are an oppressive, harmful authority? Because that's "grace...?" Because that's "the Law..."? Hell no! Grace, not cheap grace. Do no harm, but stand up for the oppressed and for human rights, because it is self-evident.
Which of you fails to understand this? Jesus asks rhetorically.
Where specifically am I misunderstanding the Golden Rule in the context of Jesus' words or the context of simple self-evident reasoning? Because that is what the Golden Rule is, an appeal to the self-evident idea that we ought not harm others.
Which of you fails to understand this?
Marshal...
Which behavioral teaching of Scripture does not benefit all people regardless of whether or not they agree with me, Scripture or that God exists?
I don't think ANY teaching FROM GOD does not benefit all people. However, their are passages in the Bible that some people might extrapolate out rules that most certainly do not benefit all people. For example...
The command to kill adulterers. As we see in Jesus' defense of the "adulterous woman," women in biblical societies were second class citizens... or not citizens at all. They were property. Thus, the rules about divorce and capitol punishment ended up being an assault on women and their rights as human beings. Thus, "if there's an adulterer, kill him/her," does not benefit all people. It is an atrocity, a great immorality.
DO you agree that killing adulterers (especially women) is a great immorality? One that does not benefit all people, of course?
Or the command that, if raped, a woman might be forced into marriage with her rapist. THAT does not benefit all people. It is a great immorality.
The "command" in the Bible...
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her." ~Deut 22
Do you agree that forcing a woman to marry her rapist (or the man who "seizes her and lies down with her," if you prefer) is a great immorality and, as such, not beneficial to all?
I could go on all day long, but hopefully you get my point. I don't think ANY teaching from a Good God would not be beneficial to all, BUT I also don't think that conservative teaching and interpretation that they extract from such passages are the same as "scripture." It is a human tradition and some of those human traditions are wrong, I believe, or even, a great immorality.
I'll give you a chance to answer some questions.
Marshal... there you go wrong again, because the point isn't opinion at all, but what is or isn't truly moral. Again, morality is like truth. It exists regardless of whether or not we do or whether or not we agree with it.
I agree. Either it is or it isn't moral for two gay guys to marry. Either it is or it isn't immoral to publicly oppose (or even to try to legislate against) such a marriage. Objectively so.
The point is, none of us can authoritatively objectively PROVE this point one way or the other (well, unless you go with the "self-evident human rights" thinking... which I lean more and more towards with each of these conversations...).
YOU CAN NOT OBJECTIVELY PROVE that your opinion about God's opinion on gay folk marrying or abortion is authoritatively correct. You just can't, AS A FACT.
DO you acknowledge that reality?
Marshal... When you say you don't agree that homosexuality is wrong, it doesn't change the FACT that it is.
And when you say that gay guys marrying is wrong, that doesn't change the fact that this is YOUR OPINION and not something you can objectively authoritatively prove.
DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REALITY?
Marshal... I recognize that you're using this impossible standard to dodge the point. There is likely more evidence in favor of God's existence than not, despite not having any absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt proof.
You were speaking of having "objective proof." I'm just dealing with reality. YOU CAN'T OBJECTIVELY AUTHORITATIVELY PROVE that your opinion about these moral questions is authoritatively factually correct. IT IS YOUR OPINION.
That is just reality. When having these discussions, it's vital to begin with an acknowledgement of reality. If one of us is not acknowledging reality, then they are being delusional and there's not much hope of finding common understanding with a delusional person, right?
Do I believe there's plenty of evidence for God? Of course, I do. I wouldn't believe in God if I didn't think there was reason to do so. I'm just acknowledging the reality that we can't objectively prove that God exists as an objective fact.
Do you recognize that reality?
Or, if you can objectively prove God's existence, do so.
The reason why this matters is because people have perverted and subverted God and God's will to try to force their opinions off on people since the time of the Pharisees and before. That some people SAY "This is God's Law" does not make it an objective fact. I'm FINE with you holding opinions. I'm FINE with you saying you think your opinions make the most sense. BUT, the reality is that you can't objectively prove your opinions about God's opinion on these issues of morality. You just can't and you should be able to acknowledge that.
DO YOU?
“First, what SPECIFICALLY do you think I am "offering as a hunch about morality..."?”
You’re offering your version of the GR/2GC as a nearly universal moral code.
“and how SPECIFICALLY is it a "bastardization of Jesus' teachings..."?”
Asked and answered.
1. You’ve bastardized the GR/2GC, and you’re now contradicting Jesus’ commands that don’t limit things to those you consider innocent.
“I'm saying what is reasonable: That IF you harm others, THEN it is reasonable that you would be stopped from harming others. That does not violate the Golden Rule, nor does it violate the Do No Harm rule (which is "Do no harm to innocent bystanders," to put it yet another way). Now, SOME MIGHT say, "holding those who do harm accountable IS violating the GR," but I'd disagree. The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you'd want them to do unto you... IF I have harmed someone, I would want to be held accountable, as I don't think cheap grace helps anyone.”
1. When did your “Do No Harm” bastardization become an official “Rule”? Who votes on that? Who decides that your hunch is now a rule. I was unaware of this momentous elevation.
“Are you familiar with the concept of Restorative Justice? If not, I'd encourage you to look into it.”
Yes, it has nothing to do with this conversation. You are suggesting that the only people that your hunch applies to are the “innocent” (which raises multiple unanswered questions up to this point)
“Also, do you think that by "Love your enemies," Jesus meant, "if someone rapes your loved ones or you, they get a free pass... don't hold them accountable..."? Do you think that is Love? Because I'd say that such an approach is sick and harmful, itself.”
No, but it also doesn’t mean that there is free reign to harm them either. You appear to be discounting repentance completely. You also appear to be critical of those who choose to forgive those who sin against us. Under your construct, Jesus has every right to harm those who tortured and killed Him. Yet you seem to be suggesting not following that example of Jesus.
“More questions to go unanswered.”
It actually helps if you don’t bitch about me not answering questions I’ve never seen. Also, not bitching about questions I answer, especially since I’ve seen no answers from you yet.
First of all, DON'T EVER AGAIN use street language ("don't be a dick") to paraphrase ANYTHING said by God/Jesus on this blog. Got it, you who thinks it's a mortal sin to call a whore a whore??
"THIS SUMS up the law and the prophets. And what are the Law and the Prophets?"
The LAW, among other things, included behaviors God forbade. By forbidding those behaviors, God established morality...immoral behavior vs. moral behavior. You cannot sum up the Law by ignoring and rejecting the Law...choosing which behaviors are moral or not moral by YOUR perverse standards...by YOUR devotion and enabling of perversion.
"If you're reading line after line of Leviticus or the Prophets and the conclusion you reach prevents people from harvesting grain to feed their hunger, you've gone astray."
Wonderful. But I've never done anything like that. Not even close.
"If your love of the OT law and prophets has you reaching the conclusion that immigrants are parasites to be chased away or destroyed, you've swallowed rules but missed the Golden Rule."
Fantastic. But I've never done anything like that, either. Nor have the political leaders I support.
"If you live and die by OT rules and think you're taking "god's word" literally and this leads you to wanting to stone "adulterous" women or call them harmful, abusive names in the manner of rapists and sexual predators..."
Again, you engage in dishonesty, as I've NEVER so much as hinted that adulterous whores should be stoned to death. I call sinners either "sinners" or by the words that describe what kind of sinner they are (thief, liar, murderer, whore) in the manner of an honest person who doesn't concern himself with the feelings of the justly accused, pretending I should be because I don't like the political leader standing in opposition to the sinner.
"if it causes you to oppose two adults in love joining together to live a respectful, loving married life (because they are the "wrong race" or "wrong gender"), then you've missed the point of the rules. Of "the Law." Of morality."
If it leads me to oppose two homosexuals in love joining together as a man would with a woman who is his wife, then I've absolutely perfectly understood the point of the law AND morality. Which I do without apology. There's nothing about "grace" or the GR that justifies rejecting God's clearly defined will on human behaviors.
YOU, on the other hand, haven't grasped the point of the rules, the law or morality. You've rejected it to appease the world instead of God. There's no grace in ignoring the Will of God just to appear "nice". That's NOT what the GR means at all.
"DO you agree that killing adulterers (especially women) is a great immorality? One that does not benefit all people, of course?"
No. I agree that they are worthy of death, just as God said they are. However, I agree that Christ died for them already and we are not obliged to put them to death, particularly if civil law has no provision for doing so. I also don't at all agree that there is no "especially" involved with who deserves what with regard to moral law. You clearly don't see how you harm men by supposing they are to be given less concern when it comes to being killed. Absolutely not a Christian attitude or teaching. Totally graceless.
"Do you agree that forcing a woman to marry her rapist (or the man who "seizes her and lies down with her," if you prefer) is a great immorality and, as such, not beneficial to all?"
I agree that you are again bastardizing this passage to make your perverse point. I agree that you are again engaging in dishonesty in discourse to bring up a scenario that has no contemporary parallel...that is irrelevant both to today's standards and the point of the discussion at hand. At the time this law was enacted by God, it was absolutely moral (thus it cannot be immoral today unless you can point to a passage that shows God has struck the law down). I agree that this is another case where Dan Trabue has decided that this Law of God is "a great immorality" as if he knows better than God.
"I could go on all day long, but hopefully you get my point."
Yeah, no kidding. You COULD go on all day long making a point that is false, self-serving, self-gratifying and without true Biblical basis.
"I don't think ANY teaching from a Good God would not be beneficial to all..."
The god you worship, or pretend to when it's convenient for you to be seen doing so, is not God. God IS good. No one else is. And His Law was good when He enacted it, and what remains of it now for actual Christians and the world (the behavioral laws) are still good AND beneficial to all who abide them.
"BUT I also don't think that conservative teaching and interpretation that they extract from such passages are the same as "scripture." It is a human tradition and some of those human traditions are wrong, I believe, or even, a great immorality."
Now you're equivocating again, presuming to characterize that which you don't find personally pleasing or convenient as "conservative interpretation" and thus not what a "good god" would expect us to abide.
"I'll give you a chance to answer some questions."
But you haven't answered mine yet. Here, coward. I'll do it for you.
Which behavioral teaching of Scripture does not benefit all people regardless of whether or not they agree with me, Scripture or that God exists?
All of them, if one is determined to live by his own rules instead of God's. There's no benefit to one who ignores God's Will and thus the teachings of Scripture do not benefit he who ignores God's Will.
OR, it can be answered in this way: Interpretation is irrelevant to the question. There is no teaching of Scripture that isn't beneficial to all, regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with me, Scripture or that God exists. It's a given and questions of interpretation can be resolved later. The fact remains that there is no harm inflicted by God's Laws. They constitute objective morality that exists apart from us.
"Either it is or it isn't moral for two gay guys to marry."
It absolutely isn't.
"Either it is or it isn't immoral to publicly oppose (or even to try to legislate against) such a marriage"
It absolutely isn't.
"The point is, none of us can authoritatively objectively PROVE this point one way or the other"
I absolutely have, over and over again, but you choose to reject it because it holds no personal appeal for Dan Trabue and the sexually immoral he defends.
"YOU CAN NOT OBJECTIVELY PROVE that your opinion about God's opinion on gay folk marrying or abortion is authoritatively correct. You just can't, AS A FACT."
AS A FACT, I absolutely have, over and over again, but you choose to reject it because it holds no personal appeal for Dan Trabue and the sexually immoral he defends. Indeed, you reject it without any legitimate, coherent, truthful or fact-based attempt to argue to the contrary.
"And when you say that gay guys marrying is wrong, that doesn't change the fact that this is YOUR OPINION and not something you can objectively authoritatively prove."
It's not "my opinion", but the only legitimate conclusion to which an honest Christian cam come given all Scripture says about human sexuality. And I've proven it based on an objective examination of all the only authoritative source, Scripture, says on the subject. I know you want God on video tape, but it doesn't work that way.
"You were speaking of having "objective proof." I'm just dealing with reality. YOU CAN'T OBJECTIVELY AUTHORITATIVELY PROVE that your opinion about these moral questions is authoritatively factually correct."
You can repeat this mantra all you like and it won't make a difference. I've proven my point exhaustively. The reality is that you're reduced to repeating your assertion despite have the truth about these moral questions made plain. Once again the only thing you've come close to proving is your need to inject ambiguity into the clearly revealed Word of God...to question His existence or the reliability of Scripture or those humans who actually wrote the 66 books as if they were just a bunch of rubes who couldn't take dictation or accurately record what was witnessed or handed down. You need to have those authors or those who informed them be no more than corrupt people God would allow to write lies, falsehoods and mistakes. The reality is that YOU DON'T WANT there to be objective, authoritative proof...not that there hasn't been any provided...because it would be inconvenient and problematic.
"Do I believe there's plenty of evidence for God? Of course, I do. I wouldn't believe in God if I didn't think there was reason to do so. I'm just acknowledging the reality that we can't objectively prove that God exists as an objective fact."
You use this as a crutch to support your lame position. There are two issues here:
1. Proof of what God does or doesn't approve, and
2. Proof that God exists.
I spoke of #2 in the sense that there's enough evidence (which isn't the same as proof) to convince most honest people that the likelihood, if not reality, that God exists can be accepted.
But I speak of #1 with God's existence being a given, and that Scripture is therefor reliable as an authoritative source for what He wants and expects of us.
Two distinct issues. Pick one and we can continue. Continue to conflate them and we can't have a conversation.
"The reason why this matters is because people have perverted and subverted God and God's will to try to force their opinions off on people since the time of the Pharisees and before."
But that's not at all what's happening here except that you want and need it to be so. So long as you can presume corruption of His Word has taken place, you can continue pretending your own perversions are every bit as likely true as anything else. That's a totally bullshit and transparent ploy that fools no one...including yourself if you were honest enough to examine yourself.
"That some people SAY "This is God's Law" does not make it an objective fact."
That completely depends on the topic on the table. You keep making this statement as if we're dealing with mysterious stuff. We're not. We're dealing with the crystal clear.
"BUT, the reality is that you can't objectively prove your opinions about God's opinion on these issues of morality."
I can and have, over and over and over again. There is no other conclusion about them to which an honest Christian...indeed, ANY honest person...can arrive based on all Scripture says on the subject. You play this game about proving objectively that which you don't want proven because you're too invested in defending sexual immorality and infanticide. You're of the world. I'm merely in it. The world can go to hell for all I care. I just don't want to go with it. You're damn near driving the bus.
“The GR, in Matthew and in Luke, is found in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. This is Jesus' sermon where, as you all know, Jesus spends a great deal of time in talking about morality and following God.”
I’m not sure why you decided to pull this bizarre condescending lesson out of thin air. I literally posted the GR from Matthew, as well as the Greatest commandments earlier in this thread. It’s why I’ve abbreviated the way I have, to acknowledge that it’s two separate commands in two separate places. None of this has anything to you with you restating the GR/2GC, to suit your hunch.
“If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also.
If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.
Give to everyone who asks you, and
if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.”
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
This has nothing to do with your bastardized version of the GR/2GC. It’s literally telling people to treat others BETTER, than they treated you.
1. I spent a bunch of time talking about the context of the GR/2GC, which you ignored, so I’m not inclined to waste a bunch of time on your
eisigesis.
2. If all you have is trying to claim that scripture says the opposite of the text, don’t bother.
“Where specifically am I misunderstanding the Golden Rule in the context of Jesus' words or the context of simple self-evident reasoning? Because that is what the Golden Rule is, an appeal to the self-evident idea that we ought not harm others.”
I spent at least one comment going into detail, and Stan wrote a post about this.
I’ll summarize it thus. “Do no harm is passive and can be accomplished through apathy.
The GR/2GC, calls for a much higher standard than passivity and awesome apathy, much like Jesus calls for a higher standard, than simply obeying the letter of the law.
If you want more, I’ve told you where to find it.
Me telling you where to find my previous answers is NOT, me not answering, it’s me telling you where to find them.
M: DON'T EVER AGAIN use street language ("don't be a dick") to paraphrase ANYTHING said by God/Jesus on this blog.
You DO know, don't you, that Jesus used rough "street language" when he rebuked his religious pharisees? Further, you DO recognize that this is a fair representation of what Jesus is saying in this passage? "WHO AMONG YOU (is so dang gum stupid) so as to not understand this? Come on, fellas," Jesus is saying, "This isn't THAT hard! DON'T give your son a rock instead of food! Don't be a douche!" (Is "douche" too "street" for you?)
I feel like Jesus is saying this very thing to y'all. You're making something painfully obvious (don't give your children stones, don't beat your wives, don't grab women by the crotch, don't use your power and wealth to get away with such atrocities, don't vote for people who'd do crap (does that work?) like this!)... you're making something painfully obvious and self-evident into a mystery when it is painfully obvious.
WHO AMONG doesn't understand this?
(We know who, I guess...)
The things that get you fellas upset and the things that don't cause you any concern are an embarrassment (to you, or at least should be).
Craig... “Where specifically am I misunderstanding the Golden Rule in the context of Jesus' words or the context of simple self-evident reasoning? Because that is what the Golden Rule is, an appeal to the self-evident idea that we ought not harm others.”
I spent at least one comment going into detail, and Stan wrote a post about this.
I’ll summarize it thus. “Do no harm is passive and can be accomplished through apathy.
Which is why I've been pretty consistently saying the GR/Do No Harm and also adding in the self-evident notion of human rights. That you are not understanding what I'm saying is not evidence that I'm misunderstanding Jesus. Rather, it's evidence that YOU'RE misunderstanding me. Which is why I'm asking you to be SPECIFIC, because it points, NOT to a misunderstanding on my part, but misunderstanding on your part.
If one takes a shallow view of do no harm as a bare minimum and just ignores everyone, that IS doing harm and is not living up to the GR/DNH/Human Rights view that most rational moral people are talking about when we are talking about morality.
One could be a duckweed and argue "I'm just going to be a hermit and ignore everyone and that way I'm doing no harm..." and then, when the stranger is attacked by the road, that duckweed can just walk by and ignore him... AND THAT's DOING HARM. Ignoring oppression and injustice in the name of "doing nothing so I can do no harm" is NOT what I'm talking about.
So, WHERE SPECIFICALLY am I misunderstanding the Golden Rule in the context of Jesus' words or the context of simple self-evident reasoning?
Answer the question if you want to complain about my view.
But who among you doesn't understand this VERY BASIC view?
Don't be a douche.
Marshal... AS A FACT, I absolutely have, over and over again, but you choose to reject it because it holds no personal appeal for Dan Trabue and the sexually immoral he defends.
You have not. You can't point to a single place where you have PROVEN OBJECTIVELY AND AUTHORITATIVELY that your suck-ass views about your impotent, petty, little whimsy-god are AUTHORITATIVELY factually correct.
Merely stating your views and interpretations and saying, "I REALLLLLLLLLLY BELIEVE IT, DAN! I REALLYREALLYREALLY DO!!" does not mean that you've objectively proven it as a demonstrated objective fact.
Do you understand how making an objective case works? You appear to be complaining that I expect you to prove objectively that which you claim to know objectively and yet NEVER ONCE HAVE YOU EVER DONE IT.
You cannot point to words of yours or anyone else in your whole little tiny God-damned (and I mean it) pharisaical world to support your ridiculous personal hunches. IF YOU COULD, YOU WOULD.
Don't tell me you've done it. DO IT. Get up off your lazy boy, and prove what you say you can prove and do so OBJECTIVELY so that any rational person can state, "Yup, that's a fact."
You won't. You can't. Which is fine. Just admit it.
Tell you what: When you fail, again, to prove what you say you can prove, ALL people from here throughout the rest of your blog's history will know the answer is, "No, Dan. I can't prove it and I'm just not man enough to admit it."
“So, WHERE SPECIFICALLY am I misunderstanding the Golden Rule in the context of Jesus' words or the context of simple self-evident reasoning?”
What part of I already answered this in more detail and you ignored it don’t you understand? You could scroll up and find it or keep expecting me to spoon feed it to you
“Answer the question if you want to complain about my view.”
Already did.
What part of, the answer you gave is not addressing my point, are you failing to understand? What you said is my position is a bastardization of what I've said, contrary to your claim. Do you understand that?
Because it appears not.
So, if you ever want to get around to answering my questions or pointing out what I've actually said that is wrong, feel free.
The part the goes into detail about your bastardization of the GR/2GC, and Jesus teachings about how we treat those you find worthy of harm.
If by “If you ever”, you mean since you’ve already answered my questions and I’m not motivated enough to find those answers, I can’t help you.
Craig, in the real world, you have not appointed to any bastardization of Jesus teaching on my part. You are just factually mistaken. It did not happen, has never happened, in the real world. You can't point to a place where that happened. That's just the reality of it all.
If you could, you would.
The very closest you can come is when you perhaps have offered something where you did not understand what I said and you're referring to a bastardized version of what I've said, as opposed to what I believe. If you can't understand my words are saying, why do you think anyone should trust you to understand Jesus' words?
If by “the real world”, you mean Dan’s imagination, then you might be correct.
Let’s give you some remedial because your to lazy to do your own research.
1. The literal wording of the GR in Matthew, goes way beyond your simplistic “do no harm”. The GR is active, your revision is passive.
2. No where does Jesus teach that we are supposed to or allowed to harm people we deem not “innocent”.
3. Even the Greatest Commandments, can’t accurately be dismembered to come up with “do no harm”
If you want more than that, go find it.
If you’re just looking for an excuse not to answer my questions, just grow a spine and say so. Instead of going through all this BS, just admit that you’re (for whatever reason) going to avoid answers and move on.
You simply repeating yourself, and announcing that it’s “the real world”, is simply your childish petulance showing through.
1. Craig... "The literal wording of the GR in Matthew, goes way beyond your simplistic “do no harm”. The GR is active, your revision is passive."
Good God in Heaven, what the hell is wrong with your reading comprehension, boy? Did I ever one time at all in the whole universe of writing that exists from me say that Do no harm sums up the Golden Rule? Do you recognize the reality that this never happened in the world world? Do you understand now why your kicking against the goads and not dealing with my actual positions?
Google strawman fallacy. Deal with my actual words and not your false understandings of my words are. If you don't understand, and clearly you don't, then ask for clarification.
2. "No where does Jesus teach that we are supposed to or allowed to harm people we deem not “innocent”."
I did not argue that Jesus taught that. Likewise, I was abundantly clear that I was talking about things like physically stopping people who are causing harm and imprisoning them. Are you arguing that Jesus argued against that? Don't be daft.
Again, deal with my actual words and not your mistake and understandings of my positions.
So the fact remains that you cannot point to a single place where I bastardized Jesus' words. Rather, you have bastardized my words creating a stupidly false straw man to try to knock down.
The reason why I know this whole line of bs is a dodge, is that you’ve responded to some of the issues I’ve raised. You haven’t demonstrated that I’m wrong or that you’re right, but you’ve responded. The fact that you ignored the lengthy and detailed comments isn’t my fault in the least. The fact that you keep trying to force a false narrative, also isn’t my fault. Everything you need is in this thread, in the thread you ran away from at my blog, or in Stan’s post. I’m very sorry you’re too lazy to do your own research.
Craig... "Even the Greatest Commandments, can’t accurately be dismembered to come up with “do no harm”
When Jesus summarized morality, as he did, he was not trying to go into the length and depth and breadth of all that is morality. He was giving a brief catchphrase, if you will, to help people understand the very basic starting point of morality. Do no harm, do unto others as you would have them do to you, do not do to others what you would not have them do to you, all humans have basic human rights, these are all ways to help us understand what morality is and how to decide on moral questions. Any one of them, if you want to try to pick it up part and look for faults, you could. That's not the point.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cool," says the murderer and rapist. " what I'd like to have done to me is to allow me to keep raping and killing. And you got to let me do it cuz the Golden Rule."
No.
Good Lord have mercy on your soul, Craig. Do you not understand this?
“1. Craig... "The literal wording of the GR in Matthew, goes way beyond your simplistic “do no harm”. The GR is active, your revision is passive."
Good God in Heaven, what the hell is wrong with your reading comprehension, boy? Did I ever one time at all in the whole universe of writing that exists from me say that Do no harm sums up the Golden Rule? Do you recognize the reality that this never happened in the world world? Do you understand now why your kicking against the goads and not dealing with my actual positions?
Google strawman fallacy. Deal with my actual words and not your false understandings of my words are. If you don't understand, and clearly you don't, then ask for clarification.”
No, you’ve continuously argued that your “do no harm” hunch is supported by the GR. You’ve used those terms interchangeably and argued that the GR is the basis for your “do no harm” hunch.
Now the problem that you’ve created for yourself is that by trying to separate what you’ve joined together, you’re actually making my point. You’ve bastardized the GR, down to the passive, apathetic “do no harm”.
2. No, you emphatically argued that it’s appropriate to harm those you consider not “innocent”. By advocating harm to people you’ve decided merit it, you’re contradicting the teachings of Jesus,
Now, you’ve dodged multiple questions about “innocent”, and you’ve made up your own version of what I’ve said.
But that’s all cool. As long Is it keeps the attention away from your failures, you keep on going.
Dan,
I'm going to help you out so you can see that Craig DID explain your bastardization of the text.
Go To Craig’s comments on 3/13 at 2:31 PM and the two comments immediately following.
“I've suggested the common idea of Do No Harm to Innocents/The Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you..."
Let’s start with you equating your hunch with the GR. Then let’s examine your bastardization of the GR.
“GR/Do No Harm approach.”
“Appeals to a Golden Rule/Do No Harm to Innocents rule”
No, you haven’t been linking/equating/conflating the GR and your hunch in any way.
This is what happens when you’re not afraid to do research and don’t expect others to spoon feed you things.
Dan,
It never occurred to me to catalogue your many corruptions and perversions of Scripture as you expressed them. I may begin a file for easy reference. It'll be a thick one for sure. I could start with your hilarious "the Bible and Economics" series of posts, for example. But for now, your ongoing corruption of Christian teaching on human sexuality is again referenced by you.
Anyhow...
Here's a corruption now!
"You DO know, don't you, that Jesus used rough "street language" when he rebuked his religious pharisees?"
If you're going to suggest things like "brood of vipers" or "whitewashed tombs" is a parallel to calling someone a "dick", you're far more absurd than I thought. Those descriptions of bad behavior...descriptions drawing analogies, which is a skill you pathetically lack...is a far, far cry from calling someone a "dick". That is to say, "you are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside..." is nothing like saying, "you are like a male appendage". He didn't call the refer to the temple as "a den of dicks" but a den of robbers to describe the behavior of the money changers. This is an incredibly heinous and blasphemous justification for your use of crude language...while feigning outrage at my appropriate use of the term "slut" at your blog for describing two women who do what sluts do.
The worst part is that you use this lame excuse that you're modeling Jesus when you use such terms, and to paraphrase what He said by using such terms is despicable.
"Come on, fellas," Jesus is saying, "This isn't THAT hard! DON'T give your son a rock instead of food! Don't be a douche!" (Is "douche" too "street" for you?)"
Jesus is saying nothing of the kind. That's all you, Fake, all you. So it's not that it's "too street". It's that it's too Dan Trabue for it to be anything like who Christ would deal with others. It's too unlike Christ. The reality is that you only think about "embracing grace" when using that expression to club others (like me or Craig). You obviously feel no such obligation to do so yourself.
"The things that get you fellas upset and the things that don't cause you any concern are an embarrassment (to you, or at least should be)."
Fortunately for us we're not in any way obliged to abide YOUR perverse notion of what is proper and moral. We have Scripture which far surpasses deviant lefty, "progressive" concepts of such things. You bristle at the appropriate, accurate and justified use of terms like "whore" and "slut" to describe women proven to have traded sex for money and admitted themselves to having sexual affairs with a married man, yet have no problem putting crude words like "dick" and "douche" in the mouth of One you pretend to follow and then presume to suggest it is we who should be embarrassed. Laughable!
"You can't point to a single place where you have PROVEN OBJECTIVELY AND AUTHORITATIVELY that your suck-ass views about your impotent, petty, little whimsy-god are AUTHORITATIVELY factually correct."
There's that special "grace embracing" again!! As to your claim I've not proven my positions, that depends upon exactly what issue you're referencing. If you want to talk about the perversion of same-sex marriage, I absolutely HAVE proven my position. You simply reject all I've presented as if it's merely a "hunch" or interpretation of something so straight-forward as "thou shalt not". My position is based on the prohibition of the underlying behavior which renders such unions immoral and impossible to be that which would invite God's blessing. In the meantime, you've provided NOTHING..absolutely zilch...from Scripture that so much as hints at the possibility that God would not also oppose such deviant unions. That is, not without corrupting passages and the definitions of words...lying...to make your lame defense. You impose your "do no harm" nonsense to pretend that no harm exists within such unions, as if that would even matter if it were true.
When you can make a Scripture based argument for supporting SSM...which you can't and absolutely haven't as yet...then you can pretend that my position is not objectively and authoritatively proven. I don't need to have a passage where God says specifically, "I prohibit SSM" in order for it to be true. Everything Scripture DOES say about human sexual behavior does that for me.
"Do you understand how making an objective case works?"
Oh, absolutely and without confusion!! And I've done that for every issue we've ever debated!! You haven't. Not without your usual equivocation, obfuscation, eisegesis and outright lying about what Scripture does or doesn't say. Your arguments are constantly of the "nyuh uh" variety and you think that contradicts my use of Scripture, as well as thousands of years of understanding.
Said another way, do YOU understand how making an objective case works? Or more accurately, YOU DON'T understand how making an objective case works.
"You cannot point to words of yours or anyone else in your whole little tiny God-damned (and I mean it) pharisaical world to support your ridiculous personal hunches. IF YOU COULD, YOU WOULD."
I can and I've done so numerous times, and without using God's name in vain. There's nothing whatsoever "pharisaical" about my world or my accurate, honest and humble understanding of the clearly revealed Will of God. There are no "hunches" on my part with regard to the issues that have come between us. But there is dishonesty and corruption on yours. This is beyond doubt.
"Don't tell me you've done it. DO IT."
So, you don't want me to tell you what I've done numerous times already. You want me to do it yet again. Why? So you can dismiss it all without any honest and honorable counter argument? No evidence is ever enough for you. No amount of scholarly links is scholarly enough for you. The fact is that you reject Scripture when it interferes with your personal preference for what you want it to say and mean, regardless of what it actually says.
"Tell you what: When you fail, again, to prove what you say you can prove, ALL people from here throughout the rest of your blog's history will know the answer is, "No, Dan. I can't prove it and I'm just not man enough to admit it.""
That's funny. Especially since even though you hide behind "I admit it's my opinion", you can't...and never have so far...provided legitimate arguments to justify holding the opinions you do. You only offer your "interpretation"...a word I surrounded with quotation because you don't interpret so much as inject meaning you prefer into that which the text does not imply to honest people.
“When Jesus summarized morality, as he did, he was not trying to go into the length and depth and breadth of all that is morality. He was giving a brief catchphrase,”
Two problems with this. It completely misrepresents what Jesus actually said. Because He literally did (by what He actually said) say that this encompasses the entirety of both The Law and The Prophets. I know, this is one where you choose the opposite of a literal reading of the text.
How in the hell, can you think that you are in a position to definitively determine Jesus’ motives?
1. Marshal, you had a chance to support your claim. You didn't do it. You didn't do it because you can't do it.
Game over.
2. Craig... Two problems with this. It completely misrepresents what Jesus actually said. Because He literally did (by what He actually said) say that this encompasses the entirety of both The Law and The Prophets.
Just because YOU SAY that it misrepresents what Jesus said, does not mean that it is so. I think it accurately sums up what Jesus said, who said, that HIS GR summed up the law and the prophets.
What was he saying? HE MADE IT CLEAR.
"Are you confused about morality? Which of you would give your son a snake instead of bread if he was hungry? NO ONE. It's just not that hard. THIS SUMS UP MORALITY (the law and the prophets): Do to others what you'd have them do unto you."
That is precisely what Jesus was saying, in context, literally. That you miss Jesus point helps explain why you mistakenly miss my points and misunderstand them and then proceed to misrepresent them.
What I said simply, factually is NOT a bastardization of Jesus' words. Indeed, if you are suggesting that Jesus was saying "Let's give rapists and murderers and sexual predators a pass..." THAT is a damnable bastardization of what Jesus said. It's a grab for cheap, useless grace.
IF that's what you're saying. Regardless, you are just wrong. You misunderstand Jesus if you think that what I'm saying is different than what Jesus is saying.
Look, there were ALL these rules in the OT, in the Law and in the Prophets... All these explanations about how to be moral, how to follow God (one in the same). In addition to that, the Pharisees then (as Pharisees today STILL do) add extra laws and their human interpretations of the laws to the list of "God-approved" laws (even though, literally, they are only the traditions of those humans.) There were all these laws/rules and Jesus was saying, Look fellas, it's not that difficult. IS the action you're considering something that builds up, that gives, that shares, that's kind, that helps...? THAT is moral. Is the action something that harms, tears down, poisons, abuses, oppresses...? THAT is immoral.
Who among you doesn't understand that?
I guess the answer is, The Pharisees (then and now) don't understand it.
Repent, fellas. Abandon Team Pharisee and embrace Team Grace.
Glenn provided what Craig wouldn't... a link to where Craig ALLEGES he provided support for the crazy and false idea that I "bastardized" Jesus' words. He is, of course, ridiculously mistaken. Here's Craig's "case...," such as it is...
Craig“"Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 7:12)”
First, the Golden rule as stated by Jesus is not “do no harm”. Further, He’s quite adamant that this rule IS The Law and Prophets. So to affirm the GR but deny the value of The Law, seems contrary to the actual words of Jesus...
"This IS the law and the prophets," KJV, NASB.
"This SUMS UP the law and the prophets." NIV
You are making an amateur mistake in thinking "the text (in some versions) says that these ~13 words ARE LITERALLY the Law and Prophets..." But of course, this is NOT LITERALLY the law and the prophets. Jesus is NOT saying that it literally is the law and the prophets, because it very literally is not.
Right?
No, the NIV (and just plain common sense) has the right of it: THIS IS A WAY OF SUMMARIZING/SUMMING UP the Law and the Prophets.
Or, put another way, This is a guideline for helping you understand the law and the prophets.
It is literally a criteria to help those who don't "get it" to understand the "rules" of the law and the prophets. IF IT CAUSES HARM, IF it isn't what we'd want people to do to us, THEN it's not moral/good/"the Law..."
And yes, I know that "DO NO HARM" is not literally the same as "DO unto others as you'd have them do unto you..." Nor is it the same as "It is self-evident that all humans have human rights..." Nor is the GR the same as saying that we have human rights... BUT (and here's the incredibly obvious point that you appear to fail to understand), they are saying the same thing:
HERE IS A WAY OF UNDERSTANDING RIGHT AND WRONG.
Would we want someone else to do it to us?
Does it cause harm and would we want someone to cause harm to us?
Does it respect the human rights that are self-evident due to humanity?
These are all slightly different, but what they have in common is that, "HERE IS A WAY TO BREAK DOWN ALLLLLLLLLLL THOSE LAWS we may or may not agree with in a way that is understandable."
Why ought we not speed? Because it might cause harm to some innocent bystander.
WHY ought we not molest women? Because it causes harm, you douche!
WHY ought we not support corrupt men who abuse their power to harm others? Because it causes harm!!!
WHY ought we provide food support (or job support) for someone struggling in poverty? Because it promotes health and well-being.
There are millions of potential little rules we might think about... BUT THE SUMMARY of them is: Does it cause harm? Does it promote good/health? Does it oppress?
More later...
1. You do understand that law does not equal morality. This is one of those where you choose creative interpretation of scripture, ignoring what the text actually says.
2. You meant, Glenn provided what you were too lazy to search for.
3. Glenn provides the evidence that you’ve just been lying about my dealing with your bastardizing for several days.
I doubt their will be an apology for any of that.
So, your big, wordy, response is to allege that the “law and the prophets” is shorthand for morality. Great, if you’re going to make that claim, prove it. The issue isn’t “summarized”, it’s “The law and The prophets”, it’s liters NOT morals. I realize how much you have to cling to this reimagining of Jesus words, but in the absence of anything but your say so, I’ll stick with the text.
The problem you have is that you appear to deny the possibility that there are God given laws, and laws that were added to those God gave. You’re then conflating Gods laws with human laws.
But, your ultimate problem is that “because I say so”, isn’t anything but you spewing more hunches.
You prove that it's NOT talking about morality.
Good common sense and reason would dictate that this is a responsible interpretation of the text.
Regardless of YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN HUNCHES that might say, "That is a bastardization of the text" (in your very flawed and personal human opinion) the point remains solidly uncontested by ANY of you all offering an alternative THAT YOU BELIEVE IN: The notion of a Golden Rule/Do No Harm/Human Rights view of what is and isn't moral is the best set of criteria for deciding in a diverse society what is and isn't moral.
Craig... 1. You do understand that law does not equal morality. This is one of those where you choose creative interpretation of scripture, ignoring what the text actually says.
You DO understand that ancient Israelite laws (that allowed for slavery, selling your children, forcing women to marry their rapists, etc) do not equate to morality? Yes, I understand that law does not equal morality. But in this story ("Who among you does not understand...?") Jesus is very clearly discussing issues of morality.
Do you not understand that?
Craig...
The problem you have is that you appear to deny the possibility that there are God given laws, and laws that were added to those God gave. You’re then conflating Gods laws with human laws.
But, your ultimate problem is that “because I say so”, isn’t anything but you spewing more hunches.
1. As I've always been clear, these ARE MY UNPROVABLE OPINIONS. Just like your hunches are YOUR unprovable and unproven opinions.
Are we agreed on that reality, as well as the HYPER-ABUNDANCE of me being quite clear that these are my opinions on matters that neither of us can prove?
2. The question then, is not Which of us can prove our opinions on these matters. That's decided. NONE of us can. Not you, not Marshal... none of us. Not as objective facts.
The question is, IS this a reasonable position I'm suggesting?
I'm suggesting that, in a mixed, diverse society and world, that
A. We DO need to find some common ground on matters of morality and
B. The Golden Rule/Do No Harm/Self-Evidence of human rights criteria are our best (if imperfect) option for finding common ground
DO YOU DISAGREE?
IF SO, what is YOUR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE?
Also, I'm not "denying the possibility that there are God-given rules" but I'm suggesting that framing it this way does a disservice to God, to the Bible and to reasoned morality.
God has not told you that "Here are, scattered in this document, hundreds (thousands) of rules of varying clarity and applicability... THESE rules are all universal rules... they are MY (God's) invention of morality. I invented morality by making up these rules and, thus, you need to follow them blindly. There IS no innate sense of human rights or value, I'm just whimsically making up rules and here they are (but NOT the ones that are NOT universal... but I haven't told you which ones are and aren't universal, you need to figure it out... and there will be hell to pay if you make mistakes... " etc.
You appear to be thinking/suggesting that rules are random and they are just whatever God says there are, regardless of reason or any innate sense of human rights or morality. I DO NOT THINK that this is the proper way to view God or morality.
Tell me straight, Craig: DO you think that God just invented morality by creating rules of God's own whimsy and then expects us to find them in the Bible (but not to confuse them for the NON-universal rules that would allow slavery or selling your children!)? OR, rather, do you think that morality is about that which harms or helps? To the degree that God or Jesus or others in the Bible reference rules it is, as Jesus says, because "The sabbath is for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath." That is, the rules aren't just random whimsy... they are what's good for us, innately.
Do you disagree?
"1. Marshal, you had a chance to support your claim. You didn't do it. You didn't do it because you can't do it.
Game over."
Uh, uh, Skippy. That's not how it works outside your echo chamber. You can't dodge and delete here. You've only got your third favored option left to you: turn tail and run away yet again. You're simply doing to me what you do to Craig (and really, everyone else with whom you disagree and can't overcome)...acting as if what has been done hasn't, what has been provided hasn't. Indeed, it's probably the most often used dodging ploy of yours since I've first seen you on the blogs! You'll be properly schooled and then at a later date, act as if it never happened.
What's more, you avoided much during this almost 350 comment discussion:
1. Regarding this latest whine, you haven't even stated what it is exactly you expect me to prove. It seems your petulant demand to do what I've done so many times likely deserves a post of its own...at YOUR blog.
2. I'm still waiting for you to provide some explanation for a basis of your "morality"...something that makes it true from the beginning of time to the present and existing outside of ourselves. Everything you've said thus far clearly indicates subjective, man-made standards put forth by consensus opinion.
3. I'm still waiting for you to explain why calling a whore a "whore" is inappropriate given honest people use as exact a term as can be found in order to accurately label a person engaging in a particular behavior.
4. I'm still waiting for you to provide an alternative word to describe,
a) a woman who trades sex for money (literally known as "a whore"), and
b) a woman who is promiscuous sexually outside of marriage (literally, "a slut"). What words do you use to describe such immoral women? I already know you're all about defending sexual immorality...except when it comes to Donald Trump..., but if you want to pretend you answer questions at all, you need to answer these now. There's still opportunity for you to equivocate with Craig afterwards. C'mon. Don't be your typical cowardly self!
Any discussion/debate with Trabue is nothing but wasting words arguing with an unteachable fool. He has proven that 100% just in this comment string.
"The question is, IS this a reasonable position I'm suggesting? "
That's A question. The real question should be "Is your position MORE reasonable then the multiple options that have been offered here?". Or is your position True?
There are a lot of questions that could be "THE" question, but yours isn't in the top 10.
"You prove that it's NOT talking about morality."
You're the one that made the positive claim of fact that the terms "The Law and The Prophets" actually mean morality. In the real world, the person who makes a positive claim is the one who bears the burden of proof. Asking someone else to prove a negative, is both wrong and cowardly.
"Jesus is very clearly discussing issues of morality."
Once again, if you're going to make these positive claims of Truth, the burden of roof is on you. So prove away.
'DO YOU DISAGREE?"
Yes, disagree that your version of morality is the best possible option.
"IF SO, what is YOUR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE?"
If as you point put to the point of absurdity, it's all opinion, then why the hell do you want my opinion. While simultaneously claiming that you hunch is the most reasonable option. Given that, why not demonstrate that your hunch is more reasonable that the reasonable, rational, science based options provide. Instead of pitting reasonable against opinion, pit reasonable against reasonable. Just pick any one of the options, except utilitarianism. Your hunch is essentially utilitarian buttressed by what you claim is consensus.
"Also, I'm not "denying the possibility that there are God-given rules" but I'm suggesting that framing it this way does a disservice to God, to the Bible and to reasoned morality."
Really? You're suggesting that if God did provide a set of rules for humanity (who were created in and bear the very image of God)that God somehow did a disservice to Himself by doing so? That's more convoluted than usual.
"God has not told you that "Here are, scattered in this document, hundreds (thousands) of rules of varying clarity and applicability... THESE rules are all universal rules... they are MY (God's) invention of morality. I invented morality by making up these rules and, thus, you need to follow them blindly. There IS no innate sense of human rights or value, I'm just whimsically making up rules and here they are (but NOT the ones that are NOT universal... but I haven't told you which ones are and aren't universal, you need to figure it out... and there will be hell to pay if you make mistakes... " etc."
This is so convoluted and pointless that I have nothing that begins to make sense if it. I do appreciate your certainty that God can't communicate to humans in any way.
You appear to be thinking/suggesting that rules are random and they are just whatever God says there are, regardless of reason or any innate sense of human rights or morality. I DO NOT THINK that this is the proper way to view God or morality.
"Tell me straight, Craig: DO you think that God just invented morality by creating rules of God's own whimsy and then expects us to find them in the Bible (but not to confuse them for the NON-universal rules that would allow slavery or selling your children!)?"
No, I don't think that God's commandments are based in whimsy.
"OR, rather, do you think that morality is about that which harms or helps? To the degree that God or Jesus or others in the Bible reference rules it is, as Jesus says, because "The sabbath is for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath." That is, the rules aren't just random whimsy... they are what's good for us, innately."
I agree that God's commandments are what best for us a beings created by Him and bearing His image. But it seems nonsensical to try to try to "baptize" your utilitarian, consensus driven hunch by suggesting that you're obeying God's commandments.
"Do you disagree?"
With your incoherent attempts to get God to "bless" your utilitarian, consensus driven hunch, no. With most of the rest of your incoherent ramblings, yes. With your refusal to pit your "reasonable" utilitarian, consensus driven hunch up against even one of the reasonable, rational, science based alternatives you've been offered.
"OR, rather, do you think that morality is about that which harms or helps?"
It might be good for Dan to provide the passage or verse that connects God's Will/Law with "harm". As I recall, even with the most harmful sin, murder, God speaks of His prohibition as being connected to each of us being created in His image...not because it hurts.
In general, I think it's most clear that what is or isn't moral is a matter of what is or isn't pleasing to God. If that's what "whimsy" looks like, so be it. All WE need to know is, is this act about to be perpetrated one that pleases or displeases God? I don't have a problem with speculations about why it does or doesn't. It's enough for me to know whether it does or doesn't.
The real question is still a matter of the origin of morality. It is God. NOT consensus agreement between societies or people.
I agree, that there are ample examples of God viewing sin as an affront to God, not as much as about harm.
I think part of the problem Dan has is that he just doesn’t seem comfortable with anything he can explain through his reason. If it doesn’t make sense to him, it becomes whimsy or caprice, anything but God operating on a level beyond our ability to understand through our limited ability to reason.
Art,
The thing to keep in mind is that Dan’s ever expanding moral code (he’s got to add to cover the failings), is that it gives him moral sanction to lie, harbor liars at his blog, launch into expletive filled attacks, and say the kind of thing that started this thread.
Can you imagine ever adopting a moral code that would think that this is appropriate?
"Marshal, you are a coward and a pig and a defender of rapists. You are the enemy of women and shame on you, you low life rapeboy."
"I think part of the problem Dan has is that he just doesn’t seem comfortable with anything he can explain through his reason. If it doesn’t make sense to him, it becomes whimsy or caprice, anything but God operating on a level beyond our ability to understand through our limited ability to reason."
This is indeed the crux of the problem. Dan can't understand how ALL homosexual behavior is sinful, and therefore beyond reason and likelihood that God would bless or approve of "marital" unions where that behavior takes place, if people are "nice". It's not enough for Dan that God doesn't like it...that it's, as you say, an affront to Him. It has to be understood by Dan or it is not worthy of respect. That's some arrogant shit right there!
So to hide that disregard for God's Will...a disregard based on his failure to understand why it would bother a Holy God in the first place, coupled with his personal pleasure at the thought of two perverts in a "loving, monogamous" relationship...Dan will question whether it actually is God's Will. "That's your interpretation" he will say when "thou shalt not"...without any caveats attached...needs no further interpretation than "Don't do it!". Dan inserts doubt in the same way the serpent did in order to disregard having to do the heavy lifting of simply obeying and living according to God's Will.
"Can you imagine ever adopting a moral code that would think that this is appropriate?"
This is related to the "Did God really say..." loophole Dan likes to use to defend sexual immorality, except in reverse. Rather than question what Christ said (and how and why), Dan will presume it means he can say whatever crude and false thing that pops into his pointy head when an opponent presents him with a rational question that exposes his own sinful hatred of another human being.
At the risk of pulling a Dan here, it's interesting that he claims that his moral code is based on do no harm", yet he seems to support things that are harmful.
We're starting to see increasing evidence that surgically mutilating people who claim to be Trans, doesn't alleviate the feelings that led to the surgery in the first place. We see abnormally high numbers of LGBTQXYZPDQ folx suffering from mental health issues and committing suicide. The physical harm of anal sex is well documented, yet Dan (again) ignores the science. The other physical health issues that disproportionately affect that community are also well documented. The well documented fact that the majority of homosexual relationships are not the happy, loving, monogamous wonders that Dan needs to believe that they are. And on, and on.
It's not unreasonable to say that these behaviors he celebrates are harmful, yet he pretends that "marriage" makes all the bad stuff magically disappear and makes everyone live happily ever after.
More than that is his insistence that God "blesses: these unions. It's manifestly clear that he's speaking for God, yet it's perfectly OK in this circumstance.
Yes, it's strange to see someone advocate a moral code, while being so cavalier about living up to it. Maybe that's what comes of being willing to define terms to suit your needs.
Well indeed, it's crystal clear that what he claims is a code that matches reality is really his preferences dictating what he'd like reality to be. It's all very convenient.
Haven't actually been keeping a running total, but so far from the handful of women I've queried thus far, not one felt personally insulted, oppressed, demeaned or in any way negatively impacted by the mere mention of the words "whore" or "slut". Here's how I've been asking the question:
You pass or are passed by a man you don't know who says to someone on his cellphone, "She's a whore." You know nothing more about the statement, the subject of the statement, etc. Only that the someone was referred to as a "whore". (In some cases I've used the word "slut".) Do you in any way feel personally insulted, oppressed or demeaned upon hearing the word used?
It's pretty straightforward. One woman attempted to consider who was being referenced, and I pulled her back from adding to the scenario. The point is to see if Dan is correct in his claim of how harmful the mention of the word is to women.
With a couple of the women, I then asked if they knew the person being referenced by the man was actually trading sex for money, would she they feel any differently, and the said "no", with the exception that they would agree the person being referenced was indeed a whore.
I've also begun to ask people the following:
Who do you think is more likely to refer to a woman as a slut or whore...a man or a woman?
This question came to mind during the discussions where Dan's been whining about using such words at his blog, where straight talk is outlawed, while Dan can paraphrase Jesus calling someone a "dick" or use any other profane or obscene word with abandon at the blogs of others. I've only had opportunity to question one person, a man where I work, with whom I was engaged when the question came to mind. He felt a woman is more likely to use the word in relation to another woman, and upon further questioning, his experience suggests women use the term as an epithet more than men, just as in my own experience.
It seems this conversation has waned now that the "Truth" issue still rages at Craig's blog. That conversation has given Dan opportunity to avoid my questions regarding the use of these words. Dan is so pleased to be distracted from owning up.
Now, that conversation has waned also, strangely enough with much left unaddressed by Dan. It’s almost like there’s a pattern or strategy or something.
Post a Comment