I've been pining to write this post since, well, at least around June 5, 2025 if not sooner. But unlike another blog post of the same title, written by a well known fake Christian hater and liar, I won't have to imagine that my ideological/political opponents are likely or willing to support their leaders regardless of what they do or are found to have done. No. The crazy of which I speak will be easy to see by anyone who pays attention honestly.
What first compelled me to write this was not necessarily the aforementioned buffoon, but a different buffoon who goes back to my high school days and is just as severely TDS afflicted as anyone, including but perhaps not quite as bad as the execrable Dan Trabue. I say that because this high school acquaintance, whose name is Wally, doesn't go on about how he's spent years in serious and prayerful study of Scripture, so I don't know the extent to which he believes at all. I've reason to believe he doesn't, and that actually works in his favor because no Christian should hate and lie about Trump as both these dudes do, and Dan likes to tell us he's a believer.
Anyway, Wally posts anti-Trump memes on FB constantly. Between Wally and Dan, one pretty much has all the stupid covered completely as regards the crazy hatred of the best prez we've had since Reagan. Throw in Dan's troll, and there's no doubt.
What really stands out is the fact that none of these jamokes have the honor or integrity to give Trump props of any of the many great things he's accomplished throughout his 4.5 years as president. That's astounding given how much of it there has been and continues to be. What follows is a general list of the first six months of this current term of his:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/07/let_s_review_some_of_what_trump_has_done_in_six_short_months.html
And this from a guy from across the pond:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/07/the_experts_scoffed_trump_delivered.html
These two are in no way comprehensive or complete. They scratch the surface, especially considering it doesn't take into account the many great things he did the first time around.
No. One never hears anything good about Trump from a lefty, save a very, very tiny precious few, and that only on specific issues, not his entire body of work. It's the opposite of Dan's wildly false and totally unsupported claim about Trump supporters unlikely to ever withhold their support no matter how evil a crime he might be proven to have committed. Dan might rely on the Donald's claim during his first term that he could shoot someone down in the street and his supporters could continue to support him. But that's hyperbole, Trump's stock-in-trade. He's neither so stupid as Dan needs to believe, nor arrogant, to actually believe that.
Yet we have constant proof of the reverse, that there is no good thing Trump can do, nor not quantity of good things he could do, which any lefty will acknowledge at any point. They're too busy scraping the sidewalk for anything they think they can use as evidence which validates their hatred. Too often they misrepresent actions he's taken or proposed, or parrot the misrepresentations of others. Chuck Schumer continues to embarrass himself, as do other Dems such as AOC, Crockett and other miscreants who I'm always shocked were actually elected to their positions. Leftist media also continue to lie and distort, as do multiple chuckleheads from the worlds of sports and entertainment.
The memes Wally posts are unusually absurd, with all manner of accusation being made against Trump by people who are unique in their condescension and belief they have it all figured out. Most of it is incredibly obvious in how wrong, misleading or misunderstanding they are about whatever the hell it is they think they're schooling the viewer.
Dan actually said it best when he was projecting on the wealthy (and Trump, of course) when at Craig's he said, "They make it abundantly clear who they are." How ironic that it is far more true of Dan, Wally and other TDS sufferers.
236 comments:
1 – 200 of 236 Newer› Newest»As Dan is demonstrating at my blog, he doesn't read anything that might contradict his biases and prejudices even when it's served up to him on a platter. The way he seems to deal with life is by staying away from anything that might contradict his fantasy world or any data that doesn't meet his flexible, arbitrary, definition of valid. That way he can "honestly" claim things like "I haven't read...". Of course he hasn't read stuff about the rape culture in Europe. If he did it would contradict so many deeply cherished beliefs he clings to. So instead, he ignores everything that might upset his little lemming utopia, and wallows in ignorance.
I can only speak for myself, but I seek out people who disagree with me. Hell, that's part of why I haven't just cut Dan off. But usually I seek out those with more intelligence and expertise than Dan. I do so on social media, in what I read, and who I spend time with. I honestly find it refreshing to have to think through challenges to things I believe or know. I could delete and block about half of the accounts I follow on social media and live in ignorant bliss just like Dan does. Unlike Dan, or your friend (I've got plenty of them as well), I don't automatically dismiss what they say and check their claims out.
Except the complete morons who crap on Israel for not providing supplies to their enemies (even as they provide more than any nation that's been the victim of aggression in history), while completely ignoring the fact that Egypt could easily bypass their massive border wall and solve the whole problem. Those morons, I laugh at and ignore.
Part of the problem with Dan's hatred of "the rich" is that it doesn't distinguish between someone like Trump or Musk who've added value to the economy and who provide not only services that people use but also direct and indirect jobs. Of course their actions produce tax revenue, which supports the country.
On the other hand you have the Bidens, Clintons, Pelosis, and the like who've leveraged their elected offices into vast fortunes and really added vary little value to society.
You'd think that Dan would applaud those who add value to the economy, provide thousands of jobs, and produce millions/billions in tax revenue, and show disdain for those who simply manipulate their political connections to grow their fortunes exponentially.
Personally, I prefer those who get rich by producing things people want or need, as opposed to those who are simply out for themselves.
I agree that confronting opposing points of view is more fun, fulfilling, enlightening and challenging. I prefer it as well. Sadly, there are far more like Dan, Wally and Dan's troll than there are actually challenging opponents. This is especially true on FB. Vinny...who only shows up, apparently, when he's nothing better to do and is incredibly bored...used to be one of those challenging opponents, but his comments over the last year or two have been exceedingly lame. It's a sad state of affairs and one must take what one can get.
And speaking of the troll, a comment submission appeared under yours which was brief and easy to read as I deleted it. It referenced Trump's conviction and such would've been a good example of the crazy about which this post highlights. Like Dan and others, he criticizes those of us who voted for a "convicted felon", despite the blatantly politicized court which "convicted" him. While again, many legal experts, including Turley and Dershowitz, roundly criticized the court for how it ran roughshod over both the rule of law and Trump's rights as the accused, the loony leftist lunkheads do what the purpose of the case was meant to procure, which was to allow asshats to refer to Trump as a "convicted felon". That's all which matters to the asshats, as justice clearly doesn't. They so desperately wanted that tag attached to him so they can believe their hatred is validated. It's crazy they believe it does.
There are really only two options. You can engage with those who disagree, at least until they prove themselves unable to behave in a civilized manner. Or you can hide behind inconsistent deletion policies, arbitrary rules that favor some over others, and simply choosing to dominate every conversation you enter.
Yeah, the troll has started showing up again, annoying as usual.
Craig irrationally and falsely stated...
As Dan is demonstrating at my blog, he doesn't read anything that might contradict his biases and prejudices even when it's served up to him on a platter. The way he seems to deal with life is by staying away from anything that might contradict his fantasy world or any data that doesn't meet his flexible, arbitrary, definition of valid.
Of course, the reality is quite different than this false claim.
1. For decades, I've been reading YOUR conservative writings (you and many others like you).
2. For the first three decades, I read/listened to EXCLUSIVELY ultra conservative writers.
3. Just because I was ultimately pushed away from conservative traditions BY THOSE ultra conservative writers/speakers does NOT mean that I have quit reading conservative writings. I read them all the time.
Read that again and recognize the reality:
I read conservative writers - often recommended by Y'ALL - ALL THE TIME, STILL.
4. Indeed, if Craig was paying attention AT HIS OWN BLOG, he'd have to admit that when he provided not one but THREE essays from conservative religionists who Craig offered in hopes of answering the rational questions I had asked him.
I read those writers and to a man, not ONE answered the questions I was asking NOR did they provide any objective proof for their opinions. Nor did they SAY they were trying to offer objective proof. They were making their rational case and ultimately, I disagreed with their unproven reasoning.
The point being, in CRAIG'S OWN recent posts, I took the time to carefully read - and RE-Read - three lengthy essays from three different conservative religionists. So, if you read your OWN POST, you know this to be a false claim.
I repeat:
I read conservative opinions ALL THE TIME from conservative religionists and other conservatives.
"All the time," as in, at least weekly, if not more often. This in spite of working 2-3 jobs and being a very busy and finite human being. That I didn't read Craig's recent links yet in a fast enough manner to suit his impatient, greedy little heart doesn't mean I'm not reading conservative writers.
This is simply a demonstrably, stupidly false statement that he should KNOW is a false statement because of what was noted at his own blog. As you both should know.
That I read and ultimately disagree with the little human opinions of many conservative religionists does not mean I don't read people who disagree with me... AS YOU WOULD KNOW AND HAVE TO ADMIT GIVEN THAT I'VE LITERALLY been reading YOUR conservative opinions for over two decades.
Lord have mercy. Now would be a good time to admit how just pure stupidly false and slanderous and cowardly this damnable lie is, little brothers.
Craig, irrationally and falsely claimed...
Part of the problem with Dan's hatred of "the rich" is that it doesn't distinguish between someone like Trump or Musk who've added value to the economy and who provide not only services that people use but also direct and indirect jobs.
?? I don't hate the rich. I AM the rich, globally speaking. I've never SAID I hate the rich and I simply DON'T hate the rich.
Do facts and reality never matter to you all, at all?
That's just bizarre.
I DO note that, for those of us who take the Bible seriously, there are all manner of warnings for the wealthy. For instance...
* I note that in the bible, it records that it was Sodom's wealth and apathy to the poor that led to their downfall;
* I note that Jesus BEGAN his ministry noting that he'd come to preach good news specifically and literally to the poor and marginalized;
* I note that Jesus had many warnings for the unconcerned wealthy and told his followers to sell their junk and follow him;
* I note that mother Mary had harsh words for the wealthy oppressors;
* I note that Jesus' brother, James, the apostle, had this to say about "the rich...":
Now listen, you rich people,
weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.
Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.
Your gold and silver are corroded.
Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire.
You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look!
The wages
you failed to pay the workers
who mowed your fields are crying out against you.
The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
You have condemned and murdered the innocent one,
who was not opposing you."
Holy Jesus, brother and mother in heaven! THEM are some tough words against "the rich!"
But "hate them..."? No, I've never said that. Do you really think that noting the literal words and consistent teachings of Jesus, his followers and the prophets mean that you hate people??
How is that rational/not insane?
At the same time, just as Jesus noted that wealth tends to be a trap for the wealthy, I note the observable reality of that here and now: Trump and Epstein are sad, pathetic little men, literally sickened by sin and their great wealth. We should pity the wealthy (perhaps including ourselves), not hate them.
AND, we should hate the oppression often done by wealthy people seeking to consolidate their wealth at the expense of the poor and working class.
What have I EVER said that would make you think I "hate" wealthy people?
Do you think James, Mary and Jesus hated wealthy people, when they used much harsher words than I EVER have about "the wealthy..."?
It's false and irrational, dear men. Come, be better. Admit the error and move on.
Dan's hatred of the rich is reserved for rich Republicans/conservatives.
I agree with applauding those who wealth was created by being productive. Being productive means producing that which people want and/or need, usually doing it better than competitors for a better price. Doing it successfully is like turning on a money spigot. This tends far more often than not to result in peripheral businesses also becoming more wealthy, as the rich dude does business with other companies to supply his company with their goods and services, as well as supplying his goods and/or services to other companies or individuals. People who work for the rich guy shops more, dines out more and thereby enriches those they patronize. The economy in general expands and more people are hired or new businesses can open.
Even in the cases of those born into wealth, the parents of the wealthy engaged in that productive behavior, and often the offspring use that inherited wealth to grow their own wealth. This was the case with both Trump and Musk, and even if someone wants to disparage how their parents enriched themselves, what they both did with their inherited money far exceeded the efforts of the parents. They both were great success stories and heroes to the left until they turned from the political dark side Dan calls home. Now the progressives hate them because like La Cosa Nostra or islam, once you're in, you're in and there's no getting out without hateful retribution. We don't hate Republicans who turn to the dark side (most of such were RINOs, anyway). We just regard them as incredibly stupid. In Dan's case, he was stupid from the jump because intelligent people are conservative. They don't "change". Dan was never conservative and it shows in his continued inability to understand what conservatism is.
Now we just get the crazy from Dan.
Craig...
You'd think that Dan would applaud those who add value to the economy, provide thousands of jobs, and produce millions/billions in tax revenue,
I do, when it happens. But not for those who use their wealth to hire people at a promised price, RENEGE on giving them what they're owed and malign them when they were just doing a job... forcing them to either sue the rich oppressor (which they can't afford) or take a pittance of what was owed to them.
Do you think that the rich who "offer jobs" but then "fail to pay the workers their wage" should be praised simply because they offered a job (and then didn't fully pay)?
There's more to do with using money wisely and justly than merely "creating jobs..." We must not think at a shallow level. That's what rich oppressors rely upon.
As to genuinely good wealthy/ultra-wealthy people, I'm sure they exist. I certainly know some decent relatively rich folks who actually do good with their money - creating jobs that are good paying where the workers actually get paid.
As with most of us, it's probably complex, generally. Henry Ford doubled the normal wage for his employees and established shorter work hours/days and created a hospital that provided affordable health care. AND, he was allegedly anti-semitic and behaved in an authoritarian manner, many would say.
I'm sure the Pervert Felon y'all elected has created some jobs and actually paid many - maybe most? - of his workers a decent wage.
But Ford's progressive work structure and Trump's creating some jobs do not wipe out Ford's anti-semitism or Trump's corruption, perversions, misogyny and basic indecency.
Don't be deceived by shallow acts of charity or isolated incidents of decency. Look at the whole person.
Why, that's almost biblical, friends!
Craig opined...
Being productive means producing that which people want and/or need, usually doing it better than competitors for a better price.
Without some deeper context, I'd have to disagree with this rather shallow view of "being productive." Trump, the man, for instance, has never been productive himself. He inherited wealth and used that wealth and privilege to bully his way into more wealth. I'd be willing to bet that he never worked a hard day in his life.
Merely receiving (through legally sketchy means) millions of dollars from one's racist daddy and then paying people (sometimes) to install toilets and hammer nails does NOT make such a person productive themselves. Rather, they've paid their employees (hopefully) to be productive and create things that they did not and probably could not create.
Laborers are literally productive. Bosses? Business owners? That depends.
Also, people may want (or rich people might run ads and campaigns to induce people to "want") many things that are not productive. People may WANT an actually gold toilet with a butler that wipes their dirty asses, but is producing that actually meaningfully productive in a wholesome, helpful, sustainable manner? I don't think so.
People may want playboy magazines and some people can get rich making them and selling them. Is such an enterprise meaningfully productive? OR, is it net DESTRUCTIVE? I'd argue the latter.
Craig's "irrational"? Kind of a "takes one to know one kinda thing" with you, isn't it Dan?
I'm not at all persuaded by your claim of constantly reading conservative sources. And while I'm certain you don't care that I'm not, the point is that you do nothing to suggest it's true. That can be easily resolved by actually addressing in detail the points a given conservative is making, rather than blithely dismissing them out of hand. I get why that is, as it's impossible to speak on that which you don't understand. You default to the usual bullshit as presented in your evidence-free push back of Robert Gagnon's scholarship, as well as you routine defaulting to irrelevant crap such as "objectively prove, yada, yada, yada", rather than simply making a case like one who is sincere in insisting on adult conversation.
But no. You read Craig's links and claim that "to a man" they each failed to satisfy your goofy demands which are no more than diversionary crap. Worse, you didn't even seek Craig's explanation for how or if they did indeed provide what you demanded, though your demands are largely superfluous crap to allow you to avoid addressing the real issues on the table.
So talk about the crazy marching on, you're marching now with this bullshit response to Craig, when it doesn't address what he was seeking from you in any way. Just more diversion. So, you read conservative stuff? The next time you're provided what is intended to satisfy your demand, explain where it fails instead of just waving it off as insufficient, because doing so in no way inspires confidence that you actually read it, or having read it, that you actually understand what you're rejecting as unsatisfactory.
One would think that given your remarks here that you'd be an expert in conservatism. You show absolutely no hint that you understand it at all. You just bitch about conservatism and conservatives like a crazy person marching on.
Marshal:
I'm not at all persuaded by your claim of constantly reading conservative sources.
Indeed, I don't care. You see, reality is reality, whether you're persuaded by reality or not.
I have read, of course, dozens if not hundreds of conservative books and articles when in my first 35 years
(Tozer,
CS Lewis,
Torrey,
J Edwards,
Graham,
Chambers,
Ravenhill,
Dobson,
Ten Boom,
Swindoll,
Hurnard,
Spurgeon,
Bunyan,
Wilkerson,
Calvin,
Luther,
Saint Augustine,
Anselm,
à Kempis
Brother Lawrence,
Bonhoeffer (if you count him as conservative)
Chuck Smith,
Colson,
Geisler,
J McDowell,
Sproul,
Hannegraf
...and no doubt dozens of others I'm not recalling).
AND I've been reading YOUR collective conservative opinions
(Stan,
Marshal,
Craig,
"white knight,"
Neil,
Glenn,
etc, etc, etc) for 20+ years AND
The people at
Ligonier,
CARM,
Grudem,
SBTS and Al Mohler,
Russell Moore,
MacArthur,
Piper,
Mere Orthodoxy,
Jordan Peterson,
Christianity Today,
MANY of the people on the "classics" list above - still reading them,
"Rush Limbaugh" (if you want to count radio buffoons as "conservative thinkers")
and many others I'm not thinking of.
In fact, I would wager there's a good chance that I've read WAY more conservative/traditionalist writers in my life (including the last 25 years you and I have been talking and I've been reading your conservative words) than you have. Given my list, do you think you compare?
I truly don't know. Maybe you do.
Regardless, clearly, the reality is the reality. I read a LOT of conservative writers. You all KNOW this because I read your words and I cite the many other authors I've read. You might guess that MAYBE I don't understand them as well as you do, but it's just a silly little bit of buttwipe to say I haven't/don't read conservative writers.
Just admit this silly little obvious mistake and move on, brother.
Of course it is. It keeps him from confronting the hypocrisy of opposing all of the rich, or acknowledging that his side is just as "bad".
Being born into wealth doesn't mitigate being productive. The Walton family was born into wealth, yet they continue to operate their stores and provide benefits to communities, people, and the country. I'd even argue that people like T Swift are productive in some sense.
Strangely enough, the ASPL don't seem to complain when people like Pelosi grift the system and use their insider knowledge to line their pockets in ways that are unseemly, if not illegal. Although, they might say that they have a vague, general, distaste for that behavior they'd never speak positively of someone who killed one of those grifters.
1. You know what, I apologize. You do "read conservatives" like us. I should have been more precise. I should have clarified that I was referring to actual conservative scholars, theologians, economists, and the like. Not just a few dudes on the internet. I should have been more clear. When I say that I engage with people that I disagree with, I'm not talking about randos on the internet, but people with some level of credibility. By bad, I beg for your forgiveness for being less than clear.
2. Yeah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You read "all the conservative" stuff decades ago and have virtually total recall that virtually all of it was bunk and had no redeeming value whatsoever. You stopped in 1990 and are convinced that your pre 1990 reading is all you'll ever need.
3. You've literally acknowledged that you stopped in 1990. I can't recall you ever referring specifically to anything you've read. You've repeatedly made excuses for not reading books or people I've recommended, but whatever. Another claim you can't/won't prove. I'll echo Art in that your comprehension of these things you allegedly read is really bad, if you do.
4. That you either didn't read, or choose to ignore, how I framed the three pieces I graciously provided you isn't my fault. That you're somehow inordinately proud of yourself for reading THREE WHOLE PIECES is disturbing. That you offered nothing to counter what they DID say, is expected.
"That I didn't read Craig's recent links yet in a fast enough manner to suit his impatient, greedy little heart doesn't mean I'm not reading conservative writers."
You know when Dan starts to lie like this that he's circling the drain. That he's left to pretend that my pointing out HIS lie (that I hadn't spoon fed him any information beyond the screenshot in the original post) in comment after comment was impatience is simply bullshit. As I pointed out many times, had Dan stopped repeating his lie, and simply said that he was taking the time to read and process the information I gave him (none of which is "right wing"), I wouldn't have needed to remonstrate with him for lying. Of course, then he wouldn't have this little issue to harp on and continue to lie about. I guess proposing that he take all the time he needed to read the data, is just one more example of my impatience.
That Dan has to resort to this bullshit, claims he can't/won't prove and angrily lashing out in off topic screeching, seems to indicate that he's got little or nothing of value to say, and not enough self control to stay on topic.
Art,
You make an excellent point. Dan "asks a question" and demands a standard of proof that is impossible to meet because he hasn't defined what he'd accept as proof, then bitches when his "question" isn't answered and his standards aren't met.
In all honesty, my answer to his question is, "Who cares if Dan has perfect knowledge of right and wrong.". It seems to me that there are stories in scripture that talk about people or people groups who seek the kind of knowledge Dan claims to be seeking. Those stories are could be seen as cautionary tales.
Maybe I'm a simple, foolish, trusting person. I am content in knowing that YHWH as revealed in scripture (even though I'd prefer more details) is a good, loving, just, perfect, God who loves and cares for those who He's chosen to be His people. I don't need to know everything, I don't need to know who's right about some niggling tiny point, I don't demand that my every question be answered in exactly the way I want. Jesus, if nothing else, was a master at answering questions in ways that were not the type of answer Dan demands.
Finally, I could care less about Dan's "questions" any more. They're his questions, finding answers is his problem. If they're as vital and important as he claims, then it seems he'd be putting more effort into finding that answers. What I suspect he's really seeking is ammunition. He wants a cudgel to use against the rest of us to beat us into submission because he's got the one singular "right" answer which validates his biases, prejudices, and predilections.
Dan,
It is quite clear that you have an irrational hatred/envy/covetous attitude/whatever toward "the rich". It's irrational because, as you note, you are "the rich" yet you continue to spew this bullshit against "the rich" while seeming to exclude yourself.
That you are too stupid, vindictive, condescending, graceless, rude, or simply choosing to be an asshole is obvious.
While parsing this and responding to the individual foolishness is a waste of my time. I'll note that Dan's notion that the "good" that Ford or Trump have done (even though Dan has no possible way to measure it) cannot ever outweigh the "sins" Dan has credited them with.
A worldview that doesn't ever allow for redemption or salvation (as Dan seems to posit) is a bleak and graceless world.
Not at all difficult to compile a list of conservative authors, pundits, blogs and other sources. One doesn't have to have read or listened to any of it. Given you poor understanding of conservatism, your inability to address anything you allegedly read or heard by a conservative, I'm not impressed with any list you provide of that which you can't prove to me you've read. And that would be "objective" proof, "hard data" and the like. And here's the best proof, the only proof I'd need: you demonstrate an understanding of a conservative position by providing a compelling, fact-based, evidence-supported counter argument. Your default "Nyuh uh" won't cut it.
Oh!....and referring to Limbaugh as a "radio buffoon" tells me you never listened to him or having listened, you were incapable of understanding what he said or of finding an actual flaw in his reporting or reasoning.
Donald Trump (per Wiki) directly employs between 22 and 23,000 people.
It seems almost impossible to estimate those he indirectly employs, but a list of those types of businesses would include
Construction trades
Accounting
Legal
Taxi/Uber/Lyft drivers
Hospitality and Tourism
Ancillary Golf course industries
Supply chain
Banking and lending
and probably more.
It seems reasonable to conclude that Trump indirectly employs at least as many as he directly employs.
While Musk directly employs @155,000 people. With at least the same number of indirect.
That you've decided that a couple of contract disputes from decades ago somehow offset this decades long track record of investment and producing value for others is simply you establishing an arbitrary standard to regard Trump negatively. I'm not saying he's perfect, I am saying that he's a producer and has a net positive effect on the economy.
None of this really matters to your Trumpaphobia, it's more about pointing out the reality that "the rich" who you want the government to despoil because you naively think that taxing their wealth won't result in a negative impact to the businesses they run and the employees of those businesses, let alone those who depend on those businesses.
The only one being (self) deceived is you. With your absurd notion that Ford's alleged antisemitism somehow negates the good things he did.
Strangely enough, again, you get all worked up about alleged antisemitism decades ago yet stay pretty silent about antisemitism on the left over the last few years.
"Trump, the man, for instance, has never been productive himself"
That's because you want to narrowly define "productive" to suit your needs. Sure Trump was "born into wealth" yet he managed to take what he was "born with" and build on it rather than squander it. I know your narrow worldview might not understand this, but financing and building a hotel or resort (for example) IS producing something of value. That you personally might not value those things is immaterial. Others do value them. From the employees to the guests, to the vendors and suppliers, they all value those things.
That you arbitrarily choose to limit what "productive" means (I'll note you offer no actual definition) yet choose to impose your vague, undefined, biases on others is no surprise at all.
Anyone who produces anything that others value enough to pay for is productive. That you're stuck in the 1800's with your hunches is not my problem.
You keep on adding things to your "naughty list" based on YOUR biases and prejudices, not reality.
We live in a world where the majority of humanity isn't operating on a subsistence/need level. Do "the poor and marginalized" NEED things like cell phones(it could be argued that a basic cell phone could be a need), cars, air conditioning, multiple TVs, and junk food? No they don't, yet we live in a country where those things are available to virtually the entire population. The reality is that when there is a demand for a product, someone will meet that demand. That's not moral or immoral, it's just reality.
Who cares what you'd argue absent some objective measure of the correctness of your arguments.
I'd argue that a multi billion dollar abortion/trans medical complex that gets rich preying on the suffering and delusions of people as well as their avoidance of responsibility and inconvenience is a blight on society. A blight that shares some responsibility for the birth rate declining below replacement levels.
Strange, you don't have time to read the sources I spoon fed you over at my blog and demonstrate that the data is wrong, but you have time for this. I guess your perception of things like wants/needs/time management and the like might not be all that impressive.
Dan's list of "conservative authors" he "read" decades ago is just a list of names. No specific books, no specific concepts, not even necessarily conservative by any standard than "to the right of Dan". He probably just googled "conservative authors before 1990" and cherry picked a few.
Brother Lawrence, a modern conservative, hardly.
Bonhoeffer, would probably be a liberal today (although one with much more courage and conviction than most modern liberals)
Of course the post 1990 examples he references are the ones he quote mines and cherry picks to score rhetorical points.
The reality is that his mind as been closed to "conservative thought" (despite the fact that he dabbles in it) since 1990.
Limbaugh literally was the single entity that revived an entire industry and saved AM/talk radio. The ASLP spent millions propping up wannabes to compete and started a freaking radio network to try to compete. They failed miserably. Yeah, a "buffoon" but one that they couldn't compete with and who's success helped two entire industries.
One thought on "producing" things that people value.
I may not agree with the value of certain things that are produced (porn, OF, content creation, abortion, mutilated people, and junk food) but I don't deny the reality that there is enough demand for those things to have developed the production to meet the demand. My personal feelings about what is produced aren't the issue, it's the reality of supply and demand.
Craig...
"Maybe I'm a simple, foolish, trusting person. I am content in knowing that YHWH as revealed in scripture (even though I'd prefer more details) is a good, loving, just, perfect, God who loves and cares for those who He's chosen to be His people."
Me, too. Did you know that?
I think God, as revealed in the stories in the Bible, is a majestically marvelous loving God of Grace. I don't find the biblical authors confusing or unclear much at all.
I just disagree in good faith with your understanding of those beautiful texts.
And THAT is precisely why the questions...
Given the reality of good faith disagreements on meanings of texts, how do we know who has it right and who is mistaken? Or, can we NOT authoritatively, objectively prove it one way or the other?
...are we reasonable questions. It's a rational, biblically respect set of questions to ask.
Do you disagree, gentlemen?
Okay, so Dan reads lots of conservative authors; apparently he hasn't learned from anything he reads!
Marshal asked for what has presented time and time again:
here's the best proof, the only proof I'd need: you demonstrate an understanding of a conservative position by providing a compelling, fact-based, evidence-supported counter argument.
Conservative evangelicals believe in the theory of "Total depravity." That is, according to the conservatives at Got Answers:
the doctrine of total depravity is an acknowledgement
that the Bible teaches
that as a result of the fall of man (Genesis 3:6)
every part of man—his mind, will, emotions and flesh—
have been corrupted by sin.
In other words, sin affects all areas of our being
including who we are and what we do.
https://www.gotquestions.org/total-depravity.html
And according to the conservatives at Ligonier:
To say that the doctrine of total depravity is a fundamental tenet of Reformed theology would be tantamount to acknowledging that water is wet. So central, in fact, is the doctrine of total depravity to Reformed theology that R.C. Sproul described it as one of Reformed theology’s “core ideas...”
"The term “total depravity” was coined to mean that sin affects the whole person, that the total essence of our humanity is fallen. That is, our minds are fallen, our wills are fallen, our bodies are fallen. The whole person is caught up in this fallenness."
That IS, in so many words, what I grew up believing and reading in conservative indoctrination and it is what conservative religionists in the Calvinist human tradition still believe (allowing that some conservative religionists may use different words to say essentially the same thing.)
That IS the conservative teaching about that theory (although, by and large, they would not call it a theory, they would insist that it is THE teaching of "the Bible" or, less and more directly, "God." As they believe it (as I used to believe it).
Now in noting that reality of what I used to believe and what many traditionalists still believe, I'm correctly identifying that theory held by many conservative religionists. That is, I'm "demonstrating an understanding of a conservative position."
AM I NOT?
If you can agree that that IS the traditional conservative tradition of many conservative religionists (and it is) AND that I'm correctly noting that they have said as much (given that I'm pointing to actual quotes and affirming, YES, that is what they literally believe, given their OWN WORDS), then can you acknowledge that I'm correctly understanding that conservative human tradition (which again, THEY would not say is a tradition at all, but of course, it is)?
More to come, dealing with the second half of your request...
Marshal asked for what has presented time and time again:
here's the best proof, the only proof I'd need: you demonstrate an understanding of a conservative position by providing a compelling, fact-based, evidence-supported counter argument.
GIVEN that unproven human theory held by many conservative religionists in the Calvinist tradition (that "sin affects the whole person, that the total essence of our humanity is fallen. That is, our minds are fallen, our wills are fallen, our bodies are fallen."), my counter argument is this...
1. The Bible literally does not say this, nor does it insist upon this theory. It is what SOME HUMAN TRADITIONS believe is how we ought to understand the nature of sin as THEY interpret various biblical lines.
2. They can and do cite some passages that contain lines that might HINT at this... "all our righteousness are as filthy rags..." and, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" for two examples
3. Yet, at the same time, they acknowledge that hyperbole, imagery, figurative speaking, allegory and other less-than-literal language is used throughout the Bible. GIVEN that, on what basis do we assume that those verses that they/you might choose to cite are to be taken literally?
They/you literally have no answer to that beyond, "It's 'obvious' (to 'US')" as if being obvious to them is an objective measure.
4. The passage I gave above from Jeremiah ("the heart is deceitful above all things..."), for instance, is CLEARLY, literally speaking figuratively. No rational person thinks that the beating muscle of the human heart is, itself, "deceitful." That's crazy talk. Of course, that's being used metaphorically, right? Even you would not disagree with that.
Further, there are multiple examples given in the Bible of humans with "good hearts," which presumably, then, aren't "deceitful..." David was a man after God's own heart. Does a man after God's own heart have, then, a deceitful heart? OR is it possible for humans to have GOOD hearts, seeking the good and right of God's ways?
5. The fact is, in the various biblical texts (some of which may or may not have been intended to be taken literally and some, figuratively), we find texts talking about how humans are "a little lower than God" and that we have "God's Word, written upon our hearts" and that we DO have the ability to understand God's ways (insisting, then, that not all hearts are deceitful above all things.)
To take the Bible as a consistent message, then, we can clearly see that this is a hyperbolic message, or otherwise figurative.
6. BEYOND what the various human biblical authors may or may not have said, we can observe with our own eyes human beings who are obviously good, who have good intentions, good lives and do good, kind, helpful, generous, just things. Why is the testimony of our own eyes about at least some humans equal or more valuable than SOME humans' interpretations and theories of how to understand various biblical texts?
And I can go on. As I HAVE been going on for decades with you all. While you may not ultimately agree with my reasoning on these theories of yours (any more than I agree with YOUR reasoning on your theories), that IS a fact-based, evidence-supported answer.
cont'd...
Facts/Evidence:
A. The Bible DOES contain figurative language in parables, metaphors, hyperbole and otherwise imaginative language. NO ONE DISPUTES THIS, not even you.
B. YOU have no rubric to say authoritatively that "THIS interpretation is objectively correct..." Rather, you have your interpretations and I have mine. That is just a fact, as evidenced by you NEVER even trying to provide an objective rubric because it simply doesn't exist. IF it did, you would have provided your holy and infallible rubric.
C. It is an observable fact that some (many) humans are various degrees of Good in their actions. That reality must insist that the notion of "human hearts being totally depraved" can't be fully objectively factual or people would not be able to be good NOR would we be able to recognize that good. Now, whether or not you AGREE with that observable reality (for instance, if you define "good" in some non-standard, non-biblical way to get around that observable reality) does not mean that it's not an observable reality that we can see good people every day... people whose "hearts" are NOT "totally depraved."
Again, you may ultimately not accept this line of reasoning, but it doesn't mean I haven't made a rational and biblical case for my position. NOR that I have not given objective, observable facts to support my case.
It just doesn't.
Indeed, of the two of us, I'm the only one pointing to observable facts. You are pointing to human traditions and insisting that they must be taken as proven facts, EVEN WHEN you can't objectively prove them.
Come dear brother. Be reasonable. You've gotten caught up in a set of human traditions and taken those indoctrinations to be facts when you can't prove them. There's nothing to gain by holding on to that error.
You can be better.
Marshal:
Not at all difficult to compile a list of conservative authors, pundits, blogs and other sources. One doesn't have to have read or listened to any of it.
Are you suggesting that I HAVE NOT read all the writings I cite? Based upon what? WHY would I do that? I don't have time to just make up stuff.
I read and then watched "The Cross and the Switchblade." Starring Pat Boone. It was quite popular in Southern Baptist youth groups in the 1970s and 1980s. As were the Tim LaHaye feverish anti-christ porn of the Left Behind series. As were ALL of CS Lewis books. I've read and re-read all the Narnia books and the Silent Planet trilogy as well as many if not most of his more serious books... Mere Christianity, Screwtape Letters, Shadowlands... off the top of my head.
Reepicheep to this day remains one of my favorite most heroic characters in literature. Do you even KNOW who Reepicheep is? Do you KNOW what the Silent Planet trilogy is? Do you have a favorite book in either series (Probably The Magician's Nephew and Perelandra, for me)? Do you KNOW who Screwtape is?
Do you understand WHY Sheldon's In His Steps was so compelling for many readers over the last 100+ years? I do. How many times have you read that book (granted, you may not count that as a conservative book, given its progressive influences - but many in MY conservative Southern Baptist circles valued it greatly)?
Did you wake up at 4 am many years to read a reflection from Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost for his Highest" before having your morning prayers? I did (although, to be fair, I fell asleep many days, too!)
What is wrong with someone like you that you must mistrust so many people? Of course, I've read all these writings. Them and many more. Again, I've almost certainly forgotten more about these dozens of books than you ever even knew. Who WAS Shadowlands written in reference to, do you know? Because I do. What WAS Leonard Ravenhill's best book? Do you know? I'd say that many would point to Why Revival Tarries and I think rightly so. Have you read it?
Do you think that Josh McDowell's book, Evidence that Demands an Answer, was a helpful source as you spoke with non-believers? Or have you even read it? I have.
Again, What is wrong with someone like you that you must mistrust so many people? WHY would I bother creating a list of books that I've never read? By and large, people/rational adults don't have time for that kind of nonsense. If I hadn't read them, I wouldn't make the claim. To what end?!
This is lazy and foolish on your part. You have no evidence that I haven't read them and that I can speak from memory of the points of many of them is testimony that I have, of course, read them.
Look, by all means, it's completely rational (as far as that goes) to think in your head, "Well, whatever he was raised with or believing, I don't think he is conservative now..." and that would be rational AND correct. But it's just irrational to say I wasn't raised as a conservative or that I didn't read the books I actually read, nor the sites and essays I've read in the years since.
Be a better man, Marshal.
Marshal falsely and irrational said:
and referring to Limbaugh as a "radio buffoon" tells me you never listened to him or having listened, you were incapable of understanding what he said
In the late 1980s/early 1990s, I was still in a Southern Baptist Church, still holding conservative Christian beliefs, still playing most weekends in a CCM band that traveled the southeast singing songs like "Sinner Man" and "Don't Be Deceived." (We self-produced two cassettes, Shout and Sing and Sinner Man, both not great!)
I worked at Custom Woodworking on Bardstown Rd and the hippy I worked with and I took turns choosing what to listen to. He chose progressive jazz (Spyro Gyra, for instance) and when it was my turn, I would choose to listen to Rush Limbaugh and his silly accounts about Feminazis and those "wacky liberals..." I thought he was funny (although by then, I was starting to be appalled by his vulgar attacks against women, even if it was in "good fun...")
If I didn't understand him, then why did I think he was funny AND right, a lot of time (when I was more conservative)? WHEN did I not understand him, when I thought he was right or when I disagreed?
You know nothing about who I've read and listened to over the years, nor what I thought about them. What's wrong with you that you can't just recognize reality when it's a point you're clearly ignorant of?
To be clear: Limbaugh for years noted that he was "an entertainer, not a journalist..." and he alluded to his "act" that this was his radio "persona." I'm referring to that person who thought he was not a journalist, but an entertainer with an on-air persona and I think it's fair to call him a clown. He made jokes at the expense of many to entertain conservative people and he did so stupidly, derisively, not in an adult, well-reasoned manner.
A clown is a clown is a clown.
More crazy from Dan.
First of all, that quote was from my comment, not Craig's.
Secondly, your rank stupidity and hatred shines through as usual. The quote refers to the wealthy specifically, since it was made in regards to comments about your hatred and stupidity about the rich.
Thirdly, you again demonstrate your rank idiocy and ignorance...if not willful dishonesty (most likely)...about Trump. His work in real estate alone is indeed an example of being incredibly productive, not only in creating that which people need and/or want, but in the jobs and tax revenues produced. You have no idea of how he utilized his inheritance or ran his businesses. You want to believe the worst about him because you're a rank hater.
Fourth, only a covetous, envious progressive who pretends to be a Christian...you know...like you...would suggest that one must go home tired, sweaty and in pain to not have "worked hard". Go ahead, asshole. Start up and run a business and tell me you're not working hard if you hire others to do the manual labor. Leave it to a marxist to insist that the hired hand is the creator of production...the real producer. The hired hand is a tool the producer who takes on all the risk and responsibility for everything. The hired hand puts in his hours, takes his pay and goes home. At best, one can say that the good hired hand is productive for the benefit of the producer.
Dan's attack on the doctrine of "Total Depravity" is something I can agree with and my attack on this "Reformed" doctrine can be found here:
https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2013/02/i-am-not-calvinist.html
However, the Reformed position is NOT the majority position in conservative/fundamental Christianity. The Christian faith says that because Adam sinned we are all born with a sin nature and will always sin, which is why Christ died to pay the punishment for that sin. Even the Reformed teaching ends up being the same thought.
Glenn:
so Dan reads lots of conservative authors; apparently he hasn't learned from anything he reads!
Craig:
The reality is that his mind as been closed to "conservative thought" (despite the fact that he dabbles in it) since 1990.
Marsha:
You show absolutely no hint that you understand it at all.
Part of the rational problem you all have is that you seem to be incapable of understanding that someone may READ a group of conservative authors, and UNDERSTAND what they're saying and then, in good faith, simply DISAGREE with those conservative humans and their personal opinions.
At least Glenn is willing to admit the obvious reality that, of course, I have read traditional, conservative writers. That's at least a starting point. Craig seemed to reluctantly concede as much, after the fact. (" I apologize. You do "read conservatives" like us...") But then, somehow assumes I have only read bloggers, "not experts and scholars..." But of course, I have. I have read regularly the writings of Al Mohler, of the men (nearly always) at Ligonier, etc. As noted.
It's like you all are incapable of recognizing that someone CAN actually read and understand conservative theories and yet, dare to disagree with them! As if, WHEN one reads a Mohler or Grudem, that they will be compelled to agree with those mighty mortals!
There's way too much hubris in that line of thinking, if that's what you're assuming.
Craig endlessly repeats this silly nonsense:
You read "all the conservative" stuff decades ago and have virtually total recall that virtually all of it was bunk and had no redeeming value whatsoever. You stopped in 1990 and are convinced that your pre 1990 reading is all you'll ever need.
And...
You've literally acknowledged that you stopped in 1990. I can't recall you ever referring specifically to anything you've read.
You read and fail to understand, with my words and others', as well.
What I HAVE said is that I had tended to quit reading conservative BOOKS sometimes in the 1990s, not that I quit reading and engaging with conservatives - including conservative scholars. I started blogging, in part because of multiple conversations I had in person with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor, Danny Akin...
https://www.danielakin.com/
...in the early 2000s. He had read some of my letters (on Bush's War and LGBTQ matters) to the editor in the local paper and reached out to me. We sat down over coffee several times and just talked. I patiently explained my positions on why I, as a Christian, could not support the deadly and unjust violence of Bush's war/invasion of Iraq and why I, as a Christian, was welcoming and affirming of our dear LGBTQ neighbors. And he, also patiently and politely explained his reasonings and was somewhat aghast that I could disagree with traditional conservative Christian traditions on these matters (and yet, he remained polite and respectful). Eventually, those conversations ended because he thought there was no point to them and that he couldn't help me see why I was wrong (and vice versa - although, my goal was less about helping him see he was wrong and more about just making the case why good faith Christians might dare to disagree with his opinions and traditions).
As the Trump era of the fallen modern church came into being, I was regularly reading Al Mohler and others who desperately tried to make their case as to why he'd support such a deviant. And all throughout it all, I've been reading conservative scholars.
And, as in the recent post at Craig's, I was reading them to see if they could make a strong case for the various questions I ask y'all. For instance, the rationally important "Who decides which understanding of a text or tradition is Godly, biblical and morally right? And based upon what?"
AS I read, looking for SOMEONE to answer/address/take on those questions (and others), it was almost always/quite often less about me trying to make a case against anything they said and more me simply acknowledging that they're not even trying to address that question.
AS Craig demonstrated when he posted several conservatives when I asked those same questions. I read and re-read them. Closely. And I merely noted, "Well, they're not answering those questions. At all." Now, I may have some disagreements with what they WERE saying on a variety of other topics, but that's not what I was reading for. I was looking for an answer to MY questions, which still go unanswered.
And THAT is in large part why I gave up on reading whole books by conservatives: They're asking the wrong questions and answering in ways that are intellectually and biblically lacking. They may be making some strong points on some things (How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?) but they're not getting to what I consider to be the rational, Godly, biblical meat of moral and theological thinking. They aren't answering very important ground-work questions and are, instead, skipping ahead to other theories while leaving the holes in their arguments ignored.
That doesn't mean I have stopped reading conservatives. Clearly, the reality is I never have AND INDEED, I probably STILL read more conservative writers than I do liberal writers. Maybe. Or at least a healthy mix of both.
Glenn...
"Dan's attack on the doctrine of "Total Depravity" is something I can agree..."
1. I have made no attack on anything. I respectfully and strongly disagree.
Why are you all so pugnacious?
2. But here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Christians of good faith can read the biblical texts and come to good faith disagreements on a wide range of topics.
And neither side can objectively prove their positions. We have no Holy Rubric, no Papal Authority which can objectively declare, THIS side has it right.
I'm just asking if you can objectively agree with that simple observable reality?
Dan said GIVEN that unproven human theory held by many conservative religionists in the Calvinist tradition (that "sin affects the whole person, that the total essence of our humanity is fallen. That is, our minds are fallen, our wills are fallen, our bodies are fallen."), my counter argument is this...
That is the doctrine of Total Depravity. You say it is "unproven" in the "Calvinist" tradition, " etc. Sounds like an attack to me!
ARGH!!! I did it again--failed to notice my wife was signed on. Sorry about that.
You continue asking this question as if it has any value aside from allowing you to disagree with that which is actually beyond disagreement. You ask to couch within it your unwillingness to abide that which is distinctly prohibited beyond any legitimate argument. You speak falsely of "good faith mistakes" of interpretation and understanding when you can't even provide a coherent defense of your contrary position. Claiming you argue in good faith doesn't stand as proof that you are, especially when your arguments are so clearly lacking in facts and evidence, but rather wildly incredibly stretching and twisting of verses and passages which aren't ambiguous or unclear in any way.
Christians can indeed be of good faith and have good faith disagreements with other Christians of good faith. You're neither an actual Christian, nor do you argue in good faith. Feigning graciousness in "admitting" you "might be mistaken" is just another lie you tell when your "good faith" arguments fail. And as they always fail, you then compose this ridiculous question about "by what rubric?" It's a sham, just as you are. Just stop the bullshit and admit you don't a flying rat's patoot about God or His Will.
Marshal, still missing the point, even as he illustrates it...
"You speak falsely of "good faith mistakes" of interpretation and understanding when you can't even provide a coherent defense of your contrary position."
1. Are you saying that, if YOU are mistaken, you weren't making the case in good faith?
Because, as for me, I KNOW my intent is to rightly understand God and God's ways, including in biblical interpretation, and so, if I'M mistaken, it clearly is a good faith mistake. My intent is not to be wrong. Who does that?
2. Which gets to the point:
While YOU think in YOUR head your personal opinions on these topics are rational and biblical, I disagree with that conclusion. I think your positions and human theories are incredibly irrational, unbiblical, ungodly and frankly, oftentimes just immoral as literal hell. You continually "can't even provide a coherent defense of your contrary position." You're speaking nonsense and extremely anti-christ human theories, lacking in morally rational support.
That's the point.
WHO SAYS I haven't provided a solid case for my position or that you haven't for yours? You and I disagree, but TO WHAT RUBRIC OR PERFECT JUDGE do we appeal to settle the matter?
We don't have one. YOU don't have one. And you dismiss the need for one without explaining why or even TRYING to make a case as to why your holy rubric is unnecessary and therein miss the point entirely.
Either Marshal and his human comrades who agree with him are the perfect arbitrators on these questions (you're not) OR, you need some other rubric to decide the matter (you don't have one) OR, you have to admit you simply can't prove objectively that I'm mistaken or not arguing in good faith.
But I still doubt you even get the arrogant failing of your hyper emotional and irrational nothing-opinions.
Marshal, missing the point, said...
"You're neither an actual Christian, nor do you argue in good faith."
1. Says who? You? Who are you, little human? Who made you the arbiter of such things? (No one.)
2. Prove it. (You literally can't. Daring to disagree with Marshal is not the unforgivable sin, mortal.
3. Based on what specific mistake do you imagine I'm not saved?
A. I believe in God, the creator of heaven and earth.
B. I believe in Jesus, the Son of God, who came teaching what he taught (which I affirm) and that he was crucified, buried and raised from the dead.
C. I believe humans are imperfect sinners in need of salvation and grace. I believe humans should repent and follow the Way taught by Jesus, the Way of God's grace, NOT of loveless legalism.
What am I mistaken about? Prove it. And HOW are you going to prove it? Your little human opinions and interpretations of biblical texts? Pffftt! Who made YOU the arbiter of God or the Bible?
And IF you point to some of my beliefs ("Why, Dan doesn't affirm PS Atonement, thus he can't be saved!") well, you've fallen prey to hubristic legalism. Who says we have to affirm the human traditions of many evangelicals? Those evangelicals?
Again, pffftt! I believe in grace, not legalisically affirming YOUR human traditions.
But thanks for making the point again, about the HUGE holes in your human theories.
Even if you don't understand how you continue to make my case.
That you can't articulate this fundamental doctrine accurately without quoting others is the kind of thing that makes people question your alleged "conservative" upbringing and how much you actually understood of what you claim you believed.
"That is, I'm "demonstrating an understanding of a conservative position.""
Actually, you are demonstrating the ability to copy/paste the words of others regarding one aspect of a "conservative position". That you still misunderstand this position (based on other conversations), is the problem.
Marshal irrationally stated...
"Just stop the bullshit and admit you don't a flying rat's patoot about God or His Will."
I can't "admit" something so stupidly false.
As always, I'd ask you to think about this nonsense attack.
WHY would anyone attend church multiple times a week if they didn't care about God or God's will?
Why would someone engage in conversations with people like you for literal decades talking about ideas of God and God's will if they didn't care about following God?
Do you imagine this is fun for me? That I'm getting paid for all this?
If you want to say you disagree with my positions, fine. But to falsely claim I don't care about God is just nonsense.
It's irrational and crazily conspiratorial on the face of it.
1. This is a claim you regularly make, but have not proven.
2. This makes me wonder if you understand what "hints" means. In any case, all you need to do is provide an alternate interpretation that explains why "like filthy rags" actually means "pure as the driven snow and the problem is solved. Likewise for any other passages.
3. You are making the claim that they are not literal, prove your claim. FYI, obviously "filthy rags" is figurative language, yet that doesn't automatically prove that the underlying point is not literally that our "good works" don't have any salvic value.
4. That you choose to pretend that the term "heart" is being used in a woodenly literal sense in this verse is simply idiocy, ignorance, or being intentionally obtuse. The use of the term "heart" throughout Hebrew scriptures to mean more that the muscle that pumps blood, is pervasive and consistent.It's figurative language that points to a literal Truth.
https://bibleproject.com/videos/lev-heart/
https://www.pursuegod.org/hebrew-word-study-lev/
https://www.preceptaustin.org/heart_leb
https://torahtruths.com/lev/
Some helpful resources, even an easy video for you to watch, so as to not strain you.
5. This is simply gobbledygook which shows your failure to understand the tenet you claim to understand so well. That the depravity of sin effects every aspect of our beings, it does not dominate every aspect of our beings. That we, as sinful/fallen/depraved humans are able to comprehend some of the vastness of YHWH is YHWH showing us grace. FYI, that you (apparently unironically) used the "written on our hearts" verse after bitching about the "beating muscle..." thing is hilarious. Unless, of course, you are now claiming that YHWH literally wrote words on the "beating muscle of the human heart", which would be stupid.
5. This is just you throwing out random phrases, making claims, and not proving any of your nonsense. That you make these unproven claims, means nothing.
6. It all comes back to Dan and what Dan thinks about what he sees based on a small sample size of people's public behavior and "good works".
I'll simply note the lack of "facts" and the substitution of out of context/cherry picked snippets of eisegeted scripture as "evidence".
6.
A. Yet that "figurative language" does actually mean something. Simply pointing out "figurative language" (ignoring the potential meaning in the original language) and calling it a day is insufficient. Without any evidence that demands an alternate reading, you have nothing.
B. Nor do you. Although the consensus of thousands of scholars/theologians/experts etc over thousands of years IS evidence. It may not be "proof", but it is evidence. That you choose to ignore that consensus in this one area (while revering consensus in other areas) is an example of your preconceived notions driving your conclusions.
C. As you have not established an objective standard of "good", this once again boils down to you subjectively deciding what you observe of people "deeds" are "good" with no idea of the parts of their lives you don't observe nor of their motivations. It's all just your hunch designed to support your worldview.
Your demands for "proof", when you offer no proof (you telling stories about what you "observe" are hardly "proof"), are simply idiotic.
I had no idea. What in your words or actions would lead me to that conclusion?
You continue to point to the fact that disagreement exists as some bizarre proof that your hunch is either correct or valid, quite the leap of logic.
"You can be better."
Yeah, as long as you do enough of Dan approved "good works" so that he can see them, you can "be better". Not objectively "good", not saved, not anything but a little "better".
Of course that's The Gospel innit? That's the entire story of the scripture, innit? That we can't do enough "good works" to be saved, that being "better" isn't enough. That YHWH sent His Son Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew which literally means "salvation" or "YHWH saves") to do that which we could not on behalf of humanity.
That Dan leaps to fiction, and a fictionalized movie speaks volumes.
His claim that he's read every book, by every author mentioned ("all those writings") is frankly absurd.
FYI, McDowell's book is "Evidence That Demands a Verdict", if you can't remember the title, why would we believe that you remember the contents. So when you read McDowell's book, what did you learn? What did he get wrong? Let's hear details. By all means, prove to us how awesome your memory is of this one seminal book.
I do love your shot at the "Left Behind" series. I'm not a defender of the series, although they were enjoyable fiction in a "beach read" sense. They're popular fiction, not serious theology.
Dan is a clown, but whatever. This endless recital of Dan's "good works" as if those give him some magical credibility or something is getting old.
That this "clown" remade at least two entire industries (AM radio and talk radio) as well as inspiring liberals to great lengths to compete, says that this "clown" was clearly pretty smart and influential beyond his show.
No, the problem is that you cannot accurately articulate (in your own words) what you claim to disagree with, and then cannot offer any evidence of an alternate explanation that fits the texts or doctrines in question. You can "disagree" all you want, but when you start insisting that something or someone is wrong (or that you are right), then you need proof. Proof being something you regularly fail to provide, because your disagreement or insisting that something is "figurative language" is not proof.
The difference that I see, is that when I read a progressive theological work (Brian Mclaren's Generous Orthodoxy for example) I could point out specific things I disagreed with and specific things I agreed with. I've yet to see you do more than make broad sweeping claims about what you read decades ago, with no specific examples.
You say that you "disagree" with all of the things you cited, I call bullshit. You've already noted things that you agree with or found valuable. Yet you seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in your broad/general condemnations.
Blah, blah, blah, I take what Dan says literally and this is his response.
The problem, as you note ("but they're not getting to what I consider to be the rational, Godly, biblical meat of moral and theological thinking. They aren't answering very important ground-work questions and are, instead, skipping ahead to other theories while leaving the holes in their arguments ignored.") is that they aren't doing what YOU think they should be doing in the ways you think they should be doing it. That's your problem, not theirs.
I'd argue that "sin affects the whole person" (ie every aspect of our being both physical and spiritual) and "that the total essence of our humanity is fallen" are not the same thing. It's insane to argue that anyone has any aspect of their life/being that is 100% free from the effects of sin. If there is some proof of this person existing I'm here for it.
That sin affects every aspect of our being, is not the same as saying that sin controls 100% of every aspect of our being.
It's unproven in "Dan tradition", pretty much the rest of Christianity doesn't dismiss sin to the degree Danny does.
Glenn...
"You say it is "unproven" in the "Calvinist" tradition, " etc. Sounds like an attack to me!"
I believe you and that explains so much about y'all. When people simply disagree with y'all... when someone notes the fact, "that's not proven..." y'all so often feel like it's an attack, or that "the culture/world hates us and attacks us.. Christianity is under attack!"
Friends, disagreeing and pointing out something is not a proven fact is not an attack in rational adult conversation. It's simply disagreement.
1. I'm saying a couple of things.
a) If a mistake is made, and then corrected, then made again it seems reasonable to doubt the "good faith" at that point.
b) Who cares about "good faith", if someone is wrong in "good faith" they're still wrong. If they're unwilling to accept correction or unable to prove that they are right, "good faith" ceases to become an issue.
C) This is just a slightly different version of the "disagreements mean that both sides are equally credible" argument you often use.
2. Who cares what your hunches on this are. If you can't prove your claims, or persuade that your hunches are more likely than those of thousands of experts over thousands of years, who the hell cares. You go off in your little corner of Louisville with your little group of lemmings and do whatever the hell you want. Just stop pretending and acting like you're right.
We say you haven't provided a solid case, because simply stating "I think X" or "No one has answered my question." or "I haven't read..." isn't a case. Simply saying "The whole filthy rags passage" is figurative, with no alternative explanation isn't a case, it's just blather.
These accusations of being arrogant coming from Dan, are funny as hell.
It's the difference between "Scripture/YHWH says X." and "Dan says Y.".
1. Hypocritical much? Your entire "case" boils down to "Because I (Dan) say so.".
2. That you can't/don't/won't/don't try to prove anything you say (beyond offering yourself and your hunches as proof) seems material.
A. Yet you don't seem to believe that YHWH actually "Created" everything in any meaningful sense. At best, if I remember correctly, you might hold to some wishy washy, semi "theistic evolution" sort of construct. That you haven't clarified or proven your hunches likely goes without saying.
B. As long as you can selectively apply those teachings, take them out of context, take Jesus Himself out of the context of the Hebrew scriptures, and reserve the right to reinterpret and "figurativeize" what Jesus said at will. Oh, and strip Jesus of anything related to His actual role (Hint, it's in His name) as Savior and Lord.
C. Since no one here is advocating "legalism" and you're the only one demanding that "good works" is the only way to be "good", it kind of seems like you just have a different version of legalism.
You throw around these buzzwords like "grace", yet act as if the notion of actually showing grace is foreign to you.
As you haven't proposed a "case", haven't shown that we are objectively wrong, or actually proven your claims, I find it hard to see how us articulating historic Christian doctrine and tenets helps you at all.
Unless you've magically proven these tenets false without telling anyone.
'Do you imagine this is fun for me?"
I have no idea if it's fun or not. I so suspect that your hubris and arrogance compels you to try to impose your unproven hunches on others and to make demands of others that you refuse to make of yourself.
It's said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If the shoe fits...
Craig said (ironically, with NO support)...
"the problem is that you cannot accurately articulate (in your own words) what you claim to disagree with..."
I disagree with the human theory that there are NO good people in the universe... that humanity is "totally depraved," meaning...
"sin affects the whole person, that the total essence of our humanity is fallen. That is, our minds are fallen, our wills are fallen, our bodies are fallen."
That's a nonsensical human theory, on the face of it, with ZERO data to objectively prove it.
Craig continued...
"and then cannot offer any evidence of an alternate explanation that fits the texts or doctrines in question."
The evidence is there is NO DATA to support this nonsense human tradition. There is NO EVIDENCE, "that the total essence of our humanity is fallen."
AND, there IS evidence of obviously good people in the world as good is normally understood AND as the word used in the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible.
If someone claims that there are Thetans managing our lives from a different planet, ALL the rational thinker has to do is note the reality of a lack of any data to support the claim. AND if they say, but our holy texts insist it's factual, the rational person just repeats that there is no data to support that human theory.
In noting the reality that there is no data supporting this human theory of totally depraved babies, I AM offering evidence in the face of your lack of evidence. Noting there IS NO data to support the claim is all that's needed.
Until y'all have some infallible pope or holy rubric that objectively proves ANYTHING, that's all that is needed for the rational thinker to do.
I don't think y'all understand your dilemma.
Craig falsely claimed...
"1. Hypocritical much? Your entire "case" boils down to "Because I (Dan) say so."."
I, of course, have never stated this, in stating, Here is my opinion, and so people ought to believe my theories because I say so.
In telling you, in good faith, what my opinions are on matters that neither one of us can objectively prove, I'm not saying my opinion is right because I say so. I'm letting you know that I DO know what my opinion is, and here it is, as I've repeatedly explained why I believe it.
That's different than Marshal stating, as a fact, that I'm not a Christian or that I didn't grow up as conservative, or that God is opposed to gay folk marrying or any of the number of things that different ones of you have stated as a proven fact.
Why is this so hard for y'all to understand.
You read, but don't comprehend.
Craig:
A. Yet you don't seem to believe that YHWH actually "Created" everything in any meaningful sense.
I believe God created the universe in some sense. I have no scientific data to tell me how exactly. The Bible doesn't tell us exactly how or what that might look like. God hasn't told us. Do you think one must affirm SOME detailed theory about how God created the universe in order to be saved?
Do you see the problem. WHAT PRECISELY do I need to affirm about "the creation" in order to be saved, oh works-based man? What hoop must I jump through to satisfy you? Likewise...
B. As long as you can selectively apply those teachings, take them out of context, take Jesus Himself out of the context of the Hebrew scriptures, and reserve the right to reinterpret and "figurativeize" what Jesus said at will
1. I don't think I am, in any way at all, taking ANY of Jesus' teaching out of context or the Hebrew Scriptures. I think y'all do that regularly (for instance, saying Jesus wasn't REALLY saying he'd come to preach good news to the literal poor specifically, etc), but I don't think I do.
2. But by all means, WHAT must I affirm about Jesus' teachings to please you and thus, be saved? For MY part, I am trying to take Jesus' teachings pretty danged seriously (like where he nowhere preached a "gospel" of bad news about your theory of atonement where the majority of humanity will be damned and tormented for an eternity!), but maybe you have some special insight that I don't, you tell me.
IF y'all want to suggest I'm not saved, you're going to have to let me know what I've got wrong. Vague accusations (and I know that's your specialty, but still...) don't help. What doctrines or traditions of yours must I affirm in order to be saved? Be specific.
Craig continued with no specific answers, saying, instead:
C. Since no one here is advocating "legalism" and you're the only one demanding that "good works" is the only way to be "good", it kind of seems like you just have a different version of legalism.
Well, maybe you can understand how I'm confused. I say we are saved by God's grace. PERIOD. You all insist that I'm getting... something (nothing specifically pointed out - some doctrine, some lack of the "right" words or correct affirmation... SOMETHING) wrong. That suggests to me that I'm not doing the right works (and speaking the right words or affirming the God-approved theory of atonement ARE acts of works, a work of believing correctly) in your minds. Then tell me: What MUST I do to be saved that I have not already done? What actions must I take? What thoughts must I think?
Help a brother out. Be specific.
Craig:
1. I'm saying a couple of things.
a) If a mistake is made, and then corrected, then made again it seems reasonable to doubt the "good faith" at that point.
If by "mistake" you mean, "Dan disagrees with me on a point I can not objectively prove..." and by "corrected" you mean, "I pointed out to Dan that I think he's mistaken and Dan disagreed with my theory which I can't prove..." Then that absolutely doesn't mean a lack of good faith.
Y'all SEEM to think in your heads that to disagree with a conservative Christian is an attack and a sign of a lack of repentance when we STILL disagree with you after you repeat your opinion. It's just adult disagreement. I'm not obliged to agree with your theories IF they are not objectively proven and I have other theories that I think are more rational and common sense and Godly and, yes, biblical, even though I can't prove them any more than you can prove your human traditions.
It's just disagreement.
Craig objectively falsely claimed:
C) This is just a slightly different version of the "disagreements mean that both sides are equally credible" argument you often use.
As a point of fact in the real world: I HAVE NEVER USED that argument. EVER. NOT ONE TIME.
You know how I know I have never used it? Because I ABSOLUTELY do not agree with that nonsense notion, at least as regarding the topics we're talking about. I do NOT think that both "God hates for gay guys to get married" and "God celebrates healthy loving marriage arrangements, gay or straight," are equally credible. I think the the anti-gay human tradition is an awful, irrational and thoroughly detestable theory. It is, in NO way, equally credible. One has to paint a loving God as a moronic monster to believe that and I don't appreciate that human tradition about God (not that you use those words, to be clear, but the reasoning behind it).
So, given that I have thoroughly disabused you of the notion that this is MY opinion, this claim that you made, perhaps you'll have the intellectual and moral wherewithal to retract it and apologize for your mistake?
We'll see.
Craig:
As you haven't proposed a "case", haven't shown that we are objectively wrong, or actually proven your claims, I find it hard to see how us articulating historic Christian doctrine and tenets helps you at all.
I. As I've been abundantly clear: NEITHER "SIDE" can objectively prove that God plans to torment most of humanity for eternity in some kind of hell for the "crime" of being imperfect humans (ie, "sinners," people who continually fail to be perfect and who commit "sins" of a wide range of types).
II. I believe (as you probably do and which neither of us can objectively prove) in a perfectly loving, perfectly just God.
III. I state that it is rationally flawed opinion to say that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God would choose to send the majority of humanity to an eternal hell for the "crime" of having a "sin nature" meaning that we fail to be perfect... ESPECIALLY if one affirms the notion that God created humanity as we are (ie, imperfect and with an inability to be sinless/perfect). On the face of it, I reject that theory as rationally inconsistent.
IV. YOU ALL have failed to even try seriously to make the rationally consistent case of why a perfectly loving, perfectly just God would choose to do this evil thing, EVEN THOUGH, you no doubt would agree that a parent who put their child in a cage for their entire human life for the "crime" of being imperfect would be a monster.
V. Whatever you may think, I HAVE made a good faith, extremely reasonable case that you can agree with in the case of a human and SHOULD be able to agree with even more so when we're speaking of an almighty God. Do you SEE the case I've made? Can you at least understand why it's, on the face of it, rational (even if you ultimately disagree with it)?
Go ahead: Articulate to me what my problem with your Total Depravity theory is. IF you can understand it and articulate it, can you explain WHY it's not a rationally sound theory?
I'm relatively sure you all would fall back to some version of the "Well, God's ways are not like our ways... God's justice and love are not like ours..."
But that is something you can't prove objectively, and certainly not in the direction you're trying to take it. That is, YES, of course, a perfectly loving, perfectly just, almighty God may be beyond our total understanding... BUT, that would be God being way BETTER and MORE just and MORE loving than our understanding, not LESS just and just plain more evil than our understanding.
You can't explain how torturing someone for an eternity for the crime of being imperfect is rational or Godly (as God is traditionally understood). You always fail on that point and THAT is why I don't think your theories are equally credible. They're simply awful and speak ill of an almighty God.
The point of this is that the only justifications you ever offer for your hunches are things like, "It sounds good to me.", "My Reason...", "I said...", and the like. Your ultimate source of validation or Truth is you. You can dress it up and pretend like your Reason, rationality, or whatever aren't you, but they are.
It's not hard to understand that you say what you say, it's just hard to reconcile the various things you say, unproven claims you make, and how you act with your claims.
Thanks for demonstrating my point. You can't explain things in your won words, and you can't offer an alternative that aligns with scripture. You say that there is "NO DATA", as if that claim has been proven (and you end up doing exactly what you criticize when others do it, relying on unproven assumptions). That you haven't "seen" "DATA" doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It actually doesn't even mean that you haven't "seen" such "DATA" it's more that you ignore, miss, or choose not to acknowledge or exclude "DATA" that doesn't fit your preconceptions.
That you have to resort to idiotic alien bullshit to cover the idiocy of your unproven claims.
My current situation (moving from one house to another with all the fun that entails) mitigates my time for giving a full response to the crazy Dan continues to bring. As such, he's validating the point of my post that the true crazy marching on is the goosestepping of progressive buffoons like Dan.
Stay tuned!
Craig...
"It's the difference between "Scripture/YHWH says X." and "Dan says Y."."
No. It's literally not.
Scripture LITERALLY has the line, X, in it. Scripture literally quotes Jesus saying, for instance, "I have been annointed to preach good news to the poor..."
Given that text, Dan thinks Jesus meant A.
Marshal thinks Jesus meant, Not A.
That is, we both are offering our opinions about the various texts in question.
It's an important distinction, vital for adults to understand and acknowledge for there to be a good faith discussion.
A. My point exactly, you propose a neutered god and rely on Science as your final authority. Even when science points to a singular creation event, and science can't explain things like order from chaos, life from non life, information from randomness, and the fine tuning of the earth for human life. As I have never demands "works" or "affirmations" as the basis for salvation, your question is pointless.
1. That you "don't think.." is not evidence, let alone proof, that you are not doing so. That your ultimate authority is yourself, doesn't really help you either.
2. See my answer above. I demand nothing from you. You do you. If you choose poorly that's your problem. Again with the false claims, why do you do this.
As an aside, I'm pretty sure that you'd claim that the Substitutionary Atonement Gospel comes from Paul not Jesus, yet Jesus' closest friends and disciples agreed that the Gospel Paul preached was the Gospel they got from Jesus. Of course, the concept of atonement for sin flows throughout the OT, and is referenced in the Gospels as well as the rest of the NT.
What a bizarre line of attack, instead of proving your point (That we are guilty of "legalism") you go off on a tangent and start making shit up.
I have no idea whether or not you're saved, at this point (given your general gracelessness, vitriol, condescension, and lies) I don't care enough to get into it. You're convinced that you and your "we can be good by doing good works" salvation thing is all you need with some version of "grace" in there somewhere, and I have no hope of ever getting you to release your grasp of your pet theology (it's not really theology, as it's much more Dan and human goodness focused). So I simply don't care that much. I hope you are saved, but I have no desire to try to overcome your stubborn grasp on your self centered, good works, hunches.
I. You've made this claim, yet haven't proven it. Simply repeating it doesn't make it true. That the "claim" doesn't meet some arbitrary, unknown, burden of proof that you've conjured up, is really not much of anything.
II. Yes, you do say that you believe that. Although, I'm not sure that limiting YHWH to your hunches about two attributes is particularly convincing.
III. Again, the fact that you "state" something doesn't prove your claim to be True. Or even that your claim is more likely to be True than others. That your standard "rationally flawed" is subjective and grounded in your hunches about what is rational your claims founder unmoored from anything but your subjective hunches. That you "said" something is irrelevant. "Because I said so." isn't proof.
IV. We (and untold numbers of scholars, theologians, teachers, experts) have done so multiple times. That it doesn't meet your arbitrary, subjective standard of "rationally consistent" doesn't automatically mean that it's not True. It just means that you reject it on subjective grounds, and haven't offered anything substantial to counter the scholarship that exists. That you keep insisting that we reinvent the wheel and repeat existing arguments made by others who are much more qualified and expert on these subjects seems to indicate that this is more about wasting our time than anything else.
V. If you've made one (especially one that isn't grounded in you and your Reason and rationality) I can't recall seeing it.
Well, yes you are correct. If I was going to waste time going through this pointless exercise again, I would absolutely do (as Jesus did) and reference scripture. Leaning on the simplest, most direct, plain meaning of the text.
That you are claiming (objectively) that we can't jump through your hoop (objectively prove something you demand we prove), yet acknowledging that you have no framework to determine the Truth of any of it (Neither of us can prove...) and demanding that we accept your subjective "rationality" as the standard is simply stupid. It's stupid for you to make these demands, and it's stupid of us to waste time jumping through your hoops.
As you've acknowledged that your claims that we "fail" is a subjective claim, I fail to see why I would take it seriously.
No, by mistake I mean mistake. Unless you are claiming to be incapable of being mistaken. As you have not proven anything you've said to be objectively True, nor anything anyone else has said to be objectively false, maybe start there.
When you start with "Y'all seem..." then spew bullshit, it's just a sign that you have nothing of substance.
You've thoroughly disabused me of the notion that you read or pay attention to what you write. Your "well people disagree on ..." is one of your stock responses as a way to give credibility to your disagreements instead of proving your claims.
Dan can really, really be obtuse.
Craig...
"Unless you've magically proven these tenets false without telling anyone."
What I HAVE done is point to the lack of internal logical consistency.
IF one argues:
A. God exists and loves this world and is perfectly loving and perfectly just...
BUT then, one continues...
B. But the vast majority of humanity will be relegated to eternal torment in an awful hell for the crime of being a sinner, of having a sin nature, of being imperfect...
A and B are rationally inconsistent.
Speaking of the Crazy marching on: I'm watching the conservative blogs and am left wondering: Does the fact that Trump seems to be hiding information about a convicted pedophile, that he wishes said pedophile's accomplice well, that he's considering pardoning her..!!??? Does NONE of that raise a huge red flag for y'all?
So obtuse that it's hard to believe that it's not intentional.
What a strange double standard. Dan is now in favor of gossip and rumor.
The rest of us, as usual, will wait for actual evidence.
I'll simply note that Dan has remained silent as the Russiagate/Steele dossier and the rest of the DFL false claims crumble under the light of day.
What you've really done is point out your hunch that these tenets don't pass some sort of arbitrary, subjective, test based on your personal hunches and subjective rationality.
That you find something to be subjectively "rationally inconsistent" does not mean that your hunch is True. Maybe reconsider whether or not your hunches are really "rationally" and objectively True, or just your hunches.
The line should have read something like, "According to my subjective rationality I have a hunch that A and B are rationally inconsistent based on my limited knowledge and arbitrary, subjective criteria."
Dan,
I deleted your last submission due to your insulting description of Trump. A pervert like you has no business calling anyone else a pervert unless you know of someone's perversion through personal experience...though your testimony can never be considered reliable.
So I hope you saved a copy of your comment so that you can delete your grace embracing disparagement of one who is a far better man than you before re-submitting it. Keep this in mind for future comments. Given your penchant for perversion, any such attempts will receive the same consequence. Be a better man. Shit. Just be a man.
In my grace and justice world, we live lives of grace, but, when there's someone who's using tremendous power and wealth to commit sexual assaults and unrepentently laughing about how they can get away with it due to their wealth and power and privilege, THAT is where justice demands that we step up and condemn the unrepentant rapist, murderer, enslaver unequivocally. We should NOT be "nice" to someone who may pardon a convicted pedophile in the name of "grace." That would be a bastardization of grace.
You're confusing grace with blandly being nice to even monstrous behaviors. That is nonsense and NOT grace.
I'm surprised you don't know that.
And you march on in your craziness!
In your "grace and justice world", you enable sexual perversion you find personally pleasing. You enable and support the murder of infants in utero. You accuse a man you regard as a liar of telling the truth when it serves your unChristian obsession of denigrating him. You continue to lie about this same man after your lies have been proven to be lies. You accuse him of crimes based on allegations, as if there mere accusation is proof of guilt. In your "grace and justice world", you ignore the abject immoral behaviors of those you love, preferring to hype their good deeds as if that mitigates their immorality, while at the same time you hypocritically ignore the many good deeds and great works of Donald Trump to highlight and exaggerate what for you is only hearsay. You pretend that a guilty verdict won against him in a trial even leftist legal experts decry as woefully perverted is abject proof of wrongdoing.
YOU are the one bastardizing the word "grace" and exploiting it to further your perversions and heresies.
I'm not at all surprised you pretend to be surprised that your shit doesn't fly. I'm also not at all surprised that to counter charges of craziness against you, you indulge in craziness evidently believing this blog is like your Blog of Lies and Perversions.
Marshal..
"YOU are the one bastardizing the word "grace" and exploiting it to further your perversions and heresies."
You confuse disagreeing with your personal human opinion - NOT anything God has told you or that is in the Bible - with intentionally promoting bad behavior.
When I support our LGBTQ beloved ones (beloved by God, I remind you), I do so to promote love, grace and justice against a group of people who have been historically marginalized and demonized, including and specifically by "the church."
Now, if it turns out that I'm mistaken and God really is the indecent hater you think God is, it will be because I was erring deliberately on the side of Grace, love, welcome and justice.
Do you understand that?
Same for women's health issues. IF I'm mistaken, it's in good faith trying to be loving and gracious.
Do you understand that?
On the other hand, IF it turns out that Trump really is as depraved and evil as the evidence suggests... if he really IS a sexual predator and pedophile and con man, then, at best, you've been conned into supported and enabling a con man and sexual predator. Your defense might be, "But I thought I was being gracious, loving and welcoming of someone who truly was as evil as his words and actions suggest."
Back on the other hand, IF I'm mistaken, I empowered little lesbian grannies to be in a faithful loving partnership with each other.
Do you see?
IF you are in good faith mistaken, you've defended a horrible monster in his efforts to sexually prey upon women and children, to hurt MANY people with his overtly hedonistic corruption. Other rapists and pedophiles and racists will have been empowered and emboldened.
The harm done, IF I'm mistaken is nothing like the harm done if you are mistaken.
Can you be humble enough to admit that?
What would your guilt level be when, in judgment day, God says to you... "What were you thinking?!! Of course he's a monstrous sexual predator and he and people like him caused untold demonic destruction and harm!"
Will you be ashamed to have been so gullible as to believe a man like that?
Wow! I gotta say one thing Dan...without intending it, I've provided you a post in which there's no tangent one which you can take the conversation which won't still be in line with the topic of the post, which is the leftist, "progressive" crazy marching on. And sister, you're just goosestepping your fake-Christian ass off!
"You confuse disagreeing with your personal human opinion - NOT anything God has told you or that is in the Bible - with intentionally promoting bad behavior."
Typical crazy-ass lie. There's no "grace" of God which allows for blatant rebellion against Him and His will as you demonstrate so often as if you're getting paid for it. God told us homosexual behavior is abomination. God never refers to marriage as anything but a male/female proposition, or that marriage has any mitigating affect on the bad behavior of those who proclaim love for each other. God told us "thou shalt not murder". He did NOT tell us one is only human after one is allowed full passage to through the birth canal to take one's first breath.
"When I support our LGBTQ beloved ones (beloved by God, I remind you)"....
They are no more or less "beloved by God" than is Donald J. Trump, whom you crap on as if he is the picture of evil.
"I do so to promote love, grace and justice against a group of people who have been historically marginalized and demonized, including and specifically by "the church.""
Setting aside your overstating the reality, none of that commends you if it does not include a public opposition to their lifestyle choices. I've known enough homosexuals in my life, with the one to whom I was closest sadly dying from AIDS. Never did I tell him his choice to indulge in abomination was OK, that God was just fine with it so long as he "loved" his partner in homosexual crime, and when he had the chance to ask my opinion of learning of his homosexuality in private...just the two of us driving to the local convenience store...I expressed my disappointment that he hadn't told be prior to his having been infected with HIV and development of AIDS. I told him that I still consider him a brother (brother-in-law, technically) and was greatly saddened by his situation.
The point here is that true support for one in the depths of sin does not include pretending their sin is "OK" and they are still "beloved by God", Who is truly more disappointed and saddened than I was. I don't recall if we discussed his future, but if we did, I'm sure I assured him forgiveness was guaranteed for a truly repentant sinner, and I know he refused to have sexual relations with anyone, though I'm not sure he truly repented of his sinfulness. My great and merciful God, I hope he did, because the consequences are most grave if he did not.
You don't fucking care enough about the eternal destination of those who are promised no inheritance if they die in this sin. You care only about posturing in the midst of people led astray by false teaching.
"Now, if it turns out that I'm mistaken..."
As if it isn't confirmed already. There's no doubt you're not at all mistaken, but willfully in rebellion, as the Will of God on this issue is clear and unmistakable. Your pathetic efforts to pretend there's Scriptural evidence supporting your laughable position is not a "mistake", but a conscious rejection of His position on the subject of human sexual behaviors. You're a liar and proud to be so because other liars hold you in higher regard because of your dishonesty in their favor.
"... and God really is the indecent hater you think God is..."
I feel extraordinarily confident that no one on the Truth side of the issue...Craig, Glenn, Stan, Neil (pray for him), Bubba, myself...regard God as an "indecent hater" simply because He won't kowtow to LGBTQ++++ perversions. He doesn't take his marching orders from the likes of you. You're to deny yourself for His sake. You support rebellion.
"...it will be because I was erring deliberately on the side of Grace, love, welcome and justice. "
Bullshit. There's no "erring" here. There's only your willful rejection of God's clearly revealed Will on this subject in order to gain the favor of lesbians and homosexuals. You're not talking to Jeff St. chuckleheads here (and I pray to the One True Lord God in Christ's name that you're not representative of the entire congregation, though I have my fears).
"Do you understand that?"
I understand you're a fraud. A liar or a willful pervert of the Will of God to draw favor from those who live lives of sinfulness and abomination.
"Same for women's health issues. IF I'm mistaken, it's in good faith trying to be loving and gracious.
Do you understand that?"
I understand that there is absolutely no health issue which requires terminating the life of the unborn child. Health professionals who specialize in difficult pregnancies attest to this fact. I've presented their words in past discussions. You prefer to pretend that abortion is sometimes necessary when in truth it never is. You defend infanticide and are thus guilty of them in fact.
"On the other hand, IF it turns out that Trump really is as depraved and evil as the evidence suggests... "
What "evidence" you satanic hater? Present it or never dare suggest it again.
"...if he really IS a sexual predator and pedophile and con man, then, at best, you've been conned into supported and enabling a con man and sexual predator."
This is a tired and bullshit tactic. If you have evidence, present it. Otherwise, you're just accusing him out of hateful animus and nothing more, which is not in any way "grace" or Christian in any way. Present evidence or shut the fuck up. I don't want to hear about the Billy Bush tape. I don't want to hear about a frivolous discussion with Howard Stern about what was most likely a mistake....where you choose to believe him because it serves your hatred after constantly referring to him as a liar. I want evidence of your charges or shut the fuck up about it and never speak of it again...be it here or your Blog of Lies and Perversions...until you get some.
My "defense" would be that no asshat like Dan Trabue ever presented solid evidence of the crimes of which they accused him, and as I was taught, I was not to simply accept as truth that which has no evidentiary basis. God would certainly pat me on the head and say, "Good job! You're nothing like that fake Dan Trabue!"
"Back on the other hand, IF I'm mistaken, I empowered little lesbian grannies to be in a faithful loving partnership with each other."
Except that there is no "mistaking" what is so crystal clear about God's Will regarding human sexual behavior. None whatsoever. You're basically encouraging them to double down on their rebellion. You're doing them no favors. If you were an actual Christian, you would be encouraging them to avail themselves of the strength God gave them to resist the lure of their perverse temptations. Instead, you...being an asshole...encourage them to indulge their detestable desires, thereby, if not leading them to sin, backing them up in their indulgence of it, making you an abomination, too.
"IF you are in good faith mistaken, you've defended a horrible monster..."
I'm not "mistaken" when I simply await evidence which proves what you so desperately need to believe is true about a fellow human being. You have none. None has been offered by anyone else. All we have is the vile allegations of Trump-hating assholes ( who are assholes even if they can prove their allegations). People of honor don't convict on allegations like progressives do.
"Other rapists and pedophiles and racists will have been empowered and emboldened."
So you need to believe, as if actual rapists, pedophiles and racists are just waiting to see what Trump does before they indulge what they're prone to do anyway. What an incredibly dumbfuck thing to suggest! But that's why you're Dan Trabue. You exist to teach us to not copy Dan Trabue.
"The harm done, IF I'm mistaken is nothing like the harm done if you are mistaken."
Oh no. It's nothing like the average close to one million abortions per year in the United States alone. It's nothing like the harm done to kids who are encouraged to embrace what they thing is an uncontrollable same-sex attraction, and all the harm that goes with it. I could list a lot more dangers of the Dan philosophy of sexual perversions, but at this point, it's redundant.
"Back on the other hand, IF I'm mistaken, I empowered little lesbian grannies to be in a faithful loving partnership with each other."
You tool of Satan. You "empowered" little lesbo grannies to exchange their salvation for abomination. Good on you, you agent of of Hell.
"Can you be humble enough to admit that?"
It wouldn't be "humility", asshat. It would be embracing evil. I try to avoid that. You fucking wallow in it and pretend you're "Christian".
"What would your guilt level be when, in judgment day, God says to you... "What were you thinking?!! Of course he's a monstrous sexual predator and he and people like him caused untold demonic destruction and harm!"
On how you wish He'll say something like that. He won't. But to you He'll likely say, "i never knew you, depart from me, you worker of lawlessness." I wouldn't mind being there to hear Him say it, as He most certainly will.
You like to play this "what if" game, which is always skewed to your dishonest and vile perversions. Don't try this shit anymore. Instead, be an actual man and bring forth a compelling argument to support your vile positions as truth. I would be thankful for the edification. Instead, all you do is bring your bullshit. Your crazy marches on.
How arrogant does one have to be to see someone disagreeing with their human opinions and the only explanation they can come up with is, "They must be lying and intentionally rejecting God and God's ways! After all, almighty ME has explained to them the error of their ways! They must just be deliberately rejecting God..."
Son, son, son, your arms are too short to box with God. You just aren't God enough that everyone feels compelled to agree with your hare-brained theories. Sometimes, people just disagree and do so in good faith.
Being fallible, I'm capable of being mistaken of course. But in the real world, I seek to follow God, I seek to promote grace and justice and when you have opinions that say my ways of doing that are wrong, I simply disagree with your opinions.
In the real world, someone can disagree with Marshal and his human explanations and at the same time, NOT be intentionally disagreeing with God.
Humble yourself, son.
"who's using tremendous power and wealth to commit sexual assaults"
What a bizarre construct and how antithetical to Leviticus 19:15.
What would the response to a person or people who commit numerous sexual assaults using fear of widespread violence to get away with it.
Strangely enough, I suspect that Dan would be nice to Biden and P-BO who pardoned some real scumbags, and preemptively pardoned his family.
Heaven forbid that, in the interest of bringing more scumbags to justice, we might have to pardon someone who's already doing jail time as we speak.
"IF I'm mistaken"
IF Dan's mistaken, then he's engaged in a years long campaign of slander, gossip, lies, and character assassination, all in the name of "grace".
F that.
"I empowered"
Well, Dan's hubris and arrogance is in fine form.
What's amazing is that literally no one but Dan is conflating their opinions with YHWH's.
Dan's opinion "God blesses gay marriage", which sounds like Dan is speaking for YHWH as He wasn't ever specific on the topic.
Dan's opinion "LGBTQ beloved ones (beloved by God)", again I can't recall where YHWH specifically said that.
"Now, if it turns out that I'm mistaken and God really is the indecent hater you think God is"
1. It it turns out that you're wrong, then you'd have been lying about what YHWH "blesses" for years.
2. Disagreeing with YHWH is really no big deal at all.
3. No one has ever referred to YHWH as an "indecent hater". That you make this claim is simply one more lie on your part.
4. That you conflate your hunches about YWHW with giving you the authority to make shit up (indecent hater you believe Him to be) seems to be you again conflating your hunches with YHWH's.
5. If you're mistaken then you'd have spent decades encouraging the people you claim to love to engage in behavior that YHWH calls an abomination. I'm not sure that encouraging and enabling sin shows either grace or love.
Your left! Your left! Your left, right, left! Dan's crazy marches on!
"How arrogant does one have to be to see someone disagreeing with their human opinions and the only explanation they can come up with is, "They must be lying and intentionally rejecting God and God's ways! After all, almighty ME has explained to them the error of their ways! They must just be deliberately rejecting God...""
How arrogant to falsely and stupidly pretend that's an accurate representation of our discourse. This is your typical crazy-ass tactic when you can't provide evidence to overcome that which I've presented against you.
"Son, son, son, your arms are too short to box with God."
First, you double-standard piece of shit, you've been asked repeatedly to cease with the condescension. It presumes a superior moral and intellectual position you clearly don't have and thus is insulting. Indeed, you do it to insult while deleting at your blog appropriate terms used in exposing your evils when you can't use your alleged "reason" to factually rebut my arguments.
Secondly, it's not at all "boxing with God" except by His side against evil liars like you. I defend His Word and His Will and you crap on it pretending you're sincerely "mistaken in good faith". Bullshit.
"You just aren't God enough that everyone feels compelled to agree with your hare-brained theories."
I never pretend to be God. One who might would reject His clearly revealed Will when that person finds it inconvenient. That's a description of you. I offer no "theories" of any kind, but only that which is true, factual and supported by Scripture without equivocation or eisegesis...unlike you.
"Sometimes, people just disagree and do so in good faith."
You're not one of them. You're just crazy enough to think anyone would buy that crap.
" But in the real world, I seek to follow God,..."
But on YOUR terms, not His. You prove this constantly by rejecting so much in Scripture you find personally displeasing to you and totally subordinating to it that which Scripture has revealed is personally displeasing to Him.
"In the real world, someone can disagree with Marshal and his human explanations and at the same time, NOT be intentionally disagreeing with God."
You prove consistently you're not that someone.
"Humble yourself, son."
You first, girl.
sigh.
What must I do to be saved (what additionally must I do to be saved, that is)?
Craig...
"IF Dan's mistaken, then he's engaged in a years long campaign of slander, gossip, lies, and character assassination, all in the name of "grace"."
What gossip? What lies? What character assassination?
Saying X is rational and good and being mistaken isn't a lie, it's being mistaken.
On the other hand, what IF you are mistaken? The graceless and unkind (at best) and deadly, oppressive and demonizing (at worst) of LGBTQ people for centuries has been a wave of deadly oppression. It's driven many people away from God and church (for simple safety's sake) and torn people from families and tormented a traditional oppressed group of people.
How do you think the God of the poor, oppressed and marginalized will feel about that?
Do you have no fear that God will say, Depart from me! For I needed a church and family to welcome and love me and instead, you spit on me and called me diabolical, twisted and evil!...?
At the worst, I erred on the side of love and grace. At worst, you erred on the side of fear, oppression and gracelessness.
Dan:
"Humble yourself, son."
Marshal ...
"You first, girl."
I'm humble enough to admit that, while my positions are obviously moral to a rational observer, I can't objectively prove that I've perfectly understood God correctly on the topic of LGBTQ issues and I can't objectively prove my positions.
Are you humble enough to admit the same?
...
I didn't think so.
Craig falsely claimed...
"1. It it turns out that you're wrong, then you'd have been lying about what YHWH "blesses" for years."
No. It will turn out I'm MISTAKEN.
Mistaken is not equivalent to lying.
Or - and answer this - when you DO find out all your awful, oppressive, harmful words about LGBTQ folks are wrong - is it the case that you've been LYING, or in good faith, MISTAKEN?
People CAN be mistaken in good faith. Do you agree?
Are you so arrogant as to think that you CAN'T be mistaken on this subject?
If so, what does that say about you?
About which "awful, oppressive, harmful words" are you talking? Be specific.
"I'm humble enough to admit that, while my positions are obviously moral to a rational observer,..."
That's funny. You claim humility and immediately follow up the claim with a prideful remark about your positions being moral to "rational" people. A truly humble person might hope his positions are regarded as moral by rational people, but you deign to judge rationality by whether or not observers agree with your heresies.
"I can't objectively prove that I've perfectly understood God correctly on the topic of LGBTQ issues..."
You don't understand what "Thou shalt not" means? You don't understand what "abomination" or "detestable" means? Will a "rational" person take a position on a behavior if he doesn't, or would a "rational" person instead recuse himself from doing so until his understanding is confirmed?
Clearly you don't "perfectly" understand what "rational" means, either.
"...and I can't objectively prove my positions."
That's for damn sure! You can't subjectively prove them, either! You just assert they're "rational" because you find perversion personally pleasing.
I almost forgot. I don't need to humble myself regarding my understanding of God's position on LGBTQ++++ issues. He's perfectly clear He's opposed. Only liars pretend He isn't.
Repent of your many sins and enabling of evil, accept Christ as your Lord and Savior and abide God's Will on HIS terms as so clearly revealed to us in Scripture, rather than on your terms, which are clearly rebellious.
The "If I'm mistaken" line is a cheap tactic...a lie. There's no way an honest person can be "mistaken" about homosexuality. God opposes it. Period. End of story. There is no scenario or context in which one can engage in it where it is not abomination. A marriage license, provided by the unjust and unconstitutional ruling by a morally bankrupt SCOTUS majority, is no more than a license to have one's abomination regarded by the state as a "marriage". It didn't legalize SSM. It legalized a lie.
No two lesbians can...with or without a license...promise life-long fidelity to each other, forsaking all others, and pretend that makes them just like normal marriages which reflect God's Will, because their union in no way does and is just a promise to each other...with or without a license...to indulge in abomination while forsaking all others. Being exclusive to each other is still abomination.
I asked Marshal what he thought I must do to be saved. Marshal responded...
Repent of your many sins and enabling of evil, accept Christ as your Lord and Savior and abide God's Will on HIS terms as so clearly revealed to us in Scripture, rather than on your terms, which are clearly rebellious.
I have repented of all known sins. Any behaviors that I don't know to be sins, I haven't repented of, any more than you haven't repented of any sins YOU don't know are sins (no matter how clear "the Bible" is that we should be welcoming the immigrants, not imprisoning them or abducting them or otherwise oppressing them). I HAVE "accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior and abide God's Will" as I understand it.
What ELSE would you have me do? What other hoops to jump through?
Let me cut to the chase: Are you suggesting I need to agree with YOUR personal human opinion on LGBTQ issues and abortion? I must agree with another human's unproven opinions in order to be saved?
If so, do you not see the arrogance and presumption in that? Not to mention the legalism.
And let me cut to the chase again: You will, no doubt, reply, "But it's not MY opinion that God hates abortion and doesn't want gay guys marrying or that the Bible should be interpreted the way I think it should be interpreted, It's "god's will!"" Right?
But that's the thing that you're missing: It is precisely your personal human opinion (and the opinion of many others, to be sure) on those topics. That's the point. That's where the arrogance, presumption and blasphemy come in. WHO SAYS you have it right? You? Because you REALLLY insist that you are the One who has it Right? Says who?
Your insistence is not proof. Your pointing to other humans throughout history is not proof. You're pointing to human opinions, saying you can't be mistaken.
A reminder on that, where you claimed your perfect understanding on these topics: "I don't need to humble myself regarding my understanding of God's position on LGBTQ++++ issues. He's perfectly clear He's opposed." ...says MARSHAL, not God)"
This ALL falls back to your lack of a Holy Rubric or an Infallible Pope. You don't have that and you can't just insist YOU ARE THE CHOSEN ONE to decide such matters. Your opinion IS an opinion, a literally subjective, literally objectively unproven personal human opinion.
So, are you REALLY saying that I must agree with your opinions to be saved? Or may I try to faithfully follow God as I understand God, which is precisely what I'm doing, however imperfectly?
Do you understand Grace? Humility?
Glenn, I read your article and it's just the piece of sweaty, stinky buttrock which is the usual from you. You are just a wannable theologian, shoulda went to shcool for that.
You're years long campaign of lies, character assassination, slander and vitriol goes way beyond your repetition of your "God blesses gay marriage" trope and it's related talking points.
However, if you're mistaken about that particular point, then you've used your platforms to encourage and lead others into lives of sin, by lying about YHWH's blessings. At a minimum.
If I'm mistaken about what? What scripture says? What the secret meaning of scripture really is? About the fact that anal sex carries a high degree of risks? About the idea that promiscuity is not healthy?
The reality is that i have not "demonized or oppressed" anyone. I certainly haven't killed anyone. Nor have a made anyone "unsafe". I certainly haven't projected my fears and irrational paranoia on others as you do.
As far as how YHWH feels about "that", I don't speak for Him, are you saying that you do? Are you implying that you now YHWH's feelings on certain topics?I'll take my chances sticking with the most plain reading and understanding of scripture, and put my hope in the saving work of Jesus of Nazareth rather than in what I say or do. Of course, I would never limit YHWH to only or primarily being the "God of the poor and marginalized".
Again, I am convinced that the finished work of Jesus of Nazareth is what saves me and that when I stand before YHWH that I will be viewed as righteous because of what Jesus did, not because of what I did.
At worst, you erred on the side of encouraging sin and misinterpreting scripture by pretending that love encourages people to follow their desires instead of YWHW.
At worst, I erred on fidelity to scripture and understanding that love isn't license.
Your last sentence is an excellent example of your years of lies, character assassination, vitriol, and bullshit.
For someone who seems incapable of demonstrating love and grace to spend so much time bragging about how loving and grace filled you are seems to demonstrate delusional behavior.
FYI, does an all powerful God who created all that exists really "need" a Church? I understand that He's chosen to use The Church to accomplish His will on Earth, but I can't see how that equates to His "need".
OK, if you think that being "mistaken" and encouraging people to engage in sin is just fine and dandy, that's cool. Good job.
Interesting, Dan is clearly making a claim of objective fact here "when you DO find out all...wrong", yet he's clearly not even bothered to prove his claim to be factually accurate.
Sure, people can be mistaken in "good faith", but if "good faith" means going to great lengths to ignore, twist, or dismiss scripture and almost total reliance on your personal, subjective, hunches, I'm not sure that qualifies as "good will".
No, but strangely enough you are. Which says more about you and your faith in your personal, subjective, Reason than I have time or space to catalogue.
By all means, please be specific about these "awful, oppressive, harmful words" that you claim I specifically have used.
In another comment in this thread, Dan just claimed that our conclusions about this topic will be proven wrong, and he thinks that he's humble?
"Thou shall not" doesn't apply to Dan's "minor sins", or anything Dan likes.
If Dan's mistaken, the potential consequences for those he's misled could be catastrophic and eternal. Of course Dan doesn't believe that a catastrophic or eternal consequence is even possible, so of course he doesn't care about the possible ramifications of what he spouts.
That's not at all an actual rebuttal of anything Glenn presented, you graceless fake Christian!
Anyone who goes by "anonymous," in my book, is a coward. Like this troll, he didn't present any rebuttal of my statements in my article just an ad hominem attack.
It could be Dan from his phone and he just forgot to sign his name...a problem with which I struggle when posting comments with my phone...or it's his troll, who knows if he signs his name his comment won't be published. It fits either. What I don't get is the use of the term, "buttrock", which is a music related term as far as I've been able to determine so far...which is as far as I care to investigate. I'd say it's most likely Dan as he never presents a real rebuttal which demonstrates any more depth than this "anonymous" comment.
"I have repented of all known sins."
Including the enabling of homosexuality and abortion? Or are you going to play that insipid and dishonest "Mistaken in good faith" game? Or how about lies like this one:
"(no matter how clear "the Bible" is that we should be welcoming the immigrants, not imprisoning them or abducting them or otherwise oppressing them)"
An "immigrant" is one who enters our country according to our laws. You want us to "welcome" anyone who enters illegally, which is breaking our laws, which justifies their imprisonment which you falsely (with malice aforethought) label "oppression"...which is how all lawbreakers regard being held accountable for their crimes. So are you constantly in a state of repentance for this ongoing lie you perpetuate?
"I HAVE "accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior and abide God's Will" as I understand it."
Not entirely accurate. Let me help. "I HAVE "accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior and abide God's Will" as I [choose to]understand it." This means despite far more logical explanations for God's Will, you choose to abide only that which pleases you, and ignore that which doesn't. Your stances on homosexuality and infanticide alone, as well as the defense of illegal border crossers, is testament enough to that fact.
"Are you suggesting I need to agree with YOUR personal human opinion on LGBTQ issues and abortion?"
No...with God's prohibition against sexual immorality and murder. Are you suggesting I need to accept the ludicrous notion that because these two sinful behaviors aren't referenced in Scripture specifically as "LGBTQ issues and abortion" you actually believe that gives you room to indulge them under your chosen "understanding"? That ain't gonna happen by someone like myself who doesn't prevaricate, equivocate or make cheap excuses for pretending God's Will isn't clear on these subjects, under which "LGBTQ issues and abortion" clearly fall. Worse, it's hard to imagine that a perfect God would be so simply minded as to fall for such childish "reasoning". Good luck with that. I hope you like it really hot!
"If so, do you not see the arrogance and presumption in that?"
There's no arrogance or presumption in speaking truthfully about what is so clearly revealed. The arrogance is in presuming you can alter what is so clear, or dare suggest a lack of clarity where it serves you for it to be so.
"You will, no doubt, reply, "But it's not MY opinion that God hates abortion and doesn't want gay guys marrying or that the Bible should be interpreted the way I think it should be interpreted, It's "god's will!"" Right?"
No, because there's no "interpretation" necessary where a behavior is preceded by "Thou shalt not..." God created us in His image and likeness, did He not? Are not the conceived "created"? They're clearly human beings, have been "procreated" by human beings and have their own unique DNA, and barring interference will develop into what is more recognizable to the fake Christians like you as an actual person, while having been accepted as such by honest people of God. And given there is no legitimate reason to ever abort...ever...there is no justification for taking the life of the conceived. Thus, you've murdered.
In the same way, by using actual reason and logic, and given no scenario or context in which the indulgence in the prohibited sexual behavior of homosexuality, there's no argument any honest person of God could make that suggests God would ever bless the union of two homosexuals or two lesbians simply because they vowed each to the other to remain faithful with the other, forsaking all others, until death. If they so vow and live a live indulging in homosexual/lesbian behavior, they're still indulging in that which God tells us is abomination. It takes a fake Christian to pretend, despite no mention anywhere in Scripture which so much as hints that "marriage" might be defined in some way other than the conjugal union of one man and one woman, that two homosexuals or two lesbians taking such vows would make any difference to their indulging in abomination.
No Dan. You have no "understanding" of God's Will on these issues. You have a conscious rejection of God's Will on these issues.
"It is precisely your personal human opinion (and the opinion of many others, to be sure) on those topics."
By asserting it is merely my "opinion", you're making a truth claim that my position can be shown to be false or that there is overwhelming evidence or compelling argument which can be presented to make that case. You've not done this. You can't even copy/paste the arguments I just made and mitigate them in any way. Go ahead. Do that at your blog and promise (as if I'd take you at your word), that you'd let me response freely and in my own way without you whining about my word choices. What matters now is that you've nothing to support your crazy and woefully baseless objection to what I say, nor to your personal, self-satisfying eisegesis (note I didn't say "opinion", because it isn't opinion as if you have any factual support for it from Scripture, which is all that matters after suggesting I'm not simply repeating God's Will.)
"That's the point. That's where the arrogance, presumption and blasphemy come in."
No. You don't get to call it "arrogance, presumption and" especially "blasphemy" simply because you don't like the truth when it confronts you. You need more than that. You need actual Scriptural evidence to rebuke my presentation of Scriptural teaching, not the weak invention of which your are so proud.
"WHO SAYS you have it right?"
Honest people.
"Because you REALLLY insist that you are the One who has it Right? Says who?"
Honest people. Go ahead. Find an honest person and ask. Helpful hint: You won't find one at your "church" on Jeff St.
"Your insistence is not proof. Your pointing to other humans throughout history is not proof. You're pointing to human opinions, saying you can't be mistaken."
Me pointing to Scripture is proof, because I only say what's in Scripture, without equivocation or prevarication or Trabue-style bullshit. Bring YOUR "proof" from Scripture and I'll explain again why its equivocation, prevarication and Trabue-style bullshit.
"A reminder on that, where you claimed your perfect understanding on these topics: "I don't need to humble myself regarding my understanding of God's position on LGBTQ++++ issues. He's perfectly clear He's opposed." ...says MARSHAL, not God)""
Except that it is God who clearly expresses His opposition. As such, it's not a matter of humility or arrogance, because I'm just repeating what Scripture says. I'm not inserting my own opinions at all. I don't need to because my intent is to know His Will and abide it to the best of my woefully imperfect ability. These two issues are easy. One hasn't a need to "figure it out", it's so crystal clear! That's what makes you such a fake. You have to invent ambiguity in order to pretend there's more than one possibility. It's really lying and it's crazy you expect anyone to buy in to it.
" This ALL falls back to your lack of a Holy Rubric or an Infallible Pope."
I don't need one. What YOU need is to provide Scriptural support for your crazy. You need to provide Scriptural evidence which flat out refutes and rebukes my accurate presentation of Scriptural teaching on these issues, which you can't because they're accurate. You keep insisting it's opinion, but unlike you, even if I was to concede that desperate assertion, I STILL have Scripture "on my side" and you have nothing but your pro-perv and pro-infanticide inventions.
"So, are you REALLY saying that I must agree with your opinions to be saved?"
No. Quite certain I never said such a thing.
"Or may I try to faithfully follow God as I understand God, which is precisely what I'm doing, however imperfectly?"
You can try to convince someone you're actually trying, but I don't think God will be fooled, given how far astray you've run from the truth and facts (on these two issues for certain).
"Do you understand Grace? Humility?"
Quite well. Thanks for asking. I understand honesty, too. I don't see much of any of these in your comments. (I'm being kind...because I understand "kindness", too...I don't really see them at all in your comments.)
So anyway, instead of going through to catch up on all of that to which I couldn't respond due to technical difficulties, it's pretty clear that Dan brings the crazy as hard as ever. It's not how I thought the discussion should go, but truly, Dan's so full of shit that he can't help but be a constant example of the crazy marching on. This thread will remain open, but I may hit the topic again with examples I've seen which drives home the point that the true crazy is not in the ongoing support for the most beneficially effective president of my lifetime, but in those sorry-ass "progressives", lefties, Democrats, RINOs and other Trump haters who are truly exhibiting insanity. It just never ends.
For what it's worth, Anonymous isn't me. Not my style of talking.
If Dan was truly arguing in good faith, he'd provide proof that his hunches were correct. At least proof beyond "I believe", "I said...", and "It seems to me...". Something that is not grounded in himself and his feelings.
That's exactly right, Craig. I don't care what he "believes". I care about how he rationalizes that what he believes. Hiding behind "I admit it's my opinion" doesn't mitigate the obligation of having a fact-based, evidence-supported reason for holding that opinion.
And as he continues to demand of us what has been supplied for him countless times, he must now 86 any attempt to insist he's supplied for us what we've asked and do it yet again until we're satisfied there's no hole which he hasn't plugged. Instead, he'll throw out any old lame crap and expect us to accept it as...well... acceptable, after having rejected far more fact-based and evidence-supported arguments for our positions. No. His double-standard crap won't work here. This isn't his Blog of Lies and Perversions.
Absolutely. "I believe", "I said", "Reason tells me", "it seems like", or any of his other self referencing claims are not adequate. Hiding behind "It's my opinion" while acting as if his "opinion" is the only possible option, is not adequate. Hiding behind the double standard of demanding much, but offering nothing is not adequate.
Marshal arrogantly proclaimed, as if he were the king of morality and telling god what god thinks...
Me pointing to Scripture is proof, because I only say what's in Scripture, without equivocation or prevarication or Trabue-style bullshit. Bring YOUR "proof" from Scripture and I'll explain again why its equivocation
NO. YOU CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE THIS STUPID AND INEPT AT REASONING and at the same time this arrogant. Period.
YOU "pointing to Scripture" is ONLY YOU, pointing to scripture. That's all it is, nothing more. It's not "proof" that God is on your pugnacious, graceless side. It's certainly not objective proof that you're correct.
When little human Marshal points to Scripture and says, "But, but, but LOOKEE! here are some words that I think should be taken to mean X" ALLLLLL that is is Marshal pointing to words in a book, as if the empty pointing to words has any objective meaning.
It's literally nothing, Marshal. Less than nothing, because you're literally taking your subjective opinion AND THEN trying to demand that people accept that little human opinion as if it were God's will.
It's not. It's your subjective opinion.
But this has been pointed out endlessly. You apparently just don't understand reasoning enough to understand that objective reality.
WHEN Dan says, "God is described in the Bible as perfectly loving, perfectly loving, perfectly just, perfectly gracious, and so, of course, God is welcoming of all, because that's self-evident IF you accept the notion that God has those qualities..." When Dan says that, it is his subjective opinion.
When Marshal points to OT laws given specifically to Israel and no one else and says, "Because the text there says "men don't lie with men... if they do, KILL THEIR DAMNED ASSES!!" and then Marshal says, "what that means is that God is opposed to gay guys marrying (but also, that God is opposed to us killing gay guys), then THAT is Marshal's graceless, loveless personal subjective opinion.
Naught else.
Pointing to a text in the Bible or to a KKK poster or the book, BAMBI... NONE of that is objective proof of what God thinks about anything.
I can't help you understand reality. That's on you.
Dan's crazy is not just continually marching on, he's going off the rails on the Crazy Train! (Apologies to Ozzie...R.I.P.)
Dan begins his most recent comment with lies:
"Marshal arrogantly proclaimed, as if he were the king of morality and telling god what god thinks..."
I haven't "arrogantly" proclaimed anything. Claiming boldly the Word and Will of God is not "arrogance", most especially if His Word and Will is inconvenient for Jeff St. people.
So that's lie # 1 of his opener. Lie #2 is supposing I regard myself "the king of morality". The truth is I'm a servant of it (poor in my service though I may be), a slave to the King of Morality.
Lie #3 is projecting his own behavior on to me in daring to suggest I'm ever "telling god what god thinks". Never. I tell you what God hath said as clearly revealed to us in Scripture. And even if I state truthfully and accurately, "God says 'A', so it follows that 'B' is true and the best and most probable conclusion one can honestly draw, it's only because no other letter of the alphabet is possible and Dan's conclusions can't be legitimately, logically and definitely can't be honestly inferred. Said another way for Dan's limited comprehension skills, there's no straight line Dan can draw between God's Will and SSM. Indeed, there's no line which can be imagined, much less actually drawn. Similar problems exist in most of Dan's "understanding" of Scripture that if Dan were to write a synopsis of Scripture, it wouldn't look like Scripture at all. One has to be truly arrogant to contort Scripture to fit a world view as Dan does.
"NO. YOU CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE THIS STUPID AND INEPT AT REASONING and at the same time this arrogant. Period."
Well, Dan. Congratulations on finally supposing something with such a high probability of truth! I NOT stupid or inept at reasoning at all! I'm amazed you acknowledged actual reality for a change. You certainly do nothing to prove I might be!
"YOU "pointing to Scripture" is ONLY YOU, pointing to scripture. That's all it is, nothing more."
It's not the "pointing" Dan. It's the Scripture to which I point where your focus should be. I'm reminded of Bruce Lee in "Enter The Dragon":
"It's like a finger pointing away to the moon (Scripture)." Dan concentrates on the finger. Bruce would slap him on the head and say, "Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory (God's Will)."
Thus, it's not my pointing, but to what I'm pointing, which is not of me, but of God and as such I am repeating what He hath said. Hence, you do not reject me or any "interpretation", but you reject exactly what God hath said as revealed to us so clearly in Scripture. So there's no "arrogance" in repeating what God hath said, and it's clearly not a case of me telling God what He should think. This is just another dodge...another way to avoid providing for our long waiting ears to hear just how you can explain what I repeated is not what God said or how you can assert a conclusion the words themselves do not convey.
More coming...
"When little human Marshal points to Scripture and says, "But, but, but LOOKEE! here are some words that I think should be taken to mean X" ALLLLLL that is is Marshal pointing to words in a book, as if the empty pointing to words has any objective meaning."
First of all, petulant little girl, I don't speak in that way at all. Secondly, fake Christian, I don't "think" the clear presentation of any passage means something the words itself don't convey. They're obvious and where they are not, unlike you, I present an argument using words which are to support my position. You make shit up. So again, I'm not just pointing to random words in a book, I'm pointing to God's Word as Scripture reveals It to us. It's up to you to explain why those words mean something different than what I insist they plainly do. You reject your obligation in favor of casting aspersions on my accurate repetition of what Scripture teaches...of calling into question my presentation of Scriptural teaching without a better explanation or a reason for suggesting mine is in error. You just reject it because you don't personally like what Scripture says. You want it to mean what the words on the page do not convey.
"It's literally nothing, Marshal. Less than nothing, because you're literally taking your subjective opinion AND THEN trying to demand that people accept that little human opinion as if it were God's will."
No, that's you lying about what I've presented being only a subjective opinion of what can't be asserted to be something else. And as Craig and others have said for so many years, if what we present is only "opinion", what evidence do you have to suggest it's inaccurate in any way? You provide nothing which is Scriptural in itself or that is relevant to the issue on the table even if you do try to use Scripture to force your preferred meaning upon the issue on the table. I force nothing. I see, "Thou shalt not..." and I can only take it as "Don't do this". I see no loopholes or exceptions provided, not alteration of the prohibition anywhere later in Scripture, and I can only take it as "Don't EVER do this!"
I don't deal in opinion, you stupid and dishonest little girl of a person. I just repeat what God says clearly. You force ambiguity into Scripture so you can do what you like.
"But this has been pointed out endlessly."
By a moronic fake Christian who needs the Word of God to be subjective human opinion so he can pretend he has a legitimate alternate understanding which is clearly and truly a willful rejection of God's Will.
"You apparently just don't understand reasoning enough to understand that objective reality."
So you so desperately need to tell yourself. What you regard as "objective reality" is you subjective opinion of what objective reality should be. More accurately, "objective reality" is what Dan demands reality must be. Anyone who disagrees with whatever the hell Dan believes but can't seem to explain is expressing subjective opinion. How very convenient and self-serving! How very dishonest and cowardly! How very Dan! WHOO! WHOOOO! All aboard Dan's Crazy Train!
"WHEN Dan says, "God is described in the Bible as perfectly loving, perfectly loving, perfectly just, perfectly gracious, and so, of course, God is welcoming of all, because that's self-evident IF you accept the notion that God has those qualities..." When Dan says that, it is his subjective opinion."
Wow. You're truly a girl of solid conviction, aren't you? Nonetheless, in order for you to say any of that, you need to point to Scripture in order to believe it at all. How can it be "self-evident" (which cannot then be "subjective opinion") if you didn't get it from Scripture, either directly or by sermon or religious instruction based on Scripture?
"When Marshal points to OT laws given specifically to Israel and no one else..."
Another lie. I point to that which is universal. I've explained, using Scripture, why the Levitical prohibitions in Chapter 18 are universal and you've never made the slightest attempt to address it, much less prove me wrong. Hiding behind you "opinion" to the contrary doesn't cut it.
""Because the text there says "men don't lie with men... if they do, KILL THEIR DAMNED ASSES!!""
This is another intentional lie. I present the text verbatim, so I would never assert the text says something like this. What's more, I deal with the Chapter 18 prohibition, not the Chapter 20 punishment Israel was supposed to levy for infraction of the prohibition. But I've also explained many times why the punishment is no longer in effect for Christians, yet you need to cite that though it's no longer in effect, because you're a twisted pervert who needs to cast better people in a bad light for daring to care about the salvation of homosexuals. You don't care about their salvation. You care about their regard for you.
But it's helpful to remember that the punishment God ordained for the sin of homosexuality drives home to honest and true Christians just how much it mattered to God that His People (which now includes true Christians...not fakes like you) not indulge in that perversion. He said their blood is on their own heads.
"Pointing to a text in the Bible..."
...where God's Word/Will is clearly laid out for us, as I do, "is objective proof of what God thinks" regarding the issue in question. That is, it is for those who revere Scripture and thus God's Will. If you want to say otherwise, you'll need to explain how what Scripture presents as God expressing His Will is a lie, or that you have a fact-based, evidence-supported counter argument, with those facts and evidence coming from Scripture.
"I can't help you understand reality."
Of course you can't. You have no grasp of it. Thanks for at least this little bit of honesty. It's quite refreshing coming from you.
Dan: "YOU "pointing to Scripture" is ONLY YOU, pointing to scripture. That's all it is, nothing more."
Of course, DAN pointing to Dan's reasoning, rationality, and feelings is only Dan pointing to himself and his some of his subjective traits. That's all it is, nothing more.
That Dan's "Reason", "rationality" and feelings are exponentially lower in value than scripture is a given. That Dan acts as if his subjective hunches are more valuable than scripture is the height of arrogance and hubris.
" Less than nothing, because you're literally taking your subjective opinion AND THEN trying to demand that people accept that little human opinion as if it were God's will. It's not. It's your subjective opinion. But this has been pointed out endlessly. You apparently just don't understand reasoning enough to understand that objective reality."
Well, this is quite the example of Dan's double standard. Dan dismisses quoting scripture as "nothing" and "subjective", while he doesn't even have scripture to quote. He just has his imperfect, subjective, fallible, Reason and rationality along with his feelings.
"given specifically to Israel and no one else"
By all means, prove this claim to be completely factual and True.
"But this has been pointed out endlessly."
Yes, your inability to either make a positive scriptural case for your fantasies, or to demonstrate from scripture that the plain meaning of the text is wrong (in fact that it really means the opposite of the plain meaning of the text) has been pointed out endlessly.
"You apparently just don't understand reasoning enough to understand that objective reality"
Given that you rely almost totally on your subjective, limited, fallible, imperfect Reasoning and act as if what you Reason should be treated as fact (absent any actual objective proof) it seems strange to see you appearing to brag that your "Reasoning" is somehow superior to Art's.
Of course you can't help us understand "reality", because your hunches are not "reality". You regularly claim things you believe to be "reality" you regularly fail to prove that to be the case.
So, what specific "reality" does Art not grasp? Once you identify that "reality" prove that it is what you claim.
Marshal...
"where God's Word/Will is clearly laid out for us, as I do, "is objective proof of what God thinks" regarding the issue in question."
As always, Says who?
This is what you aren't getting. YOU SAYING it's objective proof is NOT objective proof.
Who in charge is authoritatively saying, Yes, Marshal is objectively correct?
No one.
You must answer that question and failure to do so just exposes the lie of the claim.
I find this comment string to be quite enlightening about Dan. He just proves over and over that he has no clue about what God has said in His Word, and has no clue about theology, and has no clue about who God is, who Christ is or even who the Spirit is. He is against anything in scripture which shows the truth about his belief system being anti-God and pro sexual anarchy. He proves he is a pawn of Satan.
Craig...
"what specific "reality" does Art not grasp? "
Do you truly not know, in spite of the dozens of times we've had these sorts of discussions?
Marshal pointing to a text (or five texts) in the Bible and then declaring that it's a proven, objective fact that God is opposed to gay guys marrying is NOT an objectively proven reality.
It's literally Marshals subjective and unproven opinion. That is an observable reality.
IF Marshal HAD proven his nonsense claim, one could point to the objective facts.
Marshal has not done that.
As to your question about me proving that the OT rule against men laying with men was only for Israel, I am pointing to the actual text which specifically literally says, Here are rules for Israel. Now, you all may want to guess that they have a more universal application, but it's literally not in the text.
I'm surprised you didn't know!
"As always, Says who?"
That's one of your default cheap dodges, crazy little girl. "Who says water is wet?" Doesn't matter. What does is your fact-based, evidence-supported argument that your alternative explanation...which you never ever present, is a more likely message than the words on the page themselves convey. So my answer is: says Scripture/God/Jesus/one of His Apostles as the case may be. It's up to your sorry ass to demonstrate the words on the page mean something else.
"This is what you aren't getting. YOU SAYING it's objective proof is NOT objective proof."
This is stupid, childish petulance at best or Dan Trabue-level dishonesty more likely. Pushing your face in the toilet is all the "objective proof" I need to convince you that water is wet. Barring a fact-based, evidence-supported rebuttal on your part, you must accept it as true.
Pushing your face in the text is all the "objective proof" I need regarding God's Will where the text clearly expresses His Will. Barring a fact-based, evidence supported rebuttal on your part, you must accept my position as true. Reason demands it. Honesty demands it. They both demand more than you asking "Who says?" to assert any possibility it is NOT true.
So stop the tap dancing and the grade school girl antics and get to it (at your own Blog of Lies and Perversions...not here in a thread about the craziness of your kind).
"Who in charge is authoritatively saying, Yes, Marshal is objectively correct?"
Until you can come up with a coherent, intelligent, fact-based and Scripture-supported piece of evidence, the only Authority Who matters: The Supreme Being Whose Word and Will I present verbatim. I need no one else. But several thousand years of Judeo-Christian scholarship also authoritatively repeats God's Will as well.
There are no lies in any claim I make, and no arguments presented by you which rebuts them. Again, "Nyuh uh!" and "Who says?" are not arguments. They're "just the automatic gainsaying of anything" I say.
Ironic how you so often do what you say you oppose.
Marshal, missing the point and dodging the question (whether due to cowardice or intellectual dishonesty is hard to say)...
"So my answer is: says Scripture/God/Jesus/one of His Apostles as the case may be. It's up to your sorry ass to demonstrate the words on the page mean something else."
Again: SAYS WHO?
Scripture literally does not say God is opposed to gay guys marrying, so that would be an example of a damned lie.
Scripture literally does not make a claim to be a magic rulings book.
Scripture literally does have a wide range of literally figurative writing.
Scripture literally does not tell you when to take it literally or not.
So, your "the Bible " answee is another damned lie.
Pharisees and others have literally abused Scripture and God in the same way for centuries.
They have always been on the wrong side of grace.
Marshal proudly proclaimed...
"Until you can come up with a coherent, intelligent, fact-based and Scripture-supported piece of evidence, the only Authority Who matters: The Supreme Being Whose Word and Will I present verbatim."
And that's just it, son. I HAVE presented the most coherent, rational, biblical and Godly case for why I believe as I do... what convinced me to abandon the opinion I shared with you, once upon a time.
It's not that the arguments don't exist, it's just that you don't find them compelling.
And the same is true for me... I do NOT find your reasoning compelling, rational, biblical or decent, even.
GIVEN that two people read and reason and come to disagreeing opinions, WHO SAYS that yours is objectively proven?
Answer, it's not.
Who says that yours is objectively right?
No one authoritatively says so.
But you not only can recognize that demonstrable reality, you apparently don't even understand your biblical and rational failure.
Either "all scripture is God breathed" or it's not. If it is, then it carries a certain authority which should be acknowledged. If it's not all "God breathed" then it comes down to people like Dan picking and choosing what parts they don't like. Which is obviously sub optimal.
Art, at least you offer scripture as something that can be examined and tested. Dan offers nothing, less than nothing, in his appeals to his subjective "Reason" and "rationality" coupled with his hunches. When pressed he hides behind "It's my opinion" while continuing to act as if his "opinion" is actually "reality".
He presents no arguments (besides his subjective Reason) because he has no arguments grounded outside of his weak little mind.
Marshal:
"Who says water is wet?"
Water is wet is self-evident, it is definitional.
Marshal is correctly stating God's opinions on LGBTQ issues is NOT self-evident. You're simply not as reliable as water is wet, son.
Craig, entirely missing the point, said:
That Dan's "Reason", "rationality" and feelings are exponentially lower in value than scripture is a given. That Dan acts as if his subjective hunches are more valuable than scripture is the height of arrogance and hubris.
Understand this:
I. Dan is NOT saying that Dan's opinion is more reliable than Scripture.
With me so far? You can TELL that's not what I'm saying by the way I have never said that and frankly, don't believe it and, further, don't believe it is a rational adult way of talking about a book.
A BOOK IS NEITHER RATIONAL OR A-RATIONAL. A BOOK DOES NOT REASON, it is literally a dumb book. Or collection of books in the case of the Bible. And, lest you misunderstand (as you almost certainly will), I'm not saying "the writings of the Bible are stoopid!" I'm noting the reality that the Bible does not have a brain, it is unthinking and incapable of thought.
Can you agree with that self-evident reality?
II. Dan is saying that DAN thinks DAN's understanding of the various biblical texts and just general thinking on moral concerns is better than MARSHAL's understanding of various biblical texts and thinking on moral concerns.
Do you understand?
It's not a comparison of Dan vs the Bible. At least not on my part.
What I am talking about is the comparison of DAN's opinions of biblical texts and moral reasoning and MARSHAL's opinions, both of which are subjective.
Understand?
Glenn said:
He just proves over and over that he has no clue about what God has said in His Word, and has no clue about theology, and has no clue about who God is,
...Just showing how Glenn has NO clue of what Dan knows about the Bible. One does not grow up as a faithful Southern Baptist without learning and knowing a HUGE amount of what the Bible says (and doesn't say) about God. One does not read the Bible regularly for ~55 years (having it read and preached to me prior to those 55 years) without learning a huge amount of what the Bible does and doesn't say about God.
Why are you all this way? Is it beyond your human comprehension that someone can be extremely well-read in the Bible, well-grounded in conservative theology AND YET, ultimately disagree with your human opinions and theories about what God does and doesn't think?
But tell me, Glenn, what SPECIFICALLY do you imagine in your graceless head that I don't understand about "God" or "Theology..."?
Here's your chance to educate a poor, dumb southern boy about the finer nuances of God and stuff.
I'm willing to bet that Glenn can't offer ANYTHING beyond, "Well, you disagree with me about the Bible and moral rulings..." which is NOT the same as saying I don't know about God or theology.
Now you're lying or just stupid as hell. God's prohibition on homosexual behavior is as obvious as water is wet. There's no disputing that without lying or being stupid, both of which are present in your "defense" of this particular form of sexual immorality. And you don't "reason" against these facts. You "reason" your way around it with the most absurd abuses of other verses and word definitions.
And I'm not your "son", bitch. You're not nearly bright enough to dare to condescend to me, and I'm not the highest bar to hurdle. So let's review:
At your Blog of Lies and Perversions, you've demanded, under pain of deletion, that I not use words on your huge list of words I'm not allowed to use. These include words like "whore", "slut" (because somehow...acording to you... they're hateful, abusive and oppressive toward all of womankind), "race-baiter", "thug" (because somehow...according to you...they're racist by their very utterance), "retarded" (because somehow...according to you...it's demeaning to the mentally challenged...like you, evidently). But I use these words in proper context and thus appropriately, not to harm anyone. Honest people who take the time to visit your Blog of Lies and Perversions, know, as do I, that you're not so much concerned about the words I use, but the positions I defend and your obvious inability to maturely and honestly rebut them. Thus, you seek to stifle by forcing me to worry about what words I can use instead and not still be deleted.
In the meantime, your condescension serves not purpose but to condescend and insult. I'm not your son and I've asked you not to call me that or other words you use for the same purpose. I'm not your "dear one". I'm not your "brother". I've no desire to be connected in such a way to someone like you who so intentionally pervert the Word and Will of God to defend perversion and those who indulge in it...someone like you who defends the murder of innocent life under the guise of "medical necessity" when no medical necessity exists to rationalize it. And still, you persist in engaging in this condescension and false "brotherhood" while constantly being asked not to do it. What your dismissal of these ongoing request prove is that your devotion to "embrace grace" is abject and unmitigated bullshit...a tool to use as a bludgeon to ward off the righteous rebuke of your anti-Christian philosophy. It's such an easy thing to do given how easily you so despotically threaten and whine and scold for the appropriate use of words you reject because they're within an argument you can't overcome by any honorable, mature and adult means. "Reason" should be your tool, but you don't ever truly reason in a manner which is edifying or clarifying or explanatory of some legitimate position.
So I say again to you: file all comments you intend to submit for publication before you do so. When they fail to appear here, you'll know you need to amend what you know damned well you should never have included in your comments. I will not publish them if you insult in this way, particularly my other visitors, nor will I publish any in which you insult our president in your usual manner. That crazy shit is not allowed here by you.
MARSHAL SAID, CLAIMED, STATED AS A FACT WITHOUT EVEN TRYING TO PROVE IT:
God's prohibition on homosexual behavior is as obvious as water is wet. There's no disputing that without lying or being stupid
Says who?
In case you don't understand: SAYS WHO?
SAYS WHO?
That YOU, in your little bigoted, hateful, irrational, tiny fallible human brain THINK that in your head does not make it proven.
WHERE IS YOUR OBJECTIVE PROOF?
You have NO proof for this. That's the point that you continue to miss entirely.
Seriously, how do you manage to walk across a street without getting run down by cars with that level of irrational nonsense floating through your head?
It is a given that this is YOUR opinion, that God would oppose gay guys marrying, but WHO says you are objectively right?
Has GOD said so?
NO. As a point of fact in the real world, indisputable to all rational people, GOD has never said that God is opposed to gay guys marrying.
Show me where I'm mistaken because that IS an objective fact, what I'm saying, whereas YOU only have your personal, pathetic, sad, graceless little human opinions... Opinions that you can NOT prove in any real, objective sense.
Admit your foolish prideful arrogant mistake and move on, son.
Be a better man.
Speaking of crazy marching on:
I not use words on your huge list of words I'm not allowed to use. These include words like "whore", "slut" (because somehow...acording to you... they're hateful, abusive and oppressive toward all of womankind), "race-baiter", "thug" (because somehow...according to you...they're racist by their very utterance), "retarded" (because somehow...according to you...it's demeaning to the mentally challenged...like you, evidently)
Marshal finds, "Son, brother, friend, dear one..." ALL of these to be hateful and unkind. Whereas Marshal has a whole list of truly vulgar and obscene words that he is fine with using.
Marshal gets his sad little feelings hurt if I call him Brother, but thinks it's okay to abuse people in the most vulgar and hateful of ways.
Seriously, dear, dear, pathetic man... grow up just a little bit. Your crazy is only serving to make you MORE overtly crazy.
Craig:
Either "all scripture is God breathed" or it's not. If it is, then it carries a certain authority which should be acknowledged. If it's not all "God breathed" then it comes down to people like Dan picking and choosing what parts they don't like.
Scripture - in the Greek, Grafi - literally means "the writings."
With me so far?
IN the various biblical texts, Scripture is generally referring to the Old Testament writings. Many conservative humans would expand that to the 27 books that many humans long ago decided to include in the New Testament.
GOD HAS NEVER spoken of Scripture, and the Bible has never spoken of "the Bible." Just as a point of objective fact.
Do you recognize that objective reality?
I mean, either God HAS said something about Scripture (and you can objectively prove it by showing where God has said something about Scripture) or God has NOT.
In point of reality, we have no objective proof to show that God HAS said something about "scripture."
Do you recognize that reality?
If not, please prove objectively where God has said something about "scripture."
I'll wait...
And "the Bible" (ie, the 66 books written and compiled by literal humans ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL TEXTS) literally says nothing about "the Bible."
Do you recognize that objective, observable fact.
I'll wait...
Craig:
Either "all scripture is God breathed" or it's not. If it is, then it carries a certain authority which should be acknowledged. If it's not all "God breathed" then it comes down to people like Dan picking and choosing what parts they don't like.
While I'm waiting for you to show you recognize reality or not...
IF some humans grant that they personally believe (what they can not objectively prove, as shown by Craig's inability to prove it) that The 66 ARE Scripture and, as such, ARE "God's Word" and, as such, may or may not contain some weight and authority...
IF that is true (and again, Craig most certainly can not objectively prove ANY of those human presumptions), EVEN THEN, those words are only as weighty and authoritative AS THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY.
That is, the ancient rules that, in context, were literally written TO ancient Israelis, that say, "Men should not lie with men. If they do, stone their damned asses!" ...IF that rule is universally factual and moral, then gay men should be murdered/killed. BUT (and this is VITAL for you all to acknowledge), YOU DO NOT THINK THAT IS UNIVERSALLY TRUE.
That is, you think the line that says, "Kill 'em" is NOT universal, while at the same time you think the line that says "men should not lie with men" is literally true, BUT by that, you don't mean LITERALLY men should not lie next to men... you mean that men should not have sex with men AND that you further extrapolate that it is a universal rule that God is opposed to men having sex with men even in a committed marriage relationship.
... ALL of that is to say that EVEN YOU gentlemen (is "gentlemen" also an offensive term to your tender little eyes, Marshal?) do not take such passages totally literally. You INTERPRET and READ INTO the passages what YOU PERSONALLY theorize that God is saying... which is that YOU PERSONALLY opine that God is opposed universally to any and all instances of men having sex with men, even in the context of a committed married relationship.
The passage does not SAY that, but it is what you personally infer, as fallible humans.
So, EVEN IF someone might agree that "all Scripture is inspired and weighty..." it's only "inspired" IF someone is understanding it correctly. You may have the moral wherewithal to take a strong stand against KILLING gay men, because you personally do not infer in your heads that "if they do, kill them!" is a literal universal and "weighty" rule... just the first part of that verse. Which means that you all think, in your heads (and rightly so) that "the text" is only "weighty" IF someone is understanding it correctly.
WHICH, once again, begs the almighty GOD-loving question: WHO DECIDES who is understanding the "weighty" words of God correctly and based upon what?
But you just don't understand the hole you dig for yourselves or your complete impotence to answer in a rational, adult and biblical manner, do you?
You tell me.
"Marshal pointing to a text (or five texts) in the Bible and then declaring that it's a proven, objective fact that God is opposed to gay guys marrying is NOT an objectively proven reality."
This is a false representation of my arguments. But first, I'll remind you that the number of verses related to an issue is irrelevant if it speaks of God expressing His Will on the issue. He doesn't need to repeat Himself for the likes of you. But you're free to fail to find anything which countermands His prohibitions.
As to your crazy-ass lie of a claim, I gather unequivocal verses to conclude as I do. In the case of SSM, there is only verses which deny the possibility, and strongly. There is nothing at all, despite your perversions, which render possible the notion that God would bless that which includes abomination. It is so clear cut and unassailable that my conclusion is far more objective fact than fanciful subjective opinion of the kind so common to you. Your choosing to attack me for daring to be so bold as to express a most likely truth based on unassailable truths actually does more to affirm my position than not, because your whiny crap does nothing to suggest my position and conclusions are in any way in error.
But to you, being the lying pervert you are, you regard as "subjective opinion" anything which does not align with your defense of perversion and depravity, and that is based on truly subjective opinion, mixed with willful corruptions of verses and words. I absolutely have proven my claims and conclusions, and I've not had to resort to your notorious brand of heresy and corruptions to do it. You've failed to even attempt to show error in my arguments for my positions.
"As to your question about me proving that the OT rule against men laying with men was only for Israel, I am pointing to the actual text which specifically literally says, Here are rules for Israel."
This is where we see what crap your "reason" truly is:
I've explained this all before of the fact that it's obviously true that the Levitical prohibitions in chapter 18 are universal rather than specific to the ancient Hebrews of Moses' time. God begins with verse 3 which refers to Egypt and Canaan having engaged in the practices God is about to prohibit. This suggests, and will be confirmed later, that God was not pleased with those nations engaging in the behaviors He's about to prohibit. Why would He mention those nations if this were not the case? Are they the only nations which so indulged? Likely not, but how many did is not the point. He cites those nations specifically to reference whence they came (Egypt) versus whither they go (Canaan) and that they were both depraved nations the Hebrews are not to model. Thus, God didn't like it what those two nations did it, and thus, that indicates His disdain for the behaviors regardless of who indulged in them.
After listing the behaviors prohibited for the Hebrews, He follows that with verses 24-27, wherein God again denies them these behaviors and says why, referring also to nations God will drive out before the Tribes on their way to the Promised Land. Saith the Lord,
"Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled."
Can you think of any verse or passage where the indulgence of any of the prohibited behaviors were said to improve the land as opposed to defiling it? The final two verses of the chapter affirm again God's displeasure with these behaviors. Those who engage in them are to be cut off from their people because they defile themselves by doing so.
Nowhere is there any hint that God's displeasure with these behaviors is mitigated or abated, be it in the OT or the NT. There is no context or scenario given in which one could indulge and not still defile themselves by doing so, and that includes promising lifelong fidelity with one's consenting partner, forsaking all others. Thus, just going this far and no farther, it is absurd to suggest there is any way to defend the depraved notion that God would bless same-sex unions of any kind.
You want to say that God blesses marriages, so He would certainly bless SSMs, too. But that ignores the fact that nothing anywhere in Scripture so much as hints of a definition and understanding of the institution which is simply "any two people regardless of the sex of either". Until you can make that case not stink like pig shit...and you can't and haven't thus far...you've got nothing, for all marriages throughout Scripture, as well as all references to marriage in general, are one man/one woman propositions. Even in the early days when polygamy was tolerated, they were multiple one man/one woman arrangements but with the man having multiple such one man/one woman arrangements.
So how can my conclusion regarding the absurdity of God blessing same sex marriages be "subjective opinion" when it is based on that which is undeniable? The true reality is that you dislike the truth of this issue and prefer the praise and regard of your lesbo grannies and other homosexuals over the clearly revealed Will of God on this subject. You may as well be physically pushing them into the fiery pits of Hell.
So no, vile girl...I'm not dealing in "subjective opinion". You simply need me to be.
"Marshal, missing the point and dodging the question (whether due to cowardice or intellectual dishonesty is hard to say)..."
I didn't miss any point or dodge any question, you stupid and petulant little girl. There's no cowardice or dishonesty in my comments no matter how badly you need to pretend there is.
"Again: SAYS WHO?"
Really, Pervert?? You're asking "who says God says"? Is that what you've devolved into? (Rhetorical question. It's the very crazy bullshit which makes your comments in this thread so on topic!)
"Scripture literally does not say God is opposed to gay guys marrying, so that would be an example of a damned lie."
Whew! Then it's a good thing I never made that claim, Danny Girl! Ever! My actual, which you're incapable of rebutting with actual evidence, reason and intelligence...and certainly no Scripture...is that based on what Scripture DOES actually and literally say about homosexual behavior, it's the only possible conclusion any honest person can make. Go find an honest person and ask him/her!
"Scripture literally does not make a claim to be a magic rulings book."
Why would it need to? Answer: Because little Danny Girl doesn't like all the rules, so she disparages Scripture and those who adhere to it without trying to carve out loopholes through which one can, like little Danny Girl does with his lesbo grannies, squeeze through to indulge prohibited behaviors while pretending to be devoted Christians.
"Scripture literally does have a wide range of literally figurative writing."
You're just padding your list now. So what?
"Scripture literally does not tell you when to take it literally or not."
It doesn't need to. But this is deceptive. "Figurative writing" in and of itself makes no reference to anything specific about which one might decide whether or not to take literally the lesson being taught. You say this for one purpose, and that's to give yourself another carve out to rationalize rejecting teachings you don't like. What real Christians take literally are not every line and sentence as written, but the lesson those lines and sentences convey, regardless if it's presented in a straightforward manner or with the use of figurative language, metaphors or parables. Only those who seek their own way play the games you do, quibbling about "figurative language" without making the slightest attempt to prove your "interpretation" (I reject the notion that you interpret as much as you edit and rewrite Scripture to your pleasure) is more likely than what those like us have stated it means.
"So, your "the Bible " answee is another damned lie."
THAT is a damned lie. Here's another: You calling yourself a Christian.
"Pharisees and others have literally abused Scripture and God in the same way for centuries."
Another damned lie straight from the empty pit where Dan's supposed to have a soul. I neither abuse Scripture NOR God by repeating what He actually said according to Scripture.
YOU, on the other hand....
You're graceless and not on God's side at all. You're trying to force Him to be on YOUR side, which is the side of graceless perversion.
"And that's just it, son. I HAVE presented the most coherent, rational, biblical and Godly case for why I believe as I do... what convinced me to abandon the opinion I shared with you, once upon a time."
That's just it, little daughter of the Evil One. You've presented a fiction of your own making. That fiction includes that you were ever anything like me or actual Christians "once upon a time". You haven't shown how my position is flawed and your arguments for yours is great for hours of laughter...but not a serious way to regard Scripture. In Christ's Name I pray God prevents you from ever again teaching Sunday School to little kids. He's got a real problem with those like you who would lead them into sin.
"It's not that the arguments don't exist, it's just that you don't find them compelling."
Well, that's only because they're stupid, insipid, not serious, greatly lacking in actual fact or Scripture-based evidence. They're fantasy and self-serving drivel. And they're greatly embarrassing, though your kind is never embarrassed to further stupid shit. You actually enjoy it.
"And the same is true for me... I do NOT find your reasoning compelling, rational, biblical or decent, even."
That's because the truth is anathema to you and greatly inconvenient. But this is what constitutes the alpha and omega of your rebuttal to them, because you have no true argument against the truth. So you just crap on it.
" GIVEN that two people read and reason and come to disagreeing opinions, WHO SAYS that yours is objectively proven?"
Honest people.
" Who says that yours is objectively right?"
Honest people.
"No one authoritatively says so."
Except for Scripture/God/Jesus/and His Apostles as the case may be, along with a few thousand years of Biblical scholarship. Your view of homosexuality is not much more than a mere hundred years old at best and it still isn't the most prevalent.
"But you not only can"'t" recognize that demonstrable reality, you apparently don't even understand your biblical and rational failure."
I'm certain you need to believe that. Too bad you've thus far been wildly incapable of pointing out how any of my positions are flawed. You are big on "Nyuh uh" counter arguing, though, but it's hardly enlightening. So go ahead (elsewhere...not in this thread) demonstrate. It will mark the first time.
IF you've been deep in Scripture for that long and still can't decipher the meaning of figurative language or metaphors or parables, then you really are the moron I've come to believe you are long ago. You think having read it and having had it preached to you means you are smart enough to understand it, which would then mean you're intentionally perverting it to your liking. Your arguments in defense of your perversions are not compelling because they do not reflect Scripture as it has been understood by scholars going back centuries.
Glenn's free to respond, but I'd prefer he not do so, since you don't get to set the topic here. I've been entertaining your crap because it fits with the topic of crazy leftist bullshit.
IF you were a man, you would offer his response at your blog without restricting his choice of expressing himself as you ignore restrictions on you everywhere. But you're not a man. You're a stupid, petulant little girl who can stay on topic.
Good gosh, dickhead! You can't quote me directly when I've just freakin' typed my words? I said your use of those "terms of endearment" is condescending and insulting. It's your use of them which is hateful and unkind because you were freakin' asked repeatedly to cease that crap. And you're going to question MY ability to understand and comprehend? Again, more arrogance!
At the same time, I use words appropriately. When a woman earns her living by fucking, that's a whore. That's not a "sex worker", which is a leftist attempt to legitimize that sinful behavior, just as you seek to legitimize homosexuality. I don't care that whores don't like the word "whore". Women in general are NOT offended by the word, they're offending by the behavior. The same is true of all the words I used that you then demanded I not use. Words with specific meaning used appropriately in the context in which I used them. You're a fucking liar extraordinaire and pretend there's some groundswell of lamentation by my using appropriate words as I see fit.
So, you can take a flying leap if you don't like my request, but you can't disregard it any longer. This is my final warning on that. Do what you demand others do when you whine, "my blog, my rules". Have the fucking grace in which you don't truly believe or about which you have no true understanding and do unto others you sorry sonofabitch.
"MARSHAL SAID, CLAIMED, STATED AS A FACT WITHOUT EVEN TRYING TO PROVE IT:"
You're either truly more stupid than I though, while being every bit the liar I've learned you are. I just proved my point in speaking of Lev 18. Now, like you always do, instead of "proving" you understanding is more accurate than mine, you pretend I provided no proof. But then, you are a "progressive" and lying is required.
"Says who?"
Honest people.
"In case you don't understand: SAYS WHO?
SAYS WHO?"
Ah...clearly you didn't understand me. Let me try saying it a different way:
Honest people.
"That YOU, in your little bigoted, hateful, irrational, tiny fallible human brain THINK that in your head does not make it proven."
I have not presented what I "think", but what I know by the clearly revealed Will of God in Lev 18:22. As it is right there in that verse, it is proven. What you need to do is prove that God's prohibition is not universal and you must do so by addressing my arguments and the verses I cited in support directly. "Nyuh uh" ain't cuttin' it.
"WHERE IS YOUR OBJECTIVE PROOF?"
Oh...I'm sorry...I thought I just repeated it. OH YEAH! I DID prove it! My objective proof is Lev 18. YOUR "proof" is something you pulled out of your ass.
"You have NO proof for this."
Except for God's Will presented for us in Lev 18.
"That's the point that you continue to miss entirely."
So what you're really saying is, "Nyuh uh". That's so compelling. Now I have to totally rethink if God even exists!
I'm missing nothing, including the fact that you have no counter argument. You think this constant demand for proof of the proof I presented to prove the proof I presented is proof of the proof you demanded is lying Trabue bullshit intended to nothing more or less than pretend there's actual doubt about God's ongoing opposition to homosexual behavior. Because you can't prove it's even slightly possible He's ever changed His mind. You are reduced to making shit up, about both God and those of us who won't play fast and loose with His Will just so we can indulge what is clearly forbidden by Him, like you and your lesbo grannies, do.
"Seriously, how do you manage to walk across a street without getting run down by cars with that level of irrational nonsense floating through your head?"
I've no irrational nonsense in my head. You have an irrational assertion that the truth ain't true. It comes complete with nothing substantive to dispel the truth in favor of your love of perversion.
"It is a given that this is YOUR opinion, that God would oppose gay guys marrying, but WHO says you are objectively right?"
Honest people. And it's not a "given" that I've presented only opinion until you can find an intelligent person to help you craft a more compelling lie to which I might fall prey. My conclusion that God opposes gay guys marrying (unless they marry women) is based on the uncontrovertible, undeniable fact that He opposes homosexual behavior. On what basis can you assert that God would bless unrepentant sinners? And until you can provide evidence that somewhere along the line God lifted His prohibition on homosexuality, that He no longer considers it abomination which defiles even the land, you can't pretend the behavior isn't sinful or made not sinful by the perpetrators vowing lifelong fidelity and "love".
So to pretend that I need God to be explicit about two perverts marrying being "OK" because they married each other is your crazy train moving faster than the bullet train. I don't need to prove something so stupid. You need to prove how your lie can be true in light of all we know from Scripture.
All you're doing is insisting that because there's no line in Scripture where God says "I won't bless homosexual unions" that you can carry on pretending that He will. Talk about prideful arrogance! There's no logic to your position, but only your devotion of homosexuality.
Be a better little girl. I'm already a better man than you. I thank you for being such an extremely low bar.
Art, good point about the mention of other people's who were engaging in the actions YHWH prohibited. Part of the purpose of the law was to set YHWH's people apart from the pagans that surrounded them. Even today, the moral law serves that purpose to some degree. The concept that YHWH's people are to be set apart from pagans based on their behavior permeates the NT, although in a slightly different form.
That Jesus affirms the OT pattern of marriage and sex as being created for one man one woman simply reiterates the OT prohibition even though it doesn't explicitly saw it. That Jesus and the NT writers repeatedly use one man/one woman marriage as the picture of YHWh's relationship with His people, it seems reasonable to conclude that He/they were not including "gay marriage".
None of that matters to Dan, as he's set on protecting the narrative and isn't going to pay attention to anything else.
I suspect that Dan is one of those who thinks that if Jesus appeared before him and told him in no uncertain terms that homosexuality was a sin, that he would tell Jesus that he wanted no part of Him is that was the case. (As the namesake of my blog famously said at one point)
"Again: SAYS WHO?"
It seems clear that Dan's answer to this is "Says Dan".
"Scripture literally does not say God is opposed to gay guys marrying, so that would be an example of a damned lie."
It's strange that there are all sorts of things that scripture "does not say", at least not explicitly, that you are absolutely certain that are Biblically wrong. Further, as scripture does not explicitly say that gays can/should marry, your argument actually undermines your claim more than ours. Homosexuality is one of those things that you've decided is "good" regardless of what anyone else (including scripture) says. That you cannot provide one single scriptural reference (including extra biblical writings of the early Church or Jewish non canonical texts) that treats homosexual sex as either neutral or positive doesn't help you either. That you obsess over "gay marriage", while ignoring the fact that scripture prohibits homosexual sex and wouldn't permit "gay marriage" when one of the distinctive features of "gay marriage" is "abominable" behavior.
The problem with Dan's "figurative writing" straw man is that he can't/won't actually identify with certainty what writings are "figurative", and can't won't offer an explanation of what the "figurative" text is supposed to mean. He just leaves it a mystery, and pretends that the mystery lets him off the hook.
The problem is that these "compelling arguments" Dan claims to have presented are grounded in him and not in scripture. It's all about his Reason, and his rationality, and some vague paraphrases of random proof texts and wild leaps of logic based on his eisegesis.
I. Yet the only answer I can recall Dan giving on the subject is that his interpretation of scripture based on his limited, subjective, Reason and rationality are his final arbiter. He has no rubric that isn't grounded in himself, really no rubric at all. He refers to scripture as "figurative" when it suits him, yet hasn't (to my recollection) provide a rubric to determine what scripture is "figurative", and what message those scriptures are trying to communicate.
"A BOOK IS NEITHER RATIONAL OR A-RATIONAL. A BOOK DOES NOT REASON,"
Yet Dan is "RATIONAL" and Dan does "REASON", therefore the conclusion inevitably seems to be that he who is "RATIONAL" and who can "REASON" is the final arbiter of Truth. Thanks for confirming what I've been saying that you hold "REASON" and "RATIONALITY" in higher esteem than scripture.
II. Again, thank you for making my point. You ground your entire construct in yourself and others. That your "opinions" of the "biblical texts" don't often align with the entirety of scripture or take into account the entirety of scripture seems problematical to me. That you then suggest that Art is wrong, therefore you are right, is even more problematic.
If you are really insisting that your entire belief system is founded on your "opinions" on the "biblical texts", then who the hell cares about your subjective, arbitrary, imperfect, "opinions"?
Dan's answer to "Says who?" is Dan, that's who.
What a strange place to start, with the Greek. But whatever.
As the only "scripture" available in the 1st century was the Hebrew scripture, of course that's what they were referring to. What's interesting to people other then yourself is how frequently the NT writers and Jesus appealed to, referred to, or directly quoted the Hebrew scriptures as if they were authoritative. If the Hebrew scriptures were not something significant why are they woven into the fabric of the entire NT? For example, why was Jesus' last supper a celebration of Pesach? Why did Jesus command The Church to celebrate The Lord's Supper (communion) if it wasn't connected to Pesach? Why was the connection between YHWH freeing Israel from slavery and Jesus sacrifice on the cross given such importance. That is the problem when you write off the OT as "myth" and "revenge fantasies", you miss the connections between the OT and the NT.
The reality that I recognize is that you keep making these absolute, objective claims without proof of their accuracy or Truth. How about if you prove your claims first?
Yes, I do understand the process by which the Canon was compiled. Yet the fact that YHWH used humans to write and compile scripture does not render it unauthoriative. It's strange that you say that you "love" scripture, yet go out of your way to minimize it's importance, significance, and any possibility of divine guidance or inspiration in the process.
"EVEN THEN, those words are only as weighty and authoritative AS THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY."
Thank you for again demonstrating that you value your ability to "UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY" over the actual content of scripture. That it's more about the "Reason" and "rationality" involved in understanding correctly, than in the text itself.
As usual, your problem is in your reliance on "understanding correctly", which is based on the premise that there is a correct understanding. Yet how does one arrive at a correct understanding apart from what is in the text? If the text is not authoritative (other than in Dan's correct understanding), then why bother with it at all. Why "love" something that has no value apart from someone's individual, subjective, "understanding"? Who decides what "understanding" is "correct"? Does not the Holy Spirit play a role in both the writing and compilation of scripture, but in the understanding as well? How can the Holy Spirit lead us to "all Truth" if the Truth isn't contained in the text? (if "correct understanding" is the only thing that matters, then the text seemingly cannot contain objective Truth as it's always subordinate to "correct understanding")
"YOU DO NOT THINK THAT IS UNIVERSALLY TRUE."
For someone who continually obsesses about other people telling The Truth, yet hides behind your own "multiple truths", it seems strange that you would make the above statement that is simply not True at all.
Yes, it seems clear that there are universal moral standards in the Torah. Don't murder, don't lie, don't commit adultery, etc all seem universal. The rest of the law is the same. It seems that you are conflating the universality of the command (don't have sex with men), with the context specific punishment for the sin. It also seems that you've chosen to ignore on significant aspect of the Levitical law, which was to protect the Hebrews from adopting the behaviors and customs of the pagans. Further, you choose to wallow in the issues with translation as an excuse to ignore the message. It's the "as with a woman" part that causes problems.
"God is opposed to men having sex with men even in a committed marriage relationship."
In the absence of anything more than you claiming (without proof) that "God blesses gay marriage", then I have no reason to assume some esoteric hidden meaning that contradicts the plain text.
"which is that YOU PERSONALLY opine"
Yeah, just fuck the thousands of years of experts agreeing about the meaning of this verse. Dan says otherwise and that's all that matters.
"So, EVEN IF someone might agree that "all Scripture is inspired and weighty"
If by "someone" you are referring to the thousands of years of agreement of both Hebrew and Christian scholars, the sure. Because why in the world would someone like you pay any attention to actual experts on the topic. I feel quite sure that your intimate knowledge of the Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew texts is superior to (for example) a university professor who's knowledge of Hebrew is such that he does his own translation.
Ultimately your problem boils down to your reliance on yourself, despite the fact that you are fallible, imperfect, and put too much reliance on your much touted Reason and rationality.
While overwhelming agreement by thousands of years of experts doesn't "prove" the absolute Truth of anything, it carries vastly more weight that some random idiot on the internet who offers no proof outside of himself.
That you choose to ignore the fact that you are in a similar (but deeper) hole is laughable. That you simply don't offer a Biblical case, and instead rely on your individual Reason and rationality seems like a bigger problem than you disagreeing with the plain meaning of the text without offering an alternative.
I'll simply note that you avoided actually responding to the comment of mine that you quoted.
Either all scripture is "God breathed" or it's not. You can show me what parts are and aren't but it's unlikely that you will, or even can. You seem to be arguing that scripture in the 1st century only referred to the Hebrew scriptures. That's fine if you want to make that unproven claim. The problem is that your left with the entirety of the Hebrew scriptures being "God breathed" which is problematic for your "myth" and "revenge fantasy" hunch. Your assumption also seem to assume that the Gospel is not present in the Hebrew scriptures, which you'd need to prove in that case.
It seems clear that the NT writers knew that they were writing books/letters that were not simply then writing stuff down. That the NT writings were considered authoritative (for the most part) within a relatively short amount of time seems persuasive.
Ultimately, I see your problem being that you seem to minimize of ignore the possibility of any involvement from the Holy Spirit. Either in the writing, in the compilation, or in the preservation. You seem to simply give all the credit or blame to humans which reinforces your contention that human understanding and behavior are the most important factors.
Hell, even your troll shows more respect for the Holy Spirit than you seem to.
Art,
You'll note Dan's condescending "gentlemen" comment demonstrating that he seems to be planning to continue his condescending bullshit by trying new words to use. It's childish and immature, from someone who prides himself on his exemplary adult behavior and thinks we should act as adult as he does. Unfortunately, it's simply a choice not to respect our reasonable request.
He seems to think it matters what words I use at his blog versus what he uses here...that mine are, in his "mind" inappropriate and tools of violence, while his are terms of endearment by poor, hapless Jeff Streeter seeking love and brotherhood among all men. Let's concede this. The issue is about the request that he cease his behavior as he requested I refrain from the use of the words I need to express my positions and arguments accurately at his Blog of Lies and Perversions. He only cares about "my blog, my rules" when its his blog and his rules. Unlike the "magic rule book", those rules are sacrosanct and to be respected above all else. Sorry, sorry Danny girl. God's rules come first here, then comes mine.
It just occurred to me, that as he does regarding God, it's up to Dan to dictate what I am allowed to regard as an offense and how offensive it can be. That's exactly how Dan treats the God in Whom he doesn't truly believe. In the meantime, there are tens of millions of women who are unaware that they're supposed to break down with the vapors at the mere utterance of words like "whore" or "slut". How, oh how, can Dan get the word to them?
I want to quickly address this cheap rationalization of "being mistaken". Dan admits he might be mistaken and God will not punish him for being mistaken. But if Dan believes it possible that he might be mistaken, why would he take the chance of promoting abomination and thus enable more sinfulness and rebellion against God? Dan can't deny the "handful of verses" regarding homosexuality in strictly negative terms are the only verses which reference homosexuality at all. He's reduced to forcing meaning into other verses the verses themselves don't convey to suppose that it's likely God would bless unions which involve abomination and indeed are based on it.
On the other hand, I might be pining to have some dude cozy up to me, but as someone who puts the Will of God over my own, I would reject the advances of anyone to whom I would otherwise be attracted if indulging is likely to displease God by what actual verses more than just apply. That is, if I allow I might be mistaken...if I rest on that possibility...how much more pleasing to God would it be to deny myself for His sake?
"Art...I the Lord your God am actually a huge fan of homosexual sex and find it pleasing to Me. Yet, you believed it to be the abomination Scripture presents Me as having said and thus opposed any human enabling and support for it for My sake, even though you conceded you might be mistaken. Color Me impressed and well pleased!"
Hard for me to believe it wouldn't go down like this in a similar manner if it's really me who is mistaken on this clear and unequivocal prohibition.
Conversely, if Dan is mistaken (that's funny..."if"!), it's hard to believe it would go well given what Scripture does say about the behavior being an abomination, and all of the rest of the "handful of verses" regarding it in only negative terms.
"Dan. How could you be "mistaken" when all you had to go on was what Scripture said about the behavior...when all Scripture said about marriage more than merely suggested a man/woman proposition? Go sit in the corner and think on what you've done. Your eternal situation will be announced soon."
Art, it's very simply a matter of respect. He demands that we respect him, while he chooses to show no respect to others. He demands much of others, and little of himself.
I've made a similar point elsewhere. If one is going to be "mistaken" then it seems prudent to err on the side of more fidelity to scripture rather than less. To err on the side of less potential sin rather than more.
Ultimately, I believe it comes back to arrogance and hubris. The belief that Dan's hunches couldn't possibly be mistaken because he "rightly understands" scripture due to his "adult" "Reason" and "rationality". He's quick to tell others that they are wrong, or don't "rightly understand" scripture, but slow to prove that he's correct.
For me, if I had to choose between someone who knows the Greek and Hebrew well enough to do their own translation, is a university professor, and author, and Dan when it comes to "rightly understanding" scripture Dan is a distant third out of two.
Well, I guess if you're going to be disrespectful and graceless it doesn't make it any worse to lie abut it.
But Dan must really think that this condescending shtick works since he's really going into it whole hog.
I guess showing respect and grace aren't a part of Dan's version of christianity, but lying is.
Glenn knows what Danny Boy know about the Bible because Danny demonstrates his ignorance on a daily basis. Growing up in a Southern Baptist church doesn’t guarantee one understands what the Bible really says, which you demonstrate with your OPINION of what the Bible says on a daily basis. Danny disagrees with theologians throughout history, as if Danny’s OPINION is better than the truth.
You don’t understand about God or theology if you think LGBTQ and abortion are okay with God.
You’ve been educated by all of us on the blog but you refuse facts over YOU OPINIONS.
Danny Boy wants to claim Leviticus is only for Israel, so how about Romans 1:18-32 where homosexual behavior, fornication and other sexual impurities are condemned?
Art, sorry I just came across your post (I'm so behind with email full of comments) which says you prefer I not respond to Danny Girl.. I sent a couple.
Not to worry. It was just a preference, not a requirement. I believe I bade you were to feel free to respond.
A very good point, Glenn, which also suggests the universality of the prohibition, if not confirms it.
My position is that with all those years of "serious and prayerful study" of Scripture, being educated and preached to, the 1,000,000,002 books he's read on Christianity from every angle, I would expect something more substantive than, "Says who?", "I admit I might be mistaken", "By what rubric...?", "Nyuh uh" and other of his many deflecting and diversionary tactics in lieu of an actual, sensible, unassailable (and none of his shit comes close to standing up to scrutiny) argument and explanation for why his "opinions" are more likely an accurate understanding than ours, particularly when ours are more directly inferred from actual Scriptural teachings, directly and without equivocation or embellishment. I would expect that someone so studied would do so much better than what we've endured over the last 17 years or more. But no. Instead, we get bupkis.
Indeed. When Dan says he might be mistaken, he certainly doesn't believe he is. But if he believes there's a possibility of being mistaken, then it would seem to deny one's self is the way to go.
But I don't believe at all that I'm mistaken on the issue given what Scripture does say without equivocation. The prohibition is absolute and without exception, and Glenn's reminder about Romans 1:18-32 makes that fact more clear and confirmed. If there's any chance at all that I'm mistaken, I'm still mistaken in a manner in alignment with what Scripture actually says, not what it says if you strain and twist and stretch the text to rationalize that which conflicts with what's clear and unambiguous.
Exactly. "Grace" my ass! Only we are to embrace it. Not Dan.
I'm pretty certain Peter regarded Paul's Epistles as Scripture. So there's that. But this argument of Dan's is just another diversion from focusing on the point, which is (well, that he's among the crazy who march on) his obligation to present a case and let the debate play out until one side or the other concedes. Dan's actually conceded years ago and these nonsensical diversionary tactics are just manifestations of his surrender. Yet, he pretends he's still on top and thus he continues to perpetuate his heresies.
Craig said...
"If one is going to be "mistaken" then it seems prudent to err on the side of more fidelity to scripture rather than less. To err on the side of less potential sin rather than more."
That is exactly the argument of other Pharisees.
As for me, if I'm going to err, I'd rather err on the side of love, grace, and not being a cruel and abusive jackets.
And THAT, dear brothers, is the difference between grace-leaning progressive types and rules/legalism-leaning Pharisees.
It's a shame you can't see that.
This is abjectly nonsensical. You continue to believe the problem with the Pharisees was dedication to the Torah?
Being on the side of "love and grace" necessarily requires obedience to the plainly revealed Will of God as a baseline. You reject His Will where it conflicts with the praise, admiration and regard from those who are blatantly in rebellion against God, which is certainly neither love or grace.
And that, queer little girl, is the difference between Scripture perverting progressive types like you and Christian devotion to the Will of God. It's not at all surprising you refuse to acknowledge that.
Well, that's one choice. Personally, I wouldn't consider it "grace" or "love" to enable/encourage people to engage in sinful/harmful actions.
That Dan has chosen to misrepresent what I said is not unexpected, nor is his dragging out the tired old Pharisee trope. If he can't see a difference between holding oneself (and encouraging others) to a higher standard of conduct and more fidelity to scripture and the Pharisees who added to scripture in the pursuit of power, the that's his problem. I suspect he can see the difference, he just chooses to ignore the difference.
Personally I hate it when items of outerwear and formal wear become "cruel and abusive".
I'd have to dig into that. The reality is that the writings that now comprise the NT were being treated as scripture very early, and the compilation of the NT canon was more about acknowledging what was already True in practice rather than how folx like Dan like to portray it. Obviously there were a few that raised issues, but most were already accepted before the canon was formalized.
Strangely enough, many of the works that were not accepted (beside the Gnostics) have value for believers even if they aren't in the canon.
I suspect that part of Dan's problem with the canon and the process by which it was compiled is that he doesn't seem to like anything that even hints at anything supernatural. The notion that YHWH directly inspired the writing of scripture or superintended it's compilation is something he can't "prove" therefore he dismisses it. He's never seemed comfortable with the supernatural aspects of the Jewish and Christian faiths. It's why he emphasizes that the canon was written and compiled by "literal humans" instead if inspired or "breathed" by YHWH. I think it's safe to conclude that if Dan can't "prove" something to the satisfaction of his individual, subjective, random, arbitrary Reason, that he'll dismiss or ridicule it.
Dan wouldn't know how to demonstrate grace if he had specific directions, written in block, capital letters, in crayon. His definition of grace is affirming people in whatever behavior they engage in, no matter what.
The he demands from us what he doesn't demand from himself is a given at this point.
It seems clear that Dan believes that he "rightly understands" scripture and the we do not. Hence, his "might be mistaken" seems that he believes that the chances of being mistaken are essentially zero.
The problem with Dan, scripture, and "gay marriage" is that Dan sees the lack of a definitive "gay marriage is a sin" scripture as a loophole for him to string together some eisegesis, out of context proof texts, and fantasy, into some bizarre justification of God "blessing gay marriage".
A case against "gay marriage" could be effectively made by merely looking at what scripture actually says about marriage, without even including the mentions of homosexuality.
Or we could simply consider the words of Jesus about what marriage is. He seemed pretty clear about the whole man/woman, husband/wife thing.
But that's just it, Craig! According to Dan, homosexual behavior is not sinful OR harmful! And we know this is fact when Dan, unable to convince us of that which isn't true, says something like, "I don't know how to help you", which clearly implies he believe he has the truth and we don't. How arrogant!
Art, that's it exactly. The problem, I believe, is rooted in Dan's concept of "minor sins" (which seems to be that all sins are "minor" except a few of the ones he really doesn't like). If "minor sins" aren't really a big deal to YHWH, then it's showing love and grace to affirm and encourage the engagement in those "minor sins". Historically, many would say that encouraging and affirming sin is like saying nothing while someone drinks poison. Dan just redefines sin out of existence or relegates it to the "minor" category and moves on.
In his arrogance and hubris he assumes that we want or need his help, and that he is in a position to condescend to help us because he is right.
DAN! I HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR YOU FOR WHICH I NEED A DIRECT ANSWER! IT'S A "YES" OR "NO" QUESTION AND REQUIRES NO ELABORATION OF ANY KIND. JUST A SIMPLE "YES" OR "NO" ANSWER FROM YOU! HERE'S THE QUESTION:
HAVE YOU CREATED A FILE FOR COMMENTS SUBMITTED HERE YOU HOPE TO SEE PUBLISHED? I RECOMMENDED YOU CREATE ONE SINCE YOU CAN'T SEEM TO CONTROL WHAT YOU TYPE, AND YOUR MOST RECENT SUBMISSIONS HAVE RUN AFOUL OF MY RULES FOR YOU. PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE.
[Rolls eyes]
That's not an answer, vile pervert. Is the question too difficult for you? Haven't you the courage to answer anything directly without your crap?
Well, I know you said you don't care if I post it or not. That's just another lie, or you wouldn't bother submitting anything here in the first place. But this is what I'm going to do:
Your two comments in the queue will be presented with my editing, because the crazy stupid of them is just too attractive to delete without response.
But I have to reiterate the obvious: You continue to prove every negative thing which has been and continues to be said about you and your false claim of being Christian. Your insistence on despotically dictating how others express themselves at your Blog of Lies and Perversions with bullshit claims about how words used cause harm and death of some fictional members of whatever group is being discussed, and despite how false and stupid are your "rules", I nonetheless begrudgingly strive to abide them.
But when you're asked to abide rules for commenting here or at Craig's blog, you arrogantly and hypocritically crapping on your "embrace grace" bludgeon, just go ahead and continually do exactly what you were asked to do no more. Neither of us have the right to ignore the rules of blogs we visit, yet you don't give a flying fuck to do what you demand of others. This is what for you passes for "embracing grace". This is what for you passes for "do unto others". You're a liar. You're a fraud. What you are not is a Christian.
What follows will be two of Dan's comments. I'm copy/pasting it in order to edit out his prohibited speech. They justify total deletion as per my warnings, but the stupid is just so amazing that I just had to expose it to all. And Dan's crazy keeps marching on! I'll be responding immediately with my comments in italics:
Dan said:
Craig, ALMOST, but not quite getting it, said...
"The problem, I believe, is rooted in Dan's concept of "minor sins" (which seems to be that all sins are "minor" except a few of the ones he really doesn't like)."
1. It has nothing whatsoever in the whole wide world of reason and human decency to do with Dan exclusively. MOST of humanity almost certainly recognizes that stealing a cookie and raping/murdering a child are VASTLY different "wrongs." One is exceedingly minor and minuscule and the other a huge crime against humanity.
Two problems Dan continues to ignore:
1. "MOST of humanity" doesn't submit comments here, and what "MOST of humanity" "recognizes" is not only irrelevant, but not binding.
2. What matters is God, not "MOST of humanity".
It's NOT just "Dan" that thinks this. You gentlemen almost certainly can agree with this. But you tell me.
Yes, Dan, you sad and pathetic little pervert girl. It's JUST what "Dan Trabue" thinks, when the comments or questions are posed to "Dan Trabue" as opposed to "MOST of humanity". Because as is true with most anything "Dan" says, what "Dan" thinks "MOST of humanity" recognizes is suspect.
WILL you affirm that, yes, of course, most of humanity WOULD say there is a huge chasm of difference between the misdeed of stealing a cookie and the crime against humanity of raping, then murdering a child?
Again, what "most of humanity MIGHT say" is of no relevance or importance here when the questions, comments and responses are directed solely to DAN. But here's the most important point Dan either ignores or is too stupid to consider when he poses these self-serving and nonsensical binary choices about sinful behaviors: Which of these sins will God not forgive? Which of these two sins were not washed away by the shedding of Christ's blood?
IF you all can't affirm this, you are deeply, deeply rationally and morally broken. But I'll let you speak for yourselves.
My answer is it's a meaningless binary for our purposes. It means nothing more than a cheap tactic to posture yourself as more caring about the rape and murder of a child. It's an insulting challenge and not worthy of response, especially to the likes of someone like you who supports and defends the murder of hundreds of thousands of conceived yet unborn children in this country every year.
Moreover, it doesn't at all matter what we as a society see as one behavior being more egregious than another. It only matters whether or not God is pleased enough to allow us into His Everlasting Presence. That isn't at all based on what Dan Trabue or "MOST of humanity" regards as a serious sin or a less serious sin.
3. Thus, it has nothing whatsoever of whether I like either stealing a cookie or raping/killing a child. I just note the vast moral chasm of difference between the two.
Whoa! Really sticking your pencil neck out there, aren't ya sister?
Are you able to distinguish the great chasm of moral difference between the two?
As far as we as human beings measure such things, sure. So what?
2. GIVEN the reality of the easy understanding that not all misdeeds are equal in severity or "wrong," THEN it's reasonable to note what ethicists and legal moralists have long noted: That a punishment should fit the crime.
Again, so what?
Do you seriously disagree?
I seriously disagree with this trite irrelevancy and your attempt to pretend it supports your crazy perversion of God's mercy and justice.
Craig continued:
"If "minor sins" aren't really a big deal to YHWH, then it's showing love and grace to affirm and encourage the engagement in those "minor sins"."
Here's where the real crazy comes it!
Correct. That is a rational conclusion. THAT part you seem to get. Unfortunately, you don't seem to believe it.
It is in no way a sign of grace or love to affirm and/or encourage ANY sinful behavior, even those Dan pretends aren't serious.
That is, reasonably and biblically speaking, those misdeeds that we do that are relatively harmless (still wrong, perhaps, but relatively harmless) are not going to concern God nearly as much as the rape and murder of children, of enslaved people, of oppressed people.
And here Dan speaks for God more obviously and directly than any of us every have in citing Scripture verbatim or coming to the only conclusions those verbatim citations can lead an honest person of even moderate intelligence. Jeff St. fakes, not so much.
BIBLICALLY speaking, we know that God is regularly cited as being incredibly angry about the crimes against humanity.
He's incredibly angry about those like you ignoring His Will, which certainly include crimes against humanity, but not at all or in any way exclusively. Dan's position is just what they teach at Jeff St. so as not to upset the homosexuals and lesbo grannies among them so that those like Dan won't fall out of their favor for not speaking the truth about their eternal destination barring repentance.
On the other hand, there is NOT ONE SINGLE PLACE where God has compared the stealing of a cookie to child rape.
Can you acknowledge that easy reality?
Again, so what? Is that supposed to be some kind of slam dunk, deal breaking point?
Lord have mercy.
You're gonna need it. Not sure He'll say He ever knew you!
Look, (Not your friend. Don't want to be.), isn't it possible that you were sold a bill of goods that fooled/misled you, buying into HUMAN opinions (not God's Word) that all of humanity is "totally depraved..." and "deserving of eternal torture/torment."..?
No.
When conservatives cite, for instance, Psalm 58 and say, "look, the magic rulings book TELLS us that ' Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.'" with the suggestion that this is speaking of all humanity whereas,
A. The Bible is NOT a magic rulings book and
B. That verse is SPECIFICALLY speaking about wealthy, powerful oppressors. ALL of THOSE wicked from birth are wicked liars... and
C. of course, even there, it is speaking using poetic metaphor, to an unbiased reader.
First of all, bitch, no conservative would say "magic rulings book" when referring to Scripture. That's your own personal and unique disparagement of Scripture. Don't project it onto people far better than you.
Second, I don't know that this particular Psalm is cited by any conservative Christian to support the teaching of sin nature and fallen man, especially since right from the beginning of it it's easy to see it is case and target specific.
Isn't it possible you've been misled?
No
Come now. Be reasonable, (Dan purposely ignores my rules here because he's a dickhead of a petulant little girl).
We're always reasonable. You're always an asshole.
It's NOT just "Dan" that thinks this. You (Dan lies here that he regards us as gentlemen) almost certainly can agree with this. But you tell me.
Again, perv, it's only you who we're debating. If all the world but us believed as you do, we'll have lots more room in God's Presence.
WILL you affirm that, yes, of course, most of humanity WOULD say there is a huge chasm of difference between the misdeed of stealing a cookie and the crime against humanity of raping, then murdering a child?
Shut up. How about admitting this is the bullshit ploy it is.
IF you all can't affirm this, you are deeply, deeply rationally and morally broken. But I'll let you speak for yourselves.
You're a fake Christian. That should concern you more than trying to suggest we have a greater problem than you.
Craig falsely claimed:
"Dan just redefines sin out of existence or relegates it to the "minor" category and moves on."
Dan, of course, agrees with Jesus and the prophets that some crimes ARE TRULY awful. The oppression of the poor, the mistreatment of foreigners, of children, of widows, of the oppressed... especially by the rich and powerful. These ARE bad and extremely harmful actions and God is on the side of the marginalized and oppressed and encourages US to be on the side of the marginalized and oppressed.
You revise Scripture to your liking. While much is said about certain behaviors by certain people, that's not relevant to the righteous charge made by Craig. You do indeed redefine sin out of existence or relegate it to the "minor" category. You've clearly done it with homosexuality, infanticide, breaking just laws regulating entry into our country, and a host of other things.
Sin exists, (Dan again intentionally ignores the rules I set for him) and people ought not dismiss it.
Yet you do as if you're paid to do it.
At the same time, in the real world, we see that simple misdeeds and mistakes ALSO happen, and the morally rational person does not conflate simple typical misdeeds (the lies, the angry words, the failure to sufficiently attend to our loved ones or the poor and marginalized) with actual crimes against humanity (the rapes, the enslavements, the killings, the slaughter of innocents).
Irrelevant crap. You again change the subject to avoid the truth you don't like.
Those who can't recognize the great holy chasm of difference between the two are failing to do a good job of reading the Bible AND of moral reasoning. And listening to the teachings of Jesus, too.
No. They're simply not rejecting that which is inconvenient and not making up these stupid binary choices to avoid the truth that you reject the teachings of Jesus/God the Father/Scripture. True moral reasoning exposes your heresies, so you run this kind of crap to suggest we might have a problem distinguishing between degrees of bad behaviors according to common human understanding of it for the purpose of an ordered, civil society. Your bullshit arguments do nothing but allow you to dictate which behaviors displease God should be regarded as behaviors which don't displease Him. And just because any degree of attention is brought to bear on certain behaviors prohibited by God, that doesn't mean behaviors not constantly mentioned or addressed by Jesus are OK for Jeff Streeters to indulge. Talk about twisted moral reasoning, that's it in spades!
Wow, Dan is just as unwilling to answer a simple question as he is to abide by the rules and standards he demands of others.
1. It's strange that Dan seems to think that he speaks for "most of humanity". It's also strange that he can't seem to understand that the act of stealing is wrong, regardless of what is stolen. At it's very core, theft is taking that which belongs to someone else. Dan is pretending the the distinction between stealing a Swatch and a Rolex in not one of degree, but that it is two different things. He's essentially overlaying a human legal concept (that of degree) over the law of YHWH (don't steal). The noting that stealing is "less wrong" because of the (subjective) value of what it stolen conflicts with "don't steal". Hypothetically, let's say that Dan stole a cookie from a child that had never experienced a cookie before. That cookie, had immense value to that child. Far beyond the monetary value of the cost of the ingredients. Dan is essentially arguing that the value that the rightful owner of a thing places on that thing is immaterial as long as Dan concludes that the monetary value is low enough to justify accepting theft.
"WILL you affirm that, yes, of course, most of humanity WOULD say there is a huge chasm of difference between the misdeed of stealing a cookie and the crime against humanity of raping, then murdering a child?"
Well, Hamas is systematically stealing food from the mouths of those it claims to be responsible for AND raping and murdering children, but Dan seems pretty supportive of them.
"IF you all can't affirm this, you are deeply, deeply rationally and morally broken. But I'll let you speak for yourselves."
I can affirm that stealing and rape/murder are categorically different, but equally wrong at their core. Again, you're simply talking about the degree of sin, not whether or not it's sinful and your applying a human legal framework to YHWH's judgement of sin. Of course, this is just a cheap tactic that allows Dan to protect his hunch about "minor sins", without actually proving that YHWH agrees with his hunch.
3. You mean "vast" subjective "moral chasm between the two". As we've seen recently there is a "moral framework" that is currently being used to justify the raping of hundreds/thousands of children and to present such actions as not only "morally" justified, but "morally" imperative. Without an objective, universal moral standard, you can't make universal/objective claims about morality. Note the goal post move from "sin" to "morality".
That "not all misdeeds are equal in severity" (a human legal concept) does not automatically equate to your conclusion that all sins are not equally sinful at their core. I think that part of the problem is that Dan seems to focus on the action, while Jesus seems to focus on the motivation. The motivation to steal is the same regardless of what is stolen. Or, to put it in Dan's terms, rape is exponentially more severe than lust, yet Jesus disagrees with Dan.
I'll note that what parts of these are Dan's words isn't as clear to me as I'd like, but I'll quote and comment regardless.
"Correct. That is a rational conclusion. THAT part you seem to get. Unfortunately, you don't seem to believe it."
What a bizarre notion, that we as believers should ever encourage or enable other believers to sin. This was a topic that was addressed in the NT on more than one occasion and the conclusion always seems to be that encouraging, enabling, or tempting others to sin is always a bad thing. So, I'm left wondering who I should believe. Scripture or Dan.
"That is, reasonably and biblically speaking,"
Well, Dan elevates his subjective Reason above scripture in addition to misstating what scripture actually says. Jesus Himself said "If anyone causes these little ones to sin...", so if Dan causes, encourages, affirms, supports, or tempts someone (especially a child) to sin that seems like Jesus would be telling us to find a millstone. Which is relevant because Dan is part of a (small) community where there are (presumably) children. If Dan is telling these children that some sins are no big deal, or encouraging them to engage in sinful behavior, that seems like a problem.
"those misdeeds that we do that are relatively harmless (still wrong, perhaps, but relatively harmless)"
Where does Dan get off imposing his subjective, relative hunches about harm on humanity? Of course, since he just agreed with my basic point, I can't be to annoyed.
"are not going to concern God nearly as much as the rape and murder of children, of enslaved people, of oppressed people."
As Dan is wont to say, "Who says?". Here we see Dan arguing that the rape and murder of a "child" is somehow intrinsically worse that the rape and murder of an adult. Is raping and murdering a 17 year old (legally a child) really significantly worse than raping and murdering an 18 year old (legally an adult)? Are not rape and murder intrinsically wrong no matter who the victim is? Is the wrongness/sinfulness of the intentional ending of an individual human child's life dependent on the location of the child?
"On the other hand, there is NOT ONE SINGLE PLACE where God has compared the stealing of a cookie to child rape."
Yet YHWH condemns both theft and rape. The rest is just Dan making excuses.
The mercy of YHWH is what I rely on. As someone with a sinful nature, and who (like Paul) "does the things I do not want to do" (sin), I have no hope beyond the mercy of YHWH.
"Isn't it possible you've been misled?"
Sure it's possible. Of course it's at least equally possible that Dan has been "misled", or more likely chosen to trust in his subjective Reason over all else.
I've always said, and continue to believe, that if I am to err that I will try to err on the side of more fidelity to scripture rather than less.
Dan has a tendency to act as if he represents some vast percentage of humanity, with no actual proof that he really does. It's just an expression of his arrogance and his hubris.
Again, I have no problem in admitting that I am a deeply broken and sinful human. Why would I? Again, I align myself with Paul in lamenting my sinfulness not reveling in or making excuses for my sinfulness. That you seem to be contrasting our "brokenness" with your "unbrokenness" seems problematic at best.
Absent an objective, universal, transcendent moral standard the claim that I am "morally broken" literally has no meaning. It is impossible to establish "morally broken" without an objective, universal, transcendent standard of "morally unbroken".
In reality Dan seems to believe that as long as we only have a few small moral cracks that YHWH will just ignore them and pretend that those cracks aren't a big deal at all.
"some crimes"
Well, we were talking about sin, not "crimes" (which is a human construct) but moving goal posts and changing criminology to obfuscate is simply to be expected.
"ARE TRULY awful."
Even if this is TRUE, that doesn't mitigate the fact that ALL SIN is awful/sinful/wrong. That's why we're talking about sin, not crime. Murder is always wrong. Than subjective human law recognizes "degrees" of murder, does not mean that manslaughter is less wrong than 1st degree murder, merely that it lacks some of the legal elements of intent.
That you think you can superimpose your hunches on the rest of humanity seems like pride (a sin, perhaps the root of all sin) at a minimum.
Dan is simply making shit up at this point. His argument seems to be that sins are defined by action, not intent or motivation. Yet he argues that the same action can be both sinful and a "mistake" depending on circumstances. Which seems to contradict his own basic premise. Yet he has not standard which can be universally applied to actions to universally identify them as sin. In short, Dan wants to identify and grade both sin and the degree of sin all by himself.
I do listen to Jesus when he says that "the angry words" are the same thing as murder. The notion that a "lie" can be not sinful is absurd. Jesus claimed to be The Truth, yet somehow The Truth can be accepting of lies. how could this possibly be? Are not Truth and lies inherently incompatible.
The difference, I suspect, is that I/we listen to Jesus and accept what He said (as we do of the entirety of what is recorded in scripture) at face value. We don't need or want to look for exceptions or excuses, nor do we conclude that what Jesus "really" meant was the complete opposite of what He said. Nor do we hide behind claims of hyperbole and figurative language as if those tools cannot or are not being used intentionally to communicate Truth.
As always, if given the choice to go with the Jesus revealed in scripture or go with Dan, I'll go with Jesus.
Jesus seemed quite clear when He said "If you love Me you will keep my commandments.". Jesus seemed unequivocal that loving Him, means obeying Him. How could one possibly claim to love Him, while making excuses not to obey Him?
Obviously this line of thought assumes that John was correct in John 1 regarding Jesus eternal existence as 1 person of the Godhead and that in that role the OT moral law (and ceremonial and civil law, even though those were time/place/nation specific) is the part of Jesus' "commandments". A position Jesus affirmed when He acknowledged that the First and Second greatest "commandments" under girded ALL of The Law, and that the concept of "first and second" acknowledges a third, fourth, fifth, etc.
"I've always said, and continue to believe, that if I am to err that I will try to err on the side of more fidelity to scripture rather than less."
The very reason I replied "No" to Dan's question. Like you, I constantly defer to Scripture on questions regarding the right/wrong quality of any behavior. I don't find Scripture all that difficult to understand, so to suggest I might be mistaken as much indicts Scripture itself as it would me. As such, Dan is still obliged to show, with Scripture, just how I might be mistaken and let that specific argument play out without his usual equivocation. If he can so succeed, it would at best mean I "might" be mistaken, not that I am, and that the possibility that I "might" be mistaken only refers to that one specific position. Then, if he wanted to make that suggestion again, he's obliged to go through the very same process for that second possibility.
All of which I presented are copy/pasted in whole from his submission, and only those parts in italicized parentheses constitute my editing out of that which he is prohibited from saying. My responses are all italicized while his comments are not. Where he quoted you, he put your comments in italics, while I put them within quotation marks because the copy/pasting doesn't transfer italics or bold type the author of the comment used originally.
I hope this helps.
When Dan minimizes the sinfulness of a behavior, he is indeed encouraging its practice, or at the very least, giving others (particularly children) the notion that it's not worth the effort to avoid indulging in it if one feels so compelled. He doesn't have to say it's not sinful if he's saying it's not that bad, so don't sweat it. He's enabling, if not outright encouraging, its practice.
It's fine once I decided that I was just going to pull out quotes and respond to them regardless of who they were from. I totally understand the desire to edit Dan, I've done so occasionally, but probably wouldn't waste the time now.
What Dan seems to do with his "minor sin" hunch is much like a lesser of two evils situation. He (sort of) acknowledges that X is a sin, but then finds ways to excuse certain instances or reasons for committing that sin. Which, as you note, has the effect of encouraging or at least not discouraging that sin.
It seems as though the root of the problem is placing all or most of the focus on the behavior, while minimizing or denying our sin nature. Ultimately, t comes down to Dan and what sins he wants to minimize and what sins he wants to maximize. It's all subjective and driven by his hunches.
For me it's pretty simple. If there is a line between sin and not sin, I try to stay as far away from that line as possible. If I have a problem with (for example) lust, I would tend to stay away from things and places where I might be more tempted. I wouldn't (for example) rationalize that paying for an OF subscription because the content creator wasn't completely nude or didn't engage in actual sexual activities is a "minor sin" while hiring a hooker is worse. I'm smart enough to know that they're both sin, and it's likely that spending enough time with the former could potentially lead to the latter. So, I stay as far from the line as I can, where there is less chance of sin. Dan seems to be advocating or excusing getting as close to or crossing the line (a little) because it's only a "minor sin" and doesn't really count (or something).
What I find confusing in Dan's hunch is that it seems to treat sins as individual acts that are not related to any other acts.
For example if one engages in the "minor sin" of telling little white lies regularly, I'd bet that at some point hose lies get bigger and more grey. So, I'd agree that someone who excuses little white lies as "minor sins" bears some responsibility for the "major sins" down the road or the accumulation of "minor sins" to a point where they have a negative effect.
Ultimately it's simply a complex, arbitrary, unquantified, subjective score card where you hope that you don't commit too many "minor sins" or graduate to "major sins" so that YHWH will give you a pass just because you're a "good person". Personally, that sounds like a shitload of pressure. Hoping that you haven't exceeded the limit of "minor sins", without knowing what the limit or really what a "minor sin" is. Because only Dan has this esoteric knowledge and access to the score card.
A most excellent response. You nail Dan's falseness very well. If he can assert major and minor sin, he can assert which category under which a behavior falls and thus assure perpetrators of that behavior that there is no true or serious displeasure by God in its perpetration. But it is again Dan dictating to God how seriously he should regard said behavior and badly He should be offended by it. It's a true example of someone "speaking for God" and worse than that, Dan's putting his own words into God's mouth.
Craig...
"How could one possibly claim to love Him, while making excuses not to obey Him?"
Good golly, I guess you outsmarted me! I reckon I shouldn't have "made excuses not to obey Jesus..."
But wait! IS that what I said, like, ever?
Why, no. No, That is not, of course, my argument... not anything that I have ever said or suggested. It's literally something YOU have read into the text that just isn't there. Sound familiar?
You read but fail to understand, men.
What I'm doing, ALL I'm doing, is noting the reality of degrees of wrongdoing or, "sin," if you prefer. (Keeping in mind, that biblical word means "missing the mark," NOT "heinous, unforgivable crimes and atrocities.")
I'm noting the distinction, easily recognized by wide swaths of humanity, of the great chasm of difference between the misdeed of stealing a cookie and the great evil of rape or genocide. It is a chasm that you both seem to acknowledge at some level.
Craig...
"Well, we were talking about sin, not "crimes" (which is a human construct)"
I'm talking about morality and immorality, I don't know what you're talking about. And, when it comes to morality, morally rational people recognize that
A. There is, indeed, a literal range of misdeeds, of missing the mark of perfection. There is, for instance, something as innocuous as stealing a cookie, on one end, and something as atrocious as rape or genocide on the other end. Both are wrong, but both aren't equally wrong.
Do you have a different theory?
And
B. That when it comes to addressing misdeeds and atrocities, the morally correct approach to punishment, if punishment is needed, is to deal with the misdeed according to the severity of the crime/misdeed. (And here, I'm speaking of a moral crime, which may or may not be a legal crime. )
And since you fellows are the one with the insanely irrational and immoral theory that any and all misdeeds are rightly punished by eternal torment, you all are the ones dealing with missing the mark/human imperfection as if it were a crime worthy of the most vile punishment, right? That's on you all and your theories, not mine.
Don't you believe that the spiritual crime of having a "fallen nature" and a "sin nature" is worthy of an eternal punishment?
"But wait! IS that what I said, like, ever?"
You don't have to say. when you're constantly doing it. Consider it just another of your fruits by which we know you.
"You read but fail to understand, men."
You fail to express your point of view and position in a way which doesn't compel the conclusions we draw, girl.
"...ALL I'm doing, is noting the reality of degrees of wrongdoing or, "sin," if you prefer. (Keeping in mind, that biblical word means "missing the mark," NOT "heinous, unforgivable crimes and atrocities.")"
It's the "missing the mark" which is the problem. Not the specific action or behavior you subjectively choose to regard as "minor" as it suits you to do so. As to the claim of what the word in the original language means, I submit it's just another subjective choice to mitigate the seriousness of indulging in prohibited behaviors. The following gives some more insight:
https://openoureyeslord.com/2010/12/28/is-sin-missing-the-mark/
But if I was to concede the "definition" preferred by those wishing to mitigate their guilt, I still have to consider what "mark" is being "missed". I would insist it is God or God's Will. "Missing" that "mark" is no small matter. And worse, to hang one's pointy hat on that definition supposes any sin is no big deal regardless of the harm done to other humans. The real issue, though, is the rank rebellion of willful sinning, which I would insist includes going through the effort those like Dan and his ilk has gone to find loopholes (actually to create them themselves) which permits the ongoing indulgence in behaviors clearly and unmistakably prohibited by God.
"I'm noting the distinction, easily recognized by wide swaths of humanity, of the great chasm of difference between the misdeed of stealing a cookie and the great evil of rape or genocide. It is a chasm that you both seem to acknowledge at some level"
Still irrelevant and again, "MOST of humanity" is not involved in this discussion and as an amorphous, ambiguous non-polled segment of the world's population, it has no authority nor substantive voice or any value. Regardless, such a body of people are still making a totally subjective choice in determining one behavior as worse than another, which is fine in developing civil societies, but means nothing as to determining whether one can write off any sinful behavior as insignificant when considering Who it is Who is most offended by them.
"A. There is, indeed, a literal range of misdeeds, of missing the mark of perfection."
And there you go again, describing sin as "misdeeds" as if their commission is some accident rather than a conscious or willful choice. Accidents aren't at issue here. Disregard for God's Will is. The severity of a sinful action isn't at issue here. Disregard for God's Will is.
"Do you have a different theory?"
Wrong is wrong. Sin is sin. Don't do what's wrong, and don't do that which is sinful. Whatever is sinful is displeasing to God and rebellion.
"Don't you believe that the spiritual crime of having a "fallen nature" and a "sin nature" is worthy of an eternal punishment?"
Not being saved by Christ...not believing in Christ/God...rejecting Christ/God...doing that which Christ/God/Scripture results in not inheriting the Kingdom. THAT is what gets one eternal punishment.
Marshal, missing the point, said:
And there you go again, describing sin as "misdeeds" as if their commission is some accident rather than a conscious or willful choice. Accidents aren't at issue here. Disregard for God's Will is. The severity of a sinful action isn't at issue here.
1. IF you want to promote your human theory that God will literally punish someone for an eternity for temporal misdeeds/crimes, then YES, the severity of a misdeed IS at issue.
2. Once again, to be just and moral, ANY punishment for ANY misdeed must be in proportion to the misdeed.
3. Those humans, like you, who theorize that the majority of humanity will be sent by God to "eternal torment" (and that's not nothing) for the typical misdeeds of humanity need to try to make some kind of sense of that proposed theory, because it's grossly evil and slanderous of God on the face of it.
4. Noting the moral and just notion that any proposed punishment must be proportionate to the crime is NOT "dismissing" "excusing" "ignoring" or otherwise downplaying the "missing the mark" that has happened. It's just noting that it's a rational conclusion that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God can be counted on to dispense any punishment in a loving and just manner.
Marshal, objecting to noting the reality of the actual biblical definition of a word found in the Bible, said:
if I was to concede the "definition" preferred by those wishing to mitigate their guilt, I still have to consider what "mark" is being "missed". I would insist it is God or God's Will. "Missing" that "mark" is no small matter. And worse, to hang one's pointy hat on that definition supposes any sin is no big deal regardless of the harm done to other humans. The real issue, though, is the rank rebellion of willful sinning
1. If you were to concede reality? Why wouldn't you?
2. Noting the reality of what a word used in an ancient text actually means is NOT in any way demanding that those who note that reality are deliberately "wishing to mitigate their guilt..." It's just noting the reality of the word in discussion.
You all wish to treat "sin" as if they are all equal in awfulness and wrong. I'm saying that's not a morally rational NOR biblical theory.
3. Missing the mark is no small matter? Says who? In what context? On whose authority? That you choose to take a handful of verses in the Bible and suggest a human theory that treats "sin" in some irrational and ultimately unbiblical manner does not mean that you have supported this claim (missing the mark is no small matter.) You'd have to prove it with something more than your human say so. Fair enough?
4. "The real issue, though, is the rank rebellion of willful sinning..." That is a fine theory. But who says that, when Marshal chooses to steal a cookie, he is looking at a cookie and saying, "You know what God? To heck with you! I want this cookie and I REJECT YOUR AUTHORITY and will take it!"
This theory that you all hold that all sins/misdeeds are deliberate decisions to rebel against God is an unproven and frankly, irrational theory. You're welcome to it but with no support for it, you'll have to expect many rational, morally-concerned people to dismiss it out of hand.
5. The reality is that we humans ARE imperfect. What you all theorize as being "born with a sin nature." You haven't proven THAT, but it is observable that we are imperfect. Sometimes, we're hungry, feeling a little down and think, "I know that cookie's not mine, but it SURE sounds very good. No one will mind terribly if I take just the one..." There is no deliberate intent to commit great harm, there is no intent to "rebel against God..." it's just a relatively minor indulgence. AND, anyone who says "THAT CRIME can only rightly be punished by eternal torture!" is going to be considered insane.
Can you at least recognize how many morally rational people would reject that theory on the face of it as IMMORAL and irrational?
Marshal theorized:
Not being saved by Christ...not believing in Christ/God...rejecting Christ/God...doing that which Christ/God/Scripture results in not inheriting the Kingdom. THAT is what gets one eternal punishment.
You're saying a few different things there.
Help me understand.
"Not being saved by Jesus..." Do you theorize that JESUS choosing "not to save us" is somehow a crime on our part and, not only a crime, but a crime so serious that it deserves eternal torture? Is that what you're suggesting?
not believing in Christ/God...
Do you theorize that simply NOT believing in God is a crime sufficient to justify eternal torture?
rejecting Christ/God
You'd have to define this a bit more. With a few exceptions, I doubt that many people ever deliberately choose to "reject Christ/God..." What they MAY do is look at a flawed, irrational and graceless church and say, "If THAT is God, no thank you..." but that would be rejecting bad human behavior, NOT God. Indeed, rather the opposite, right?
.doing that which Christ/God/Scripture results in not inheriting the Kingdom.
Did you intend to write, "Doing that which God/Bible COMMANDS NOT TO DO result in hell..."?
If so, are you saying that ANY sin... any failure to follow a line in the Bible that should be considered a universal rule (as opposed to the rules that should NOT be considered a universal rule) deserves eternal torture?
Which one of those theories rationally, morally and justly "deserves" eternal torture?
And where if your proof for this rather irrational and immoral sounding theory?
Post a Comment