I've been reading some of Jesse's back-and-forths with feo and in them are found similar semantic games as are commonly played by Dan. Jesse handles feo expertly, but like Dan and the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail, feo fails to recognize when he's been reduced to just a stump.
But it brought to my mind a recent favorite of Dan's in referring to "sin" by the definition of the word in the ancient languages in which it appears, and given I've time to kill, I thought I'd put virtual pen to virtual paper on the issue.
"Sin", in the ancient languages, is defined at least in part as "missing the mark". Loosely explained, it refers mainly to archery. The bullseye would be the mark, and the arrow hitting anything else (or nothing at all) would be "sin", or the missing of the mark, as it missed the bullseye, which is the mark. That's all well and good, but it demands this is the only definition of the word or the only manner in which it was meant to be used, or the only manner it which it was ever applied. Dan never offers any evidence or support that the word can only mean this specific thing, but let's run with it for a bit:
So "the mark" is something specific at which one aims one's arrow. In practice or competition, it might be the typical target which commonly comes to mind (think "The Adventures of Robin Hood", starring Errol Flynn). Once again, I refer to the bullseye as being the mark one intends to hit. In both scenarios, we have different degrees consequence. In practice, to miss the bull is pretty much absent of consequence beyond the miss itself. It means nothing more except that more practice shots are required to eventually hit the bull and to hit it consistently. Such consequence is no true big deal beyond that.
But in competition, to miss the bull can mean losing the competition and failing to win any prize offered by proving one's self superior to the rest of the archers. That's a greater consequence, as it also includes the practice time having been for nought, if no intention to compete ever again exists. OR, it means MORE practice...and more intensive practice...must be put in if one intends to compete again, or simply if one intends to improve as an archer.
At this point, the consequences are relatively minor. But what is archery but skill with the bow...which is a weapon...and for what purpose? To kill, either in hunting or in war. Miss the mark while hunting, and the consequence is to go hungry. Miss the mark in war, and the consequence can be the enemy not missing his...which is you.
Dan uses the term as if it's referring to a mistake...a big "Whoopsie!"...as if there was no intention to sin, or worse, that if we simply say, "Saahhh-reee!", all's well because...you know...grace or something.
Now, to be sure, the High Priests would indeed offer blood sacrifices to God on behalf of the people for the atonement of their having "missed the mark", including when they did so unknowingly, which is truly to sin "unintentionally". This penal substitutionary atonement for their sins was the consequence of having "missed the mark", and as imperfect a sacrifice of an even "without blemish" animal was, God's graceful forgiveness was bestowed as a result of that consequence, which was death.
What then, is the "mark"? Obedience to God. God's Will. However one chooses to put it, it is God. God's "mark" is defined by Him for our benefit in Leviticus 19:2, wherein He tells His chosen (and by extension, Christians, too) "Be Holy, because I, the Lord your God, am Holy".
That's the mark. And strive as we might, we will fail plenty to be holy constantly. But to sincerely seek to hit the mark always, we are forgiven our "misses" by our faith in Christ Who gave Himself as the Perfect Penal Substitutionary Atonement of ours "missing the mark" by virtue of having offered up Himself as the Perfect Lamb of God.
Let's move on. What of those who ignore the target, or those who alter its size or in some other way choose the terms for what counts as hitting the mark or even if we need worry about taking up the bow in the first place? This is what Dan defends. Not merely sincerity in attempting to obey God's commands or to be holy. Oh sure, he mentions such. Constantly complaining that we're speaking of perfection only, and that eternal punishment is the consequence of merely being imperfect (as if compared to God's perfection, that's insignificant). But that's diversion from the reality of his defending willful disregard for the target. He's choosing to make the striving for obedience optional, or worse, assuming the authority to inflate the size of the target so as to make missing it impossible.
And here's where Dan's notion of "missing the mark" fails so obviously. It's when he's defending the two most egregious examples of disregard for the Mark: LGBTQ++++ ideology and infanticide (AKA, "abortion"). In these two examples, we see a clear and unmistakable disregard for the Will of God, as there is no arguing there exists a context where either can be perpetrated and not be in starkly in contradiction to His Will. Yet, Dan will "admit" that he "might be mistaken" and won't be held accountable by "a just, loving and merciful God" for merely being mistaken. What is plain here, however, is that Dan isn't "missing" any "mark". He's not even aiming at it. OR, he has erected his own target of his own choosing and of his own design and dares call it "God", so that he can continue to falsely proclaim himself "Christian".
Of course, it must also be said that intention means everything when considering the written word. How a word is defined is often a matter of its most common usage. The question becomes, what did the ancient Biblical authors mean when it chose a word used in archery to describe disobedience to or rebellion against the Will of God? Does this choice of words mitigate the incredible seriousness of disobedience and rebellion, or are we to truly believe that God isn't serious about encouraging us to "be holy"? If "holy" is His perfection, and it is the "mark" to which we're to aim, our imperfection is a serious matter about which no one, including those like Dan and his craven ilk, should be so glibly dismissive. What does God want and how can we know? His Will revealed to us in Scripture is not cryptic on matters of human behavior, particularly these vile behaviors Dan defends and enables. When Dan makes his "case" with regard "missing the mark", he is doing what he always does regarding God's Will and that's to pretend there's some mystery or ambiguity to it which allows for him to believe what no honest human being, Christian or not, could ever agree is true. This attempt by him misses that mark entirely.
