tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post4438957544453715212..comments2024-03-28T19:11:42.225-05:00Comments on Marshal Art's: Sad RealitiesMarshal Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comBlogger163125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-43671840425498709382009-07-17T18:26:27.977-05:002009-07-17T18:26:27.977-05:00MA, Bubba, Dan,
Great Idea. I'll be back at ...MA, Bubba, Dan,<br /><br />Great Idea. I'll be back at it nest week. <br /><br />A personal comment, The last two days have been an amazing tribute to an amazing man. I will not soon forget all of the wonderful words, stories etc. Christian community is such an amazing thing. Seeing it at it's best should be enough to convince anyone that something out of the ordinary is happening. Thanks again for your condolences.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-57639659987580506652009-07-16T08:58:50.841-05:002009-07-16T08:58:50.841-05:00FWIW, this is actually probably not the best timin...FWIW, this is actually probably not the best timing for our dialogue to begin at earnest at Craig's, in part because I've had to reformat my hard drive at home, and because I have family over.<br /><br />I <b>**WILL**</b> respond to that thread as soon as I can, but that may take 'til this time next week.<br /><br />I do appreciate everyone's patience in the meantime.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-84005228067679256552009-07-14T13:23:25.101-05:002009-07-14T13:23:25.101-05:00Dan, I'll continue the discussion in Craig'...Dan, I'll continue the discussion in Craig's thread, <a href="http://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2009/07/bubba-v-dan.html" rel="nofollow">here,</a> as I have time.<br /><br />For the moment I'll note that I've <a href="http://marshallart.blogspot.com/2009/07/sad-realities.html?showComment=1247239209041#c8136156030207311814" rel="nofollow">already</a> addressed the response that you now reiterate.<br /><br /><br />"<i>The only thing you wrote in reply -- before claiming, implausibly, that you just can't multitask -- is that 'compulsory charity' isn't voluntary and 'gay marriage' is.<br /><br />"<b>That's true, but it's wholly beside the point.</b> The two different activities aren't identical; if they were, I wouldn't be able to make the point I'm trying to make.<br /><br />"<b>It's not that the behaviors are identical, but that the arguments for them are very nearly identical.</b> I deliberately crafted my argument parallel to yours. <b>If your argumentation can be used to justify behavior as absurd as 'compulsory charity,' your approach is fundamentally flawed.</b></i>" [emphasis added]<br /><br /><br />You act as if I never made this point the first time around.<br /><br />You <a href="http://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2009/07/bubba-v-dan.html?showComment=1247514116255#c8995880424785337653" rel="nofollow">now</a> write:<br /><br />"<i>You DO make the point that it is fairly easy to argue just about anything using the Bible, even arguing points that aren't in the Bible (such as gay marriage or compulsory charity).</i>"<br /><br />But that's not the point I'm making.<br /><br />I'm not <i>simply</i> saying that it's easy to argue just about anything using the Bible; I'm saying it's easy to argue just about anything <b>USING YOUR QUESTION-BEGGING APPROACH TO THE BIBLE.</b> The problem isn't that the Bible's unclear -- it's not -- but rather that your approach is flawed.<br /><br />If YOUR APPROACH can be used to prove anything from the Bible, then YOUR APPROACH isn't trustworthy.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-58523447699157195022009-07-13T14:33:56.336-05:002009-07-13T14:33:56.336-05:00I've answered before and I've answered aga...I've answered before and I've answered again, over at Craig's (or will, as soon as I look it up and post my answer that I've already given).Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-4005457314705907352009-07-13T14:11:56.336-05:002009-07-13T14:11:56.336-05:00Marshall, I continue to have limited opportunities...Marshall, I continue to have limited opportunities to comment for the time being, but I remain interested in discussing any issue with Dan Trabue in a fair forum, here, at Craig's, or elsewhere.<br /><br />(Obviously Craig as more important things to focus on right now.)<br /><br />If I don't respond to a comment quickly enough, you have my email address.<br /><br /><br />Now, Dan:<br /><br />So far as I can tell, you haven't written ONE WORD in response to my <a href="http://marshallart.blogspot.com/2009/07/sad-realities.html?showComment=1247239209041#c8136156030207311814" rel="nofollow">most recent</a> substantial comments to you.<br /><br />You claim to be concerned about "unsupportable allegations," and I reminded you of your own thus-far unsubstantiated allegations about me. You suggest that Neil and others are "probably" wrong for treating others' arguments as goofy, when you have done precisely the same.<br /><br />You asked for "something fresh and direct to ask or say," and I reminded you that there are several threads that you continue to ignore -- such as my point regarding "compulsory charity", which is most relevant to the subject at hand, and which I rephrased in response to your more recent arguments.<br /><br />And I noted that your observation that the Bible is silent on "gay marriage" is question-begging, because it presumes that the Bible is unclear about what marriage is.<br /><br /><br />It seems you're more eager to keep childish and unsubstantiated tallies of our supposed offenses, than you are to actually respond to substance <b>THAT YOU REQUESTED</b>.<br /><br />It seems that you're more interested in focusing on Neil's comment, than you are to responding to substance you requested. You now appear to be using that comment as some sort of proof that some of your opponents are "unable to successfully process simple sentences," with a likely goal of invoking this comment of Neil's as some sort of hurdle to ascertain the moral reasoning skills of everyone else -- JUST as you did with a comment of Mark's, not too many threads back.<br /><br /><br /><b>I'll ask again:</b> is there a significant difference between the ARGUMENTS, between your argument for "gay marriage" and mine for "compulsory charity"? If not, would you have anything persuasive to say to rebut the argument for the latter, or must you conclude that "compulsory charity" is actually a behavior about which reasonable Christians can disagree?<br /><br />An answer would be appreciated, sooner rather than later.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-71667380110746490122009-07-12T21:06:20.025-05:002009-07-12T21:06:20.025-05:00Here is another Biblical fact that has no doubt es...Here is another Biblical fact that has no doubt escaped Dan:<br /><br />God is Love, but Love is not God.<br /><br />Try to wrap your mind around that, Dan!<br /><br />It is my contention, so far non refuted, that Homosexuals make a God of their perversion, thus, when they hear or repeat the phrase,"God is Love", they misconstrue it to mean, in their twisted minds, "Love is God".<br /><br />But the two terms are not interchangeable.<br /><br />With that in mind, it is easy to see how they might come to believe God blesses their perversion.<br /><br />But they are wrong. And so is Dan.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-44942075789041882572009-07-12T20:56:39.413-05:002009-07-12T20:56:39.413-05:00That, Dan, is the argument from silence Neil and I...That, Dan, is the argument from silence Neil and I were talking about. <br /><br />I agree that no one (to our knowledge)has ever made the argument from silence to justify <b>ALL</b> sinful behavior.<br /><br />But, they have indeed made use of the argument from silence to support their claims that God blesses homosexuality. I'm sure, since you have used that argument yourself on several occasions, that you will agree with me on that point.<br /><br />OK? Now that we have that straightened out, let me ask you this question:<br /><br />Dan, besides the fact that Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, do you have any other Biblical evidence that supports your claim that God blesses Same sex marriage? And if so, cite book, chapter and verse, so that we homophobes may be as enlightened as you. <br /><br />You know, something that doesn't constitute a logical fallacy?<br /><br />All this is a moot point, of course, unless you believe that God and Jesus are two separate entities, and that the Bible was 1. mistaken,<br />2. wrong,<br />3. lying, or<br />4. all of the above<br />When it says "all scripture is God breathed", and "I and My Father are One".<br /><br />Which means, simply, that Jesus, in His manifestation as God, wrote all of the Bible, therefore, when God said, "You shall not lie with mankind as you lie with a woman. it is an abomination," Jesus in fact, was the One that wrote that particular law.<br /><br />Or more simply put: God is Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, whatever God said, Jesus said.<br /><br />But, Dan, ignore those two biblical facts (which I know you already do)and just answer the question.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-79040031487951079512009-07-12T20:38:56.829-05:002009-07-12T20:38:56.829-05:00Neil, with all due respect, I have to agree with D...Neil, with all due respect, I have to agree with Dan on this one.<br /><br />See, you and I were addressing the argument from silence only as it pertains to homosexuality. Dan was addressing it as it pertains to <b>all things Jesus didn't say</b>. <br /><br />Of course, Dan often used the old argument from silence to defend his acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle many times before we broached the subject, but when you added the words, "<i>Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant</i>", you inadvertently gave Dan a straw to grasp at so he could accuse us of painting all abhorrent behavior with a broad brush. <br /><br />When, in fact, that wasn't your point and Dan knows that. Nevertheless, Dan chose to ignore the rest of your point to focus his debating tactics on the first part of your three part point, "<i>In the Bible, Jesus did not specifically condemn abortion or homosexual behavior.<br />- Therefore, abortion and homosexual behavior are morally permissible or unimportant.</i>"<br /><br />So, in that sense Dan is correct that no one argues that whatever Jesus didn't specifically condemn is morally permissible and unimportant.<br /><br />However, Dan completely ignored the fact that we were specifically talking about homosexuality and the homosexual apologists use of the argument from silence, and instead, focused on your unfortunate misstatement.<br /><br />So, to return this discussion onto the right track, let me rephrase Neil's point:<br /><br />In the Bible, Jesus did not specifically condemn abortion or homosexual behavior.<br />- Therefore, abortion and homosexual behavior are morally permissible or unimportant.<br /><br />(Continued)Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-39240096905339876982009-07-12T20:21:17.150-05:002009-07-12T20:21:17.150-05:00Daffy had snark, not a comment, and that you can&#...Daffy had snark, not a comment, and that you can't acknowledge that is due to your dishonorable practice, demonstrating your dishonorable practice of faith.<br /><br />And why does it seem that whenever Neil gets smudged, you get all flagrant?<br /><br />Like Alan, I sense a little homo-eroticism here.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-13785763615021236262009-07-12T20:16:08.075-05:002009-07-12T20:16:08.075-05:00Fuck you and your hypocritical false Christian coa...Fuck you and your hypocritical false Christian coat, Marshall.<br /><br />You are afraid... and I can see it.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-13268203739824409382009-07-12T19:59:56.185-05:002009-07-12T19:59:56.185-05:00Neil said...
Prediction: 10 more fluffy comments ...Neil said...<br /><br /><i>Prediction: 10 more fluffy comments from Blog Stalker Dan to try and bury the facts. It is his style.</i><br /><br />How about just one more? Reasonable people got the point a long time ago and, unfortunately, you and your associates are either incapable of understanding the English language and basic logic or you're just twisted.<br /><br />Straw man arguments: EIGHTEEN<br /><br />Red Herrings: SEVEN-EIGHT<br /><br />Ad Hominem attacks: TWENTY-FIVE or so<br /><br />Actual evidence: <b>STILL</b> ZERO<br /><br />ha, you fellas just so KWAAAZY. Lord, help us all.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-19107461947664143062009-07-12T18:46:49.486-05:002009-07-12T18:46:49.486-05:00"Feodor has behaved in an obnoxious way, but ...<i>"Feodor has behaved in an obnoxious way, but no one else?"</i> <br /><br />Dan. Are you going to join in the same game with Feodor? As I said, Feodor has been a jerk from the moment he first made himself known to us. The first time wasn't here. I don't recall where <i>I</i> first noticed him, but each of us on this side of the aisle have all said the same about him. I personally know of no one who started blogging with an attitude and personality as annoying and insulting as his (except for a few really troublesome trolls who just think saying crap on peoples' blogs is a fun time). <br /><br />As I've said, I have no problem with snark. I have no problem with someone cracking wise. Generally, a history is developed before the typical visitor takes such liberties. (Unless one is truly clever---a huge gamble if one is not careful) But Feodor has been an arrogant, condescending and insulting jerk from day one. You have shown less patience on your own blog for any rightwingers who crack wise. I let people expose themselves and he has exposed himself as a jerk. It's just that simple.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-76985388778234468782009-07-12T17:41:56.071-05:002009-07-12T17:41:56.071-05:00More fire for Dan's pretend straw:
From http:...More fire for Dan's pretend straw:<br /><br />From http://www.leaderu.org/jhs/dallas.html -- <br /><br />======<br />Religious Argument #1:<br />"Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality."<br /><br />This argument is a favorite at gay parades. Invariably, when the "gay Christian" movement is represented, someone in their group will hold up a sign saying, "WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY: ________________." The idea, of course, is that if Jesus did not specifically forbid a behavior, then the behavior must not have been important to Him. Stretching the point further, this argument assumes if Jesus was not manifestly concerned about something, we should not be, either.<br /><br />[Rev.] Troy Perry [The founder of the Metropolitan Community Churches -- all gay, all the time], (as most gay Christian leaders do) makes much of this argument based on silence:<br /><br />As for the question, 'What did Jesus say about homosexuality?", the answer is simple. Jesus said nothing. Not one thing. Nothing! Jesus was more interested in love.[67]<br /><br />So, according to the argument of silence, if Jesus did not talk about it, neither should we.<br /><br />====<br />We could come up with example after example. Of course Blog Stalker Dan won't be swayed by this. He'll just think that by saying "straw man #X" that people will think, "Gee, Mark, Neil and the rest keep pointing out facts about people using the "silence" argument to imply that Jesus didn't care about homosexuality or that it is OK. <br /><br />But gosh, Dan keeps calling it a straw man. He must be right."<br /><br />Uh, probably not.<br /><br />Prediction: 10 more fluffy comments from Blog Stalker Dan to try and bury the facts. It is his style.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-31260031238820507962009-07-12T17:13:38.557-05:002009-07-12T17:13:38.557-05:00Feodor has behaved in an obnoxious way, but no one...Feodor has behaved in an obnoxious way, but no one else?<br /><br />Mote. Plank. Etc.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-25697001192014707942009-07-12T17:12:03.503-05:002009-07-12T17:12:03.503-05:00Neil repeated the straw man, saying...
"If t...Neil repeated the straw man, saying...<br /><br /><i>"If their point about referring to Jesus (alleged) silence on a topic wasn't to minimize or eliminate the topic as sinful, then why bring it up?..."</i><br /><br />And I have already answered that, saying that, being Christians, asking What would Jesus do? is a very natural first question. <br /><br />No one - "no one," as in ZERO human people in the whole real world in THIS dimension since the beginning of time until this very moment; you know, NO ONE - has EVER said that is our reason for supporting gay marriage and certainly no one has suggested (in any form whatsoever) that anything Jesus has not talked about is okay.<br /><br />His argument remains a straw man, no matter how many times he repeats it's not. No matter how many times his comrades repeat that it's not.<br /><br />No one believes what he said. No one.<br /><br />Repeat it again, it will remain a straw man. As evidenced by your inability to offer EVEN ONE bit of proof.<br /><br />Marshall, are you wanting me to stop pointing out the obvious? Glad to do so, but for consistency's sake, I'd ask that you ask "your team" to quit repeating the straw man assertion.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-61930505977940022882009-07-12T17:05:07.053-05:002009-07-12T17:05:07.053-05:00Feodor,
Notice your deleted comments. You seem t...Feodor,<br /><br />Notice your deleted comments. You seem to think you have any say in how this blog is run and how people can behave. As host, that's MY job. I also reserve the right to act in any way that I please. This is not a democracy here. It is my kingdom. I am king. I am a benevolent king as evidenced by the fact that you are even welcomed here at all. Daffy has indeed given an accurate synopsis of what she sees in this blog. That that synopsis does not critique you kindly is a result of YOUR attitude and tone and you have only yourself to blame for that. As the priest you claim to be, few would see you as having the right to play "eye for an eye". Expectations would naturally be much higher of any priest, just as some expect better of all of us who claim to be Christian. Daffy is just another on a growing list of visitors who have identified you as especially obnoxious. As has been mentioned by Tug, Mark, Bubba, Neil, and myself, to name just a few, you have been a jerk from the first and without provocation by any of us. If you think you can just drop in and be a creep because you found a blog where snark exists, you are wrong. Snark is something that develops between commenters with a history. You may recall Eric mentioning the same thing and defending our tone with Dan. Dan's a long time opponent. YOU are not. YOU came in swinging in a very unChristian, unpriestly manner. YOU have no standing or right to expect others to act first in any way. It is encumbent upon YOU to seek our respect by acting respectfully from here on. As I said earlier, you have three likely expectations should you insist on being a jerk. <br /><br />In the meantime, you'll notice your last comment was left untouched. It represents a idea of what is acceptable from you. Yes. YOU are being singled out because YOUR behavior has demanded it.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-59028409586754670272009-07-12T16:03:03.993-05:002009-07-12T16:03:03.993-05:00Marshall, regarding you point about Galatians, I u...Marshall, regarding you point about Galatians, I understand the role of ministry for all us to gently point out in love when our brother or sister is doing wrongly or thinking badly and to ask the same. Would that the house of gentlemen on C Street had been more pointed with Governor Sanford and Steve McNair's friends with him.<br /><br />But that is not why I raise Galatians.<br /><br />In Galatians, Paul is defending his own ministry to a church --likely of Celtic peoples, thus the name for the region, Gellia -- comprised of some pretty unruly Christians who have veered from what Paul taught them to follow a later preachers, Judaizers, it seems. These Judaizers convinced them that Paul's Gospel was too soft and that the Mosaic law was completely in effect for Gentiles (ala Bubba, EL, and yourself, apparently, though you may not like to think it, it may be an undesired consequence of how you favor the law in the OT).<br /><br />Paul rails at them for abandoning him and his message to follow Christ in the fruit of the Spirit and not the law.<br /><br />He writes, as all students of the NT are told, with a Greek that bears the "white hot heat" of his anger. He is really pissed off at them, but in service of his love for them and his desire that they realized what liberation has come to them from Christ's gospel and how they have polluted it by falling backwards into the old covenant. They need not be circumcised. They need not follow the old laws. <br /><br />They need to follow Christ by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. <br /><br />That's pretty nervy living. Too nervy for many. <br /><br />Are you Irish, too?Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-71562580306906042222009-07-12T15:29:13.401-05:002009-07-12T15:29:13.401-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-45322510636391278052009-07-12T15:24:13.568-05:002009-07-12T15:24:13.568-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-91127168126474963902009-07-12T15:04:58.920-05:002009-07-12T15:04:58.920-05:00"I'll not spend much time on you Feodor. ..."I'll not spend much time on you Feodor. What you have to say DOES NOT MATTER TO ME."<br /><br />Daffy, you have chosen wisely. Ignoring people like him is a great time-saver.<br /><br />"Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant." <br /><br />Once again, of course that is a fair summary of the argument from silent by liberals. If that wasn't their point, they would have no reason to mention Jesus' silence on the topic. <br /><br />I repeat: If their point about referring to Jesus (alleged) silence on a topic wasn't to minimize or eliminate the topic as sinful, then why bring it up?<br /><br />It is pretty obvious to anyone not wedded to opposing Jesus on the issue of marriage and human sexuality, and even to the many pro-gay theologians who concede that the Bible teaches the behavior is a sin (those folks just think the Bible is wrong or that God changed his mind later).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-67840983547066698672009-07-12T14:44:21.577-05:002009-07-12T14:44:21.577-05:00I did not respond to you, Feodor, first and foremo...I did not respond to you, Feodor, first and foremost because I have a life and I did not have time to go back and copy enough comments to satisfy your insatiable desire for proof of something that anyone can clearly see. <br /><br />Of course, I expected as much when I left the comment. You're way too predictable if you ask me.<br /><br />And just so you know, insult and call names and speculate all you want, I'll not spend much time on you Feodor. What you have to say DOES NOT MATTER TO ME.Daffy76https://www.blogger.com/profile/01410962054554919573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-63519098899479052972009-07-12T14:13:46.387-05:002009-07-12T14:13:46.387-05:00Dan,
Thanks, I appreciate it.Dan,<br /><br />Thanks, I appreciate it.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-6141012315700587622009-07-12T13:22:31.061-05:002009-07-12T13:22:31.061-05:00My prayers are with you and your family, Craig, at...My prayers are with you and your family, Craig, at this time of loss...Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-58568023385642741722009-07-12T12:59:55.767-05:002009-07-12T12:59:55.767-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-87098310215293283602009-07-12T12:53:28.761-05:002009-07-12T12:53:28.761-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.com