tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post8974788846599167800..comments2024-03-28T19:11:42.225-05:00Comments on Marshal Art's: Got Milk?Marshal Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comBlogger516125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-86869559422948764982009-07-10T22:32:36.385-05:002009-07-10T22:32:36.385-05:00Bubba,
Been gone for a while, but I will repeat m...Bubba,<br /><br />Been gone for a while, but I will repeat my offer of a spot for you and Dan to have continue without interruption. I'll try to get it up in the next day or so, and see if Dan's good.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-30961867544876118702009-07-07T13:52:40.578-05:002009-07-07T13:52:40.578-05:00For what it's worth, the conversation I've...For what it's worth, the conversation I've been having with Dan is now continuing, in a sense, in <a href="http://marshallart.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-love-who-truly.html" rel="nofollow">this thread</a>.<br /><br />I say "in a sense" because -- along with raising a few points about Dan's attempt to act as if he actually cares about substantive evidence for one's contentious claims, and about his claim that his position regarding "gay marriage" is based on prayerful Bible study -- I've brought up a few issues that were left unresolved in this thread, but it's not as if Dan's finally provided clear and coherent explanations for what he believes.<br /><br />It's just that, rather than continue to filibuster here, Dan is filibustering over there.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-3999018172841400682009-06-30T23:27:05.946-05:002009-06-30T23:27:05.946-05:00on you.on you.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-5580903487025828282009-06-30T20:24:37.964-05:002009-06-30T20:24:37.964-05:00Poor Feo. It seems yet another chooses not to pla...Poor Feo. It seems yet another chooses not to play. See what arrogance and bad manners can do? I had a good comment prepared and then accidentally wiped it out before publishing, but it ended somewhat like this:<br /><br />I'm sure an apology will be required before anyone chooses to give you the time of day. I'm also sure you'll assume that you have bested all and that no one is up to the task of taking you on. Not only is this an incredibly funny liklihood, it is also likely that there will be many deleted comments as you lash out. <br /><br />You've proven yourself to be the false priest I've already noted you are, as well as a very poor example of a Christian, which, as a poor Christian like myself can see, could be overlooked if you didn't pretend to be otherwise. <br /><br />All that education. All those books. What a pathetic and unnecessary waste.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-47813472075329028762009-06-30T17:37:57.641-05:002009-06-30T17:37:57.641-05:00Hey, Guys...
Do you want to know how to tell when...Hey, Guys...<br /><br />Do you want to know how to tell when you've smacked one of Feodor's ridiculous positions soundly to the floor?<br /><br />"<i>Tug,<br /><br />I promise to let Bubba make my arguments if you can guess, on a scale from 1 to 10, how stupid you are. Get the number right and Bubba can have the floor.</i>"<br /><br />There.<br /><br />That's how.tugboatcapnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751281215697965077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-35342152194806603692009-06-30T12:48:52.812-05:002009-06-30T12:48:52.812-05:00Four of you and one of me and now you're all g...Four of you and one of me and now you're all gone to pick on Dan. <br /><br />Makes sense, I suppose. More fair that way.<br /><br />If I say I'm gone for the day, someone's bound to creep back, though.<br /><br />Gone for the day.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-1787848656138267262009-06-30T12:07:17.759-05:002009-06-30T12:07:17.759-05:00Bubba finds a way out.
All this froth about licen...Bubba finds a way out.<br /><br />All this froth about licentious Marxist liberalism is old hat around here and in this thread as well. So spare me your offense. I'm still here. <br /><br />Marxist, yes, I guess, at least in the same way the prophets Amos and Hosea, the writers of the gospel of John, the book of Acts, the letter to the Romans, and the writer of the Petrine letters are marxist. <br /><br />Socialist, too, if we're talking about how F.D. Maurice, Charles Kingsley, Stewart Headlam, Kenneth Leech are socialists, much less Harold Laski, Keynes, FDR, LBJ, Abraham Lincoln, too, when it comes to that.<br /><br />The verdict is still out on Obama but it does not look good in the current climate.<br /><br />[Small government, by the way, contributed to our economic mess. Just ask the Madoff victims about the anemic and moribund SEC under Bush. Or those who worked for Bear, Stearns, Lehmann Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Sallie Mae and Feddie Mac and millions of Americans.]<br /><br />At any rate, you are also right about the fact that I "ultimately don't care about restoring the church of the early Christian fathers."<br /><br />Why should I? I live in a world of quantum mechanics, relativity, string theory, and the inflationary universe. Adam Smith, Darwin, Freud, even your Milton Friedman have all changed the way we understand the world.<br /><br />To meet that world in love, we have to understand ourselves in it. <br /><br />We cannot live in some restored way of the fathers and mothers of faith.<br /><br />It is a lie when people try. <br /><br />The world turns, the Spirit blows, the anchor is the living Christ.<br /><br />Welcome it. Don't call bad what is a divine good in which we can participate.<br /><br />When you call something bad that God is calling good (as I see it), I'll call you on it.<br /><br />And I did. Disagree but don't act the adolescent.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-13260486654311467782009-06-30T11:39:16.419-05:002009-06-30T11:39:16.419-05:00Correction, I won't continue discussing subjec...Correction, I won't continue discussing subjects like inerrancy, nor will I begin discussing subjects like Hosea, with a race-baiter like you.<br /><br />Instead of an apology, Feodor, you attack me further by accusing me of "false hurt" -- implying what, exactly? -- and of "paranoia" that I haven't displayed: I've only asked why you stop short of other sexual deviancy, and you've apparently decided it's easier to accuse me of being paranoid than it is to confront the fact that you're not taking your argument to its logical conclusion.<br /><br />(Polyamorous relationships are being re-examined in law schools and in the arts, and yet you don't condone polygamy: you display such paranoia, such fear and confusion.)<br /><br />You're substituting ad hominems for arguments, going so far as to engage in race-baiting then attacking me for daring to find offense in your dispicable behavior.<br /><br />And you still think discussion is possible? And you even think you're in a position to preach to others about Christian love?<br /><br />You're out of your mind.<br /><br /><br />What's more, you're showing your true colors as a cultural Marxist who idolizes Progress -- who treats something that is new as if it is automatically good -- and who always attacks traditionalism in the same, predictable and reprehensible manner. Since racism was traditional, you denigrate all inconvenient traditions as having the same "DNA" as that racism.<br /><br />This tactic isn't rooted in Christianity, and it isn't even compatible with Christianity since it's used against doctrines piecemeal as they become obstacles to the glorious political Revolution. You ultimately don't care about restoring the church of the early Christian fathers; that's just a useful weapon against your strongest opponents, and the legacy of the second-century Christians will almost surely be eradicated by the same tactic in turn.<br /><br />But this tactic isn't simply antagonistic to Christianity, it is fundamentally indecent. It's not just the effective but dishonest tactic of a cultural Marxist, it's character assassination.<br /><br />I sincerely don't wish you any harm, but I want nothing more to do with you, and I am not interested in discussing anything more with you.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-47848055269522908912009-06-30T11:04:17.367-05:002009-06-30T11:04:17.367-05:00How can you continue to discuss Hosea when you hav...How can you continue to discuss Hosea when you haven't started?Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-61525510179811176982009-06-30T11:03:01.990-05:002009-06-30T11:03:01.990-05:00Your paranoia about gay Christian life lifting the...Your paranoia about gay Christian life lifting the lid on appropriate sexual expression is constructed out of the same fear mongering materials that formerly were used in fear of black bodies and female power.<br /><br />It has the same DNA, as it were. The same legacy of fear and confusion in regard to the shrinking power of white male privilege.<br /><br />And your false hurt is just another, though far less dangerous, defensiveness than your paranoia of sex.<br /><br />That such paranoia are so deeply ingrained in populist protestantism -- and reactionary Catholicism as it became Americanized -- is a long, long tale told elsewhere.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-54391810378000096862009-06-30T10:09:45.087-05:002009-06-30T10:09:45.087-05:00Feodor, what the hell is this?
"And like all...Feodor, what the hell is this?<br /><br />"<i>And like all reactionary, populist protestantism, your paranoia takes it place with racist paranoia regarding sex. A pandemonium of sex outside marriage, 'mongrel' sex between races producing monster babies, horned Jews, slant-eyed Japs, etc. </i>"<br /><br />You cannot possibly justify this race-baiting smear from anything that I've written, certainly not something as benign as opposition to promiscuity. The life I live, about which you know absolutely nothing, testifies to my regard for people without any consideration of their skin color, and to my conviction that, of all things that matter when it comes to marriage, racial composition is completely irrelevant; what I believe and what I have written does not contradict what I live.<br /><br />I can take quite a bit of nonsense from you, but I won't stand for this.<br /><br />There is still much that I could discuss, but -- barring a serious and significant apology -- I won't do so with you, and you're a fool if you think that a person would and should continue to discuss subjects like Hosea after you so easily smear him with such a vile accusation.<br /><br />Your comment is intolerable, so I will not tolerate it, and I will not act as if we can continue to discuss Biblical inerrancy or any other issue, so long as the comment stands.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-89049662576643092292009-06-30T09:42:58.638-05:002009-06-30T09:42:58.638-05:00Hosea, anyone?Hosea, anyone?Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-57062410058806088022009-06-30T09:41:16.523-05:002009-06-30T09:41:16.523-05:00Marshall has denied that he interprets the Bible.
...Marshall has denied that he interprets the Bible.<br />________<br /><br />We are sanctified by Christ living within us in the power of the Holy Spirit. As you would say if you were a more developed protestant scholar and a closer reader of Paul:<br /><br />Christ has become the law within us, we are under his supervision now, and as he is made known in the breaking of bread in worship and the testimony of the Spirit within us, we must pay attention.<br /><br />We cannot call unclean what God has made clean -- and clear to us in Christ Jesus.<br />_____________<br /><br />At bottom, I think you and Tug and Marshall are jealous. You've missed out on knowing a loving relationship with a gay person, and thereby prone to feel robbed - and defensively resistance to the idea - of God' moving.<br /><br />I think you're jealous and miffed, and stalk off like the boy who didn't get picked to read the story to the class.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-26216302006080077712009-06-30T09:34:44.027-05:002009-06-30T09:34:44.027-05:00You've heard, haven't you Bubba, the two s...You've heard, haven't you Bubba, the two sets of vocabularies for the two main voices of Genesis?<br /><br />And the two different, strictly separated words to refer to God?<br /><br />A literalist may need to say that Moses was bipolar.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-79782890733972050872009-06-30T09:33:36.160-05:002009-06-30T09:33:36.160-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-63749481784447887752009-06-30T09:30:57.881-05:002009-06-30T09:30:57.881-05:00Ah, Moses plus seven.
The arithmetic calculations...Ah, Moses plus seven.<br /><br />The arithmetic calculations of the reactionary protestant.<br /><br />How many days since creation?<br /><br />Fossils there for faith testing?<br /><br />Paranoia comes, then the absurdity.<br /><br />Your following your tradition, Bubba, like a faithful soldier.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-26951588533323300762009-06-30T09:29:07.025-05:002009-06-30T09:29:07.025-05:00Regarding this last, Bubba, you've really give...Regarding this last, Bubba, you've really given voice to your paranoia.<br /><br />And like all reactionary, populist protestantism, your paranoia takes it place with racist paranoia regarding sex. A pandemonium of sex outside marriage, "mongrel" sex between races producing monster babies, horned Jews, slant-eyed Japs, etc. <br /><br />I am fine living with the moral code written in the human conscience which has steered us well enough given the evidence:<br /><br />- at no other time in human history has such a large percentage of the world's population lived with such quality of life.<br />- at not other time in human history has such a large percentage of the world's population lived with such an investment of rights from violence and abuse.<br />- at no other time in human history has health been such wide-spread concerns.<br />- at not other time in human history has philanthropy been so central for so many to help our people in poverty or lack of equal access both here and in places of poverty around the world.<br /><br />Granted, capitalism is soaking an unjust amount of the world's resources and warring against the act of godly, sacrificial love for our common humanity.<br /><br />But it is a powerful machine, and if we can just regulate it to greatly reduce greed and expect those of us who benefit to "tithe" to the world's poor, the earth can be a wonderful place, indeed, reflecting better and better God's image and likeness.<br /><br />So, I am good with recognizing domestic and international law in its role to work morals and ethics in the public sphere. Polygamy is clearly seen as temptation to bondage in almost all cultures. There may indeed be cultures where polygamy serves the better interests of women (primitive tribes, barely developing cultures, etc.) and this respect for the care ethic that can be found in each culture reflects biblical principles quite well.<br /><br />So, this "rights based" approach in the public tends to cohere quite well with what Christians identify as "the image and likeness of God."<br /><br />No one condones bestiality, theft, etc. Every society understands the detrimental effects of sinful perversion and addiction. And, as always, hate and violent oppression are being identified in new places and new acts, and fought against. The human consciousness in society, when that society is invested in rights and freedom and an economic bill of rights, ethics and morals increasingly rise.<br /><br />And Christians, too, are growing in the knowledge and love of the Lord. <br />___________<br /><br />So, your paranoia is only defensive splatter of fear. <br /><br />And if you want to target sin, Bubba, if I were you I'd trade concern for polygamy or bestiality for the worldwide war against trading children for sex and slavery.<br /><br />That would be worthy of a Christian.<br />___________<br /><br />Hosea anyone?<br /><br />And I suppose that, like Tug, you are simply saying that Galatians and Romans cancel each other out?<br /><br />Got to make those wrinkles straight, Bubba. The future of a literalist reading of an inerrant bible depends upon it.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-83969481481065030932009-06-30T09:20:06.826-05:002009-06-30T09:20:06.826-05:00Feodor, about the Torah, it's quite reasonable...Feodor, about the Torah, it's quite reasonable to assume that another writer -- possibly Joshua -- completed the book by adding some seven verses at the end, recording Moses' death and burial, all while concluding that the bulk of the book was Moses' work.<br /><br /><br />Your other objections to this position are equally frivolous.<br /><br />"<i>Are you kidding me? So, Moses wrote all that about himself, about his own death and kept on writing? And gave us two creation stories?</i>"<br /><br />Is it <i>really</i> that much more sensible to conclude that an editor or group of editors combined two accounts of creation, than it is to consider the possibility that both accounts came from one writer?<br /><br />"<i>And he wrote about the Exodus while on the exodus? When did he find the time to write all that?</i>"<br /><br />The exodus from Egypt was <i>such</i> a short trip, wasn't it?<br /><br /><br />About my use of the word "invoke," I'm actually not sure the word entails legal or judicial speech. <br /><br />But even if that were true, the use of a legal term doesn't imply legalism.<br /><br />If it did, then even Paul was guilty of legalism because he routinely used legal language, such as the term justification.<br /><br />(You might as well argue that, because he also talked about redemption, that imagery from the marketplace means that Paul sees salvation as a meager business transaction.)<br /><br /><br />About interpretation, you're making the same false claim that Dan has, that we're in denial about our acts of interpretation when such acts are necessary and are universally committed at any rate.<br /><br />I haven't seen anybody here deny that we're interpreting the Bible. Our complaint isn't the mere fact that you're engaging in interpretation, but that your interpretation is implausible and is, furthermore, built on assumptions that contradict the text's own claims (and Jesus' claims) about Scripture's divine authorship and inerrant authority.<br /><br /><br />I will make myself as clear as possible: salvation does <b>NOT</b> come from the law.<br /><br />We are not saved by God's law, by our obligations to Him, because we are incapable of meeting those oblications.<br /><br />Instead, we are saved by God's grace, by His promises to us, because He is faithful -- willing and able -- to fulfill His promises.<br /><br />We are not justified by our obedience to the law, but by our faith in His grace.<br /><br />But our justification is only the beginning of God's plan for us, not the end. He intends to sanctify us as well. <br /><br />I've become more and more convinced that, like justification, sanctification is also by faith alone. Regardless, our sanctification -- our being made holy -- is the goal.<br /><br />Sanctification is the end for which we have been saved, and it is wrong to mistake it for the means <i>by which</i> we are saved, but it is equally wrong to ignore it altogether.<br /><br /><br />Should we accept homosexuals into the Christian faith? <b>ABSOLUTELY,</b> just as we should accept thieves, liars, prostitutes, hypocrites, and persecutors. <br /><br />But, just as we should not condone theft, dishonesty, prostitution, hypocrisy, and persecution, we should NOT condone homosexual behavior: <b>the behavior</b> is immoral.<br /><br />It is the case that too many congregations do not show true Christian love to homosexuals. Indeed, some do not extend to them the good news of salvation that God intends for everyone, but others condone that behavior which God's word very clearly condemns as sin from which we need salvation.<br /><br />Both groups are wrong. You're just as wrong for telling people that the poison they're eating is healthy food, as others are for not telling the poisoned about the antidote.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-2816777871171632492009-06-30T08:59:00.798-05:002009-06-30T08:59:00.798-05:00When I follow your ridiculous literalist readings ...When I follow your ridiculous literalist readings is when I mirror the ridiculousness of literalist readings.<br /><br />It is the "therefore" conclusion that draws a principle from a case where the principle did not exist that is "wrong." <br /><br />When I say the above paragraph, I am simply continuing the logic of reactionary protestants like yourself. When you read literally, your logic has to reach the casuistic conclusion that the there is a missing principle which becomes the established principle, namely, that what Adam and Eve did, *therefore*, we should do. But they did not leave father and mother.<br /><br />Therefore (the literal plains sense reading must say) there is no therefore.<br /><br /><br />The only answer is interpretive. Which is how you bumpkins have labeled my reading of the Bible. As I have done many times, I admit that my reading is interpretive.<br /><br />And as I have pointed out many times, yours is, too, though self-deceptively un-admitted. When, in fact, the interpretive reading is all there is, the Bible having very little literal plain sense passages in most key texts. This is what makes a key text key: it is impossible not to interpret in order to reach for understanding.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-67153260543343826692009-06-30T08:50:21.766-05:002009-06-30T08:50:21.766-05:00[continued]
Feodor, about the claim that Christ c...[continued]<br /><br />Feodor, about the claim that Christ came to fulfill the law rather than abolish it, I don't point simply to Paul's teaching Romans, but to Christ's own claims in Matthew 5. I thought I was clear on that point, when I wrote that "Christ was quite explicit in Matthew 5 that none of the law would pass away until history comes to a close."<br /><br />I do believe the law is still active in highlighting the need for Christ and the salvation He provides, and I also believe that the redeemed ought to use their freedom from the law's condemnation to fulfill its moral requirements. I believe the Bible is clear on this point, not just in Romans, but in Galatians and James as well.<br /><br /><br />I think your conclusion that we're focused on bits and pieces of Scripture rather than the overarching message is misguided. I'm not only quite certain that I grasp the Bible's overall message better than you think, I also suspect your in no position to berate others on this subject.<br /><br />You quote Galatians 3:25, but you seem to forget Galatians 5:16.<br /><br />"<i>Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh.</i>"<br /><br />We most certainly are not saved <b>by</b> our own righteousness, but we have been saved <b>FOR</b> righteousness: we have been made free from the penalties of the law, not so that we can be live in defiant anti-nomianism, but so that the Spirit can make us holy.<br /><br /><br />But if the Bible's overarching message is what you say it is, why are you being so miserly in the application of that message?<br /><br />You write, "The diversity of humankind is only a sign of the infinite breadth of God."<br /><br />But you think that "infinite breadth" now extends ONLY to include homosexual behavior as newly condoned. You've made it quite clear that you don't think polygamy is okay, but why don't you embrace polygamy as just another option in the diverse experience of human bonding?<br /><br />You write, "God’s love is equally infinite and broad and yearningly offered to his whole creation and that when people love with commitment, sacrifice, unceasing intent come what may, then they participate in God’s cosmic work of love."<br /><br />And yet you still don't endorse polygamy.<br /><br />For that matter, I doubt you endorse the even more eccentric expressions of commitment and love.<br /><br />Don't tell me that you're so narrow-minded that you limit moral expressions of romantic love, not only to monogamous relationships, but to relationships that only involve consenting adults.<br /><br />Consenting adults who are human, and who still have a pulse.<br /><br />What narrow-minded bigotry, Feodor.<br /><br />Do you not understand the diversity of humanity and the infinite breadth of God's love?<br /><br />Don't call unclean what God has made clean.<br /><br />Welcome all our brothers, Feodor, even those whose understanding of conjugal love isn't limited by such archaic notions of species, adulthood, and even death. Welcome the sheep-lovers and pedophiles and necrophiliacs.<br /><br />After all, God has wondrously increased the size of our own small hearts.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-55030320799301399832009-06-30T08:46:27.010-05:002009-06-30T08:46:27.010-05:00Bubba,
"Invoke"... as in legal speech.....Bubba,<br /><br />"Invoke"... as in legal speech... juridical... like casuistic law... like legalism.<br /><br />So... quaint, corrosive and unresponsive to the human heart... and chills, because legalism is exactly the opposite of gospel grace.<br /><br />God, Bubba, if you cant' get that, maybe you missed your morning coffee.<br /><br />Bubba, don't give me crap about you "boldly" following Christ in how he reads the Bible. Your just a classic, predictable, reactionary protestant.<br /><br />Like the fact that you really think Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Are you kidding me? So, Moses wrote all that about himself, about his own death and kept on writing? And gave us two creation stories?<br />And he wrote about the Exodus while on the exodus? When did he find the time to write all that?<br /><br />You're killing me, Bubba, with your piney woods rhubarb tenets.<br /><br />Jesus read and spoke from within the people's tradition. Remember, if you want to be literal, then you better read the Torah with the tefillin and th shel yad; otherwise you are not reading like Jesus.<br /><br />He's not the one who said the revolutionary and -- according to your lights-- un-Christlike, "now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."<br /><br />Your argument is with the better nature of Paul and the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />As you say, mine is with your paper and ink Jesus.<br /><br />I'm fine with that tournament lineup.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-66297511978807091742009-06-30T08:15:04.628-05:002009-06-30T08:15:04.628-05:00[continued]
Feodor, your reading of Matthew 19 is...[continued]<br /><br />Feodor, your reading of Matthew 19 is amazing: it's incredibly presumptuous and cannot possibly be justified by the actual text, but it is amazing.<br /><br />"<i>And your desire to ground Jesus in your notion of secondary 'arguments' stemming from his slap down of the Pharisees who were trying to trap him is simple a similar trapping move of Jesus by you. The trap was about callous abandonment. Jesus goes to the heart of it by indicating that we are to be as committed to each other as God is to us. Any strong relationship we form should bear the imprint of God's love: un-conditionality, sacrifice, and un-ceasing bond. And this applies to more than just marriage: friendship, fellowship, parenthood, taking care of older parents and family.</i>"<br /><br />On the one hand, you've argued that Jesus was talking about divorce and just divorce, that no other conclusions can be drawn regarding other aspects of marriage. But, now, you're arguing that the passage has implications for "any strong relationship" that we have.<br /><br />I don't have a problem with the idea of fidelity and faithfulness to other relationships, but it's not at all clear that the idea can be drawn from this particular text.<br /><br />If you really think Matthew 19's explicit condemnation of the casual destruction of the bonds of marriage has implications for other relationships, you should explain why it <b>cannot</b> have other implications for the relationship that's being discussed -- and why drawing those implications is proof of trying to "trap" Jesus.<br /><br />The fact of the matter is, the text much more strongly implies other implications for marriage than it does implications for other relationships. Again, Jesus Christ didn't simply answer that divorce is bad, <b>HE EXPLAINED WHY,</b> citing God's creation of man as male and female and His will for marriage.<br /><br />You act as if Jesus never cited Genesis 2. You act as if the passage leaps from Matthew 19:3 to 19:6.<br /><br /><br />About Genesis 2, I must congratulate you for possibly displaying what may be the most obviously ridiculous claim in a very long conversation where there's a wealth of material.<br /><br />"<i>Adam and Eve did not leave their father and mother and cleave to each other. So Genesis and Jesus have their facts wrong.</i>"<br /><br />Genesis didn't claim that they left their parents, and neither did Jesus.<br /><br />"<i>Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.</i>" - Gen 2:24<br /><br />The passage doesn't teach that Adam left his parents, but that <b>WE</b> are supposed to leave <b>OURS</b>. It's almost as if you've never read the passage yourself, as if you're simply inferring its contents from our arguments about it.<br /><br />And if you really think Jesus got his facts wrong, what in the world are you doing claiming to be His follower?<br /><br />[continued]Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-79123634924139784272009-06-30T08:14:38.388-05:002009-06-30T08:14:38.388-05:00Tug,
I promise to let Bubba make my arguments if ...Tug,<br /><br />I promise to let Bubba make my arguments if you can guess, on a scale from 1 to 10, how stupid you are. Get the number right and Bubba can have the floor.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-31349638227729953702009-06-30T07:54:50.605-05:002009-06-30T07:54:50.605-05:00Feodor, your talk about God "wondrously"...Feodor, your talk about God "wondrously" increasing the size of our hearts is a little hard to swallow, when you dismiss my views on morality as corrosive and unresponsive, and when even my use of the word "invoke" somehow -- inexplicably -- sends "chills of deep revulsion down [your] spine."<br /><br />Your supposed compassion for homosexuals appears to be matched in intensity with the contempt you frequently display for Christians who dare to follow Jesus Christ in His approach to Scripture. What's really revolting is that you encourage disobedience to God and sneer at honest attempts to conform to God's word, all in God's name.<br /><br />If the Holy Spirit has not revealed that homosexual behavior is (now) morally permissible -- I doubt that He has, and you certainly haven't provided persuasive proof that He has, and you're frankly delusional if you think you have -- then you're guilty not only of lying, but lying about God, which is tantamount to blasphemy.<br /><br /><br />For the record, I am not "anti-government." I'm not against government, I'm against big government, in support of small government.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I do support paying taxes, in obedience to Romans 12. You're being needlessly and foolishly presumptuous to conclude that I didn't mention the IRS because I selectively support law-breaking as a general rule.<br /><br /><br />And, about Moses, I do think Moses wrote the Torah, in part because it appears Jesus Christ affirmed Moses' authorship.<br /><br />Jesus frequently spoke about what Moses wrote or commanded, perhaps most noticeably in Mark 12:26, when -- on the subject of the resurrection of the dead -- Jesus referenced "the book of Moses."<br /><br />Again, your problem doesn't appear to lie ultimately with those supposedly backward and ignorant eighteenth-century American Protestants, or with contemporary inerrantists like Marshall and me, but with Jesus Christ Himself.<br /><br />If you were a Muslim or Buddhist, the apparent unwillingness to conform to all that Christ actually taught would still be regrettable, but understandable. As it is, Feodor, you claim to be a Christian.<br /><br />Where's the attempt to be His disciple?<br /><br />[continued]Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-87598349629729110062009-06-30T07:26:42.869-05:002009-06-30T07:26:42.869-05:00You know, now that i think about it, maybe we have...You know, now that i think about it, maybe we have hit on a plan here, Feodor...<br /><br />Why don't you jusy let Bubba make your argument on everything, then knock your argument back down again?<br /><br />Then you and I can just buy Bubba's book...tugboatcapnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751281215697965077noreply@blogger.com