IRONIC FUNDAMENTALIST COMMENT OF THE DAY:
Warning: Be sure to save your comments if you post at [Mr X's] site. He has a history of deleting comments, only to then lie about what the comments really said. Should we be surprised that a false teacher would do such a thing?
This was said by a Religious Right sort of dude who routinely moderates, deletes and bans those who disagree with them and has set up a whole blog dedicated to lying about people's positions, twisting their words and comments and, of course, refusing to allow them to defend themselves!
Is it really possible that this person fails to see the irony?
It truly is amazing how consistently - at least in my tiny little corner of the blogging world - that there is ONE group of bloggers that ban and moderate comments: The Religious Right (or maybe Christian Fundamentalists is the better descriptor?).
There ARE exceptions - Marshall, Doug and Chance (and John, when he belonged sort of to the Religious Right) allow people to make comments and are prepared to get in there and discuss their views and our views without feeling the need to moderate or delete or ban outright. Good for them on this point, if nothing else.
But beyond those few hearty souls, religious right blog after religious right blog, nearly down to the man (and it IS almost always men), either moderate or outright ban and delete comments from those who disagree too much on the wrong topics.
Why is that?
I tend to call it cowardice - that they're afraid to engage with those with disagreeing opinions - that they're afraid to let people defend their own arguments, scared that other people will be won over by the "false teachings" of "heretics" and "pagans." But they DO engage in SOME conversation, even if only for a little bit, with people they disagree with. So, they're not totally averse to having conversations with those who disagree.
But sooner or later (oftentimes sooner), the ban comes down, the moderation goes up.
Or, truly, many, many of these sites have moderation on right from the get-go. They want to be the gatekeeper to approve only those messages that they deem worthy (based on what? one wonders).
So, there IS an element of fear in their moderation/banning, but I don't think that's exactly the right word. Intellectual laziness, perhaps - they don't want to have to spend TOO much time defending their position - that might be part of it, at least for some of them.
But is there a more apt term for that sort of behavior?
And worse, what of those who will spend whole threads demonizing/twisting/slandering/gossiping others they disagree with and then refuse to allow that person to defend themselves?
What IS the best word for such despicable behavior?
Cowardice? Intellectual laziness? Anti-intellectualism? Ungentlemanly or Unseemly (those both seem way too mild)? Indecorous? Untoward? Indecent??
I'd love to see some study into how widespread this phenomena is (after visiting dozens of such sites, personally, I'd say I've seen it in at least 90% of them) of banning/moderation by the religious right (or fundamentalists) and how it compares to those who are not more fundamentalist in nature?
It would also make for any interesting psychological study, I'd think.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Irony
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
255 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 255 of 255Marshall...
I see that Dan has enabled comment moderation. The irony here is incredible.
Don't be a jerk, Marshall. My comments ALWAYS go to moderation after four weeks, so that I can keep out the spam that otherwise shows up on old posts. No irony, but thanks for playing.
On topic (sort of) Marshall claimed...
I gave you a verse to which you have yet to respond.
Marshall, the charge that you have made is that in addition to the orthodox "saved by grace alone through faith in Jesus alone" you are adding additional hoops to jump through for salvation. Namely, that one can't be "wrong" about gay marriage and be saved. We shorten that as, "must agree with Marshall on the topic," but when we do so, we're just referring to YOUR additional requirement that one can't be mistaken on gay marriage and be saved.
To support that heretical statement, you offer Matt 5 (validating Scripture, which NO ONE HERE disagrees with), Romans 7 (which asks, is the law "sinful," and answers, "NO!" - which NO ONE HERE disagrees with) Galatians 3 (that says "the law was our guardian" - which NO ONE HERE disagrees with) and Psalm 19 (The law of the Lord is perfect - which NO ONE HERE disagrees with)... you've offered these passages, NOT ONE OF WHICH SAYS, "you must be right on every behavior in order to be saved," which is your claim, or even "you must be right on gay marriage in order to be saved," a variation of your claim.
There is no orthodoxy, nor is there any passage that supports your wildly heretical claim that you have to be right about every behavior (ie, have perfect knowledge of all things) or, if that is not your claim, then at least that you have to be "right" on at least certain behaviors."
This is obviously beyond orthodoxy, Marshall. I would think that you probably recognize this by now, or just ask Stan or Craig or one of your posse and they'll tell you. I suspect this is just a case of you getting bogged down in defending yourself to a point where you are defending something you (hopefully) don't even really believe, just to disagree with us.
The bad part (for you) is that we're on the side of normal Christian orthodoxy on this point and the sooner you begin backing away from the heretical claims you've made, the sooner you can begin saving face. There is no wrong in admitting you made a mistake.
"Don't be a jerk, Marshall."
How gracious of you.
"My comments ALWAYS go to moderation after four weeks, so that I can keep out the spam that otherwise shows up on old posts."
I have never had to wait to see if my comments get published. They've always been visible immediately after clicking on "Publish Your Comment". This has been the same at every blog I visit. Either I have to wait for the approval of the host, or I don't. I've never seen a case where after a time, the rules change. They have here.
"Marshall, the charge that you have made is that in addition to the orthodox "saved by grace alone through faith in Jesus alone" you are adding additional hoops to jump through for salvation."
I've added nothing.
"Namely, that one can't be "wrong" about gay marriage and be saved."
"There is no orthodoxy, nor is there any passage that supports your wildly heretical claim that you have to be right about every behavior..."
But you're all way beyond merely being wrong. You're not wrong as if you don't know the truth. You deny the truth and feign ignorance. You willfully and knowingly support that which is clearly forbidden (among other things). You insist the god you worship blesses unions based a behavior all Bible versions clearly show to be forbidden. None of the Bible versions I've ever seen indicate that the God described therein would do such a thing. None of them describes anything that an honest man could confuse as approval for such a thing.
Once again, I never speak of those who struggle with sinful desires, occasionally succombing to them. I only speak of those who clearly reject the teachings of Scripture and then, in your case, think admitting you might be wrong will cover your ass. You are wrong and you know it. But YOU won't admit it. There's nothing orthodox about rejecting clearly revealed Scriptural teachings and promoting the opposite.
So once again, I you really need to read this part over and over until it's drummed into your dishonest head, it's not about being wrong, as if ignorant. It's about rejecting willfully the clearly revealed Will of God. THAT is what you're doing. And this isn't the only area in which you're unrepentent-ly and unremorsefully guilty.
To put it another way, in this quote...
"saved by grace alone through faith in Jesus alone"
...what does your faith look like? It looks like a faith in someone with only a superficial resemblance to the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Kinda like Mormons. Thus, you have faith in a fictitious character with no ability to save. When you distort the clearly revealed Will of God, it amounts to worshiping a false god. So again, how far astray from Scriptural teaching can one be before one is no longer worshiping the real God?
"To support that heretical statement" (I've offered no heresy that you have yet proven) , you offer Matt 5 (validating Scripture, which NO ONE HERE disagrees with)..."
You agree only after you have chosen to disregard those parts you don't like.
"...Romans 7 (which asks, is the law "sinful," and answers, "NO!" - which NO ONE HERE disagrees with)..."
But like so much of your "understanding", you omit the part where the Law informs us of what is sinful. Since you disregard the parts you don't like, you are hardly in agreement.
"...Galatians 3 (that says "the law was our guardian" - which NO ONE HERE disagrees with)..."
Yet in disregarding those parts you don't like, you are not allowing the Law to guide or guard you, but instead are dictating what the Law should say.
"...and Psalm 19 (The law of the Lord is perfect - which NO ONE HERE disagrees with)..."
How can you soul be revived by a Law you disregard?
"...you've offered these passages, NOT ONE OF WHICH SAYS, "you must be right on every behavior in order to be saved," which is your claim, or even "you must be right on gay marriage in order to be saved," a variation of your claim."
You continue to accuse me of making a claim I've NEVER made. I'm now saying you're wrong. I'm saying you purposely reject the clearly revealed Will of God on a number of subjects, specifically homosexual behavior. Please get that straight so that you won't waste any more time arguing against something I haven't said. In light of that, here's more irony:
"There is no wrong in admitting you made a mistake."
You're mistaken in my position and your even more greatly mistaken on your own regarding homsexual behavior, but you won't admit it.
Now to respond to Alan so that he won't feel left out, or worse, make a silly accusation about cowardice on my part (though he'll replace it with something else).
If I've responded to any of these before, forgive me. Consider that no matter how often I set the record straight, the same charges continue to be leveled against me. A perfect example follows:
"Chapter and verse, MA.
Quit dodging the question. Show the chapter and verse, where it specifically says that, in order to be a Christian, one must agree with you.
Chapter and verse. Put up or shut up."
Not agree with me. With Him. You don't.
"...I'd mention that criticizing Dan based on his "works" regarding gay marriage when it is clear that he is happily married to a woman doesn't go very far in providing any evidence that you understand anything about anything at all."
I'd mention that supporting, celebrating and/or enabling bad behavior is the same as engaging in it.
""That works are irrelevant and that "grace", as you so poorly reflect and define it, is sufficient."
For once, MA actually gets it!!
Grace alone is indeed sufficient, MA.
It's just too bad you don't believe that yourself."
The part I actually get, and which eludes you, is that if your faith and belief is manifested by your behavior. Outright rebellion, which is manifested by YOUR choices, belies any claim of faith and belief.
"...I don't question whether you're saved, because those decisions are beyond my pay grade."
Concern for the salvation of your fellow man is beyond your pay grade? Interesting take. Which Sola supports that? However, nothing I've said is either heretical or indicative of my sould being lost. Can't say the same for you and it does concern me. Hence my continued efforts here.
Here's more:
""You simply dispute my understanding, doing so with no chapter and verse of your own."
We stand with traditional, historical, orthodox Christianity. Grace alone."
Not quite. You stand with personal desire over the clearly revealed Will of God and claimed you're saved nonetheless. Good luck with that.
"You're the one who stands with his back to orthodoxy, thus the burden of proof is on you to prove your point."
Setting aside my relation to orthodoxy, which is pretty solid, I have no such burden of proof to provide for the question I posed. Here it is again: How far astray from Scripture can one be and still be worshipping the One True God? If you're having trouble understanding this simple question, seek out your own 3 yr old.
"Again, who is "you"."
For one, YOU!
"And BTW, MA could you now admit that you were wrong before when you claimed that we would tell you you're not a Christian?"
No. It would not be in your best interest to do so. If I did, it would mean that you have no desire to distinguish between good behavior and bad as clearly revealed in Scripture. It would mean that you do not care how any Christian behaves. It would mean that anyone calling himself a Christian can be the most dispicable son of a bitch in the world and you'd still assure him he's saved. That would make you really stupid. I don't think you're that stupid Alan. Just dishonest, and possibly lost.
"Because you were wrong, and we proved you wrong."
Too funny. Too childishly pathetic. And here's more proof:
"First you complain that we would act as you do, by condemning others to hell."
I've NEVER stated I possess the authority to condemn anyone to hell, except for perhaps my own self. There is an argument that supports the notion that God gives each of us THAT authority. My concern is that you take advantage of it. My concern is that anyone might take advantage of it. To truly care for "the least of these", as Dan sanctimoniously likes to say, doing so would include concern for their salvation.
Another falsehood is to suppose I was "complaining". Hardly. Merely making a point. All the complaining is coming from you, Dan, Marty, etc. about things I haven't said. So there ya go, pussycat.
""Please cite the chapter and verse so that I can review it .."
Guess who said that, MA? You did, above."
Yes. I did. And it was to see if you are interpreting Scripture in a way that justified your position. You've shown that you can't even understand the words of a guy whose intelligence you understand and whose familiarity with the Word you question. You've also shown you don't understand "Thou shalt not..." So to insist you provide something to support your position is justified. I've done it already, though you refuse to acknowledge the connection. In the meantime, none of you have provided anything that justifies your corrupted interpretation of Lev 18:22. So, it's ironic, not to mention hypocritical, that you demand Scriptural support for anything I've said or asked.
For Dan. Save these comments before you deleted them for good. I'd like an explanation for why you wouldn't publish them.
Marshall, we've already covered this: THEY ARE BEING PUBLISHED! READ THEM FOR YOURSELF.
I've already told you that this post has gone on for more than 4 weeks, at which point my blogger is set to run everything past me for publishing. If I didn't do this, I'd have a bunch of spam on old posts that I no longer see.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OFF MY TYPEWRITER??
Marshall, you've moved so far beyond reasonable that I just can't imagine continuing this conversation, especially with my current lack of time, but just to deal with one snippet that sums up our difference, you said...
Not agree with me. With Him. You don't.
No, we DON'T disagree with God. We have honestly and sincerely sought God's will and WE'VE REACHED AN OPINION DIFFERENT THAN YOURS ON THE TOPIC.
This is NOT due to wanting to ignore God. It IS due to seeking God's will.
You continue to conflate YOUR HUNCHES with God's Will. They're simply not one in the same.
I don't know if you truly can't get that someone might honestly disagree with your hunch and have a different opinion on a topic or you're just too stuck in your own argument to see anything but the back of your own eyeballs, but it is simply NOT a case of us ignoring God's will. IF ANYTHING, it's a case of us being mistaken (although I obviously don't think this is the case).
But our salvation is not dependent upon us NOT being mistaken. We are saved by God's grace and nothing Marshall can say can change that. If Marshall decided tomorrow that we need to ALSO agree with Marshall about how to cut our grass properly or which basketball team we ought to support in order to be saved, IT WOULD NOT MAKE IT SO.
We disagree. You think I'm mistaken (and apparently think I deliberately am choosing to be mistaken - not quite getting the meaning of the word) and I think you're mistaken.
The difference is, I don't conflate my opinion with God's will. I don't insist that those who disagree with me MUST agree with me to be saved, that would be presumptuous and contrary to the grace by which we are saved.
"You insist the god you worship blesses unions based a behavior all Bible versions clearly show to be forbidden."
Liar. We insist that God blesses these unions and that the "behavior" you obsess about is not forbidden within the context of marriage.
"Not agree with me. With Him. You don't. "
Because MA = God.
Got it, MA.
MA still provides no evidence, no verses that support his position. His rambling nothing more than a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
" It would mean that anyone calling himself a Christian can be the most dispicable [sic] son of a bitch in the world and you'd still assure him he's saved."
Wrong again.
What part of "I don't get to decide if someone else is saved (or not)" are you too stupid to understand?
"To truly care for "the least of these", as Dan sanctimoniously likes to say"
Actually, MA "the least of these" isn't Dan being sanctimonious. I wouldn't expect you to know this since you've never read the Bible, but that's actually a quote from Scripture. If anyone is being "sanctimonious" about "the least of these" it's Jesus. But again, I wouldn't expect you to get that.
And the constant complaining about comment moderation, which has been explained about a dozen times, I just have to ask, is there any limit to your stupidity?
All your pointless typing, MA, and you still can't provide chapter and verse that supports your position that whosoever believes in Jesus must agree with you on gay marriage in order to be saved.
"what does your faith look like?"
Now there, for once is a reasonable question from MA, which I am only too happy to answer seriously. My faith looks like this:
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into hell;
The third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
The holy catholic church;
The Communion of Saints;
The Forgiveness of sins;
The Resurrection of the body,
And the Life everlasting.
Amen.
Marshall, could you answer just one straightforward question? Where you say things like...
you omit the part where the Law informs us of what is sinful. Since you disregard the parts you don't like, you are hardly in agreement.
We've pointed out time and again that we DO NOT "omit" or "disregard" anything, we just disagree with your hunches on how to interpret a few verses. And yet you still continue. So please tell me:
Is it your opinion that WE TRULY BELIEVE that God has condemned gay marriage and that we are just ignoring that for whimsical reasons? You think that I (who was once opposed to gay marriage, like you) TRULY STILL BELIEVE it is wrong and have for SOME unknown reason decided to believe the OPPOSITE of what I know to be true, even though I'm telling you that's not the case?
Or, put another way, Do you think that you know better what I believe than I do?
First, for both of you:
There's a difference between "moderate" and "delete". Perhaps you didn't know that.
In the first instance, I "complained" once. Just. Once. After Dan's less than gracious response, I explained why I "complained". I have not mentioned it since. Until just now.
In the second, Dan has indeed deleted comments of mine on weak charges of bad behavior, none of which was any worse than the routine comment of Alan, to whom Dan has granted carte blanche to be as snarky to me as he chooses. Thus, due to the capricious nature of Dan's application of his "be nice" policies, I can never feel certain or safe regarding whether or not a comment of mine will be posted as intended, making my concern for such legitimate indeed.
To neither of these instances can the word "constantly" be appropriately applied.
Dan,
"No, we DON'T disagree with God."
Actually, you do. Often.
"We have honestly and sincerely sought God's will and WE'VE REACHED AN OPINION DIFFERENT THAN YOURS ON THE TOPIC."
You say this (constantly), but the results belie the claim. No sincere, honest person of average intelligence can arrive at the conlusions you do based on the clearly written words of Scripture. It's just not possible without outside influence. Try blowing a stop sign in the middle of the night when there is no traffic. The cop you didn't see might let you off if he's in a good mood, but he won't allow for interpretations that go beyond "Stop!" when approaching a sign that says "Stop". Lev 18:22 is crystal clear and verse 3 only says not to do what the Canaanites do. No more. The list that follows provides no context for exceptions to the "Thou shalt nots" that one finds there. No mention of pagan rituals. Indeed, as in other areas where the behavior is forbidden, your angle demands that other forbidden behaviors be allowed as well, some of which you will not tolerate on your little blog. What honest, sincere study can lead to such a porous understanding? Honesty would dictate you cut the crap, acknowledge the behavior is wrong and that you support those who engage in it anyway with the hope that God will fogive.
"You continue to conflate YOUR HUNCHES with God's Will. They're simply not one in the same."
I'm more than willing to acknowledge when I'm acting on a hunch. Indeed, I routinely qualify such with something like, "I may be wrong, but..." It is not a "hunch" that a stop sign means "Stop" and nothing else. It is not a "hunch" that "Thou shalt not" or, "Don't do as the Canannites do" means "Don't do it." A child will say, "I don't think Mom meant grapes when she said 'no snacks before dinner'". A child will say, "Certainly God prohibited some form of homosexual behavior." The serpent will say, "Did God really say...?"
I have no problem with disagreements on particular aspects of the faith. To say that there exists such aspects and use that as cover for egregious rebellion against what is clear, is where I object. And rightly so.
Then, to pretend you are "mistaken" (or willing to admit you might be) could be useful in convincing the weak, but I doubt God will fall for that lame argument. If we consider Rom 1:20, how much more clear and easy to understand is God's will regarding sexual behavior? There can be no "mistake", as honest homosexual Biblical scholars have admitted.
If one could honestly be mistaken about something so clear (and I'll allow the possibility for anyone who's not claimed to be the student of Scripture you guys claim to be), of course it wouldn't necessarily impact his salvation. That clearly isn't the case here and your arguments and insistence to the contrary do not even know the term "convincing" even exists.
Furthermore...
I DO believe you are deliberately "being mistaken", ignoring what you know to be true due to outside influences, including being aquainted with homosexuals in your church and family, arguing that they are among the "most Christian" people you know. But how could they be? They do what you do with the behavior, plus actually engage in it (though I would hope while being homosexual their relationships with their partners remain platonic). I suppose that there are all sorts of ways that people who engage in one form of bad behavior can still be among the "most Christian" people one might know, but that doesn't speak well of the rest of the people one might know, or the one himself.
"The difference is, I don't conflate my opinion with God's will."
Nor do I. You only need that to be true in order to further demonize one who holds an opposing position on the subject. My opinion on this topic is BASED on God's will to the extent that any rational, honest person can ascertain. YOUR'S is based on something beyond Scripture, because Scripture itself does NOT support your argument. THAT is fact, not opinion.
"I don't insist that those who disagree with me MUST agree with me to be saved, that would be presumptuous and contrary to the grace by which we are saved."
Once again, and this goes to MY question which none of you have even attempted to answer, you MUST agree with the God described in Scripture or else you're agreeing with a false god. How far astray from Scripture can one be without worshiping a false god?
"Is it your opinion that WE TRULY BELIEVE that God has condemned gay marriage and that we are just ignoring that for whimsical reasons?"
In a nutshell, yes. But I'll have to elaborate later, if you've the courage to hear it. I'm out of time for now, which means that I'll have to get to Alan's comments later as well. He's got a few typical distortions needing correction.
Marshall...
No sincere, honest person of average intelligence can arrive at the conlusions you do based on the clearly written words of Scripture. It's just not possible without outside influence.
AND YET, it's happened. Over and over and over again. I'm a living testament to the fact that people CAN AND DO reach an opinion other than Marshall's (ie, the traditional) opinion and they can reach that opinion based upon Scripture.
It is simply factual that this is what happened to me and this is where you step from normal disagreement into belligerent silliness.
I WAS A CONSERVATIVE.
I READ THE BIBLE LITERALLY.
I DID NOT READ "OUTSIDE" SOURCES (ie, "liberal" sources).
AND, NONETHELESS, I MOVED FROM MY OLD POSITION (YOUR POSITION) TO THIS NEW POSITION BASED UPON SCRIPTURE AND REASON ALONE.
And I think that just drives you crazy, or so it appears.
" No sincere, honest person of average intelligence can arrive at the conlusions [sic] you do based on the clearly written words of Scripture."
Ad hominem.
"YOUR'S is based on something beyond Scripture, because Scripture itself does NOT support your argument. THAT is fact, not opinion."
Begging the question.
"you MUST agree with the God described in Scripture or else you're agreeing with a false god."
Irony.
"I DO believe you are deliberately "being mistaken", ignoring what you know to be true"
And just plain BS.
So, MA can only back up his stupid claims by blatant logical fallacies and just plain BS.
And he still refuses to provide any actual scriptural evidence for his claim.
Chapter and verse, MA. Dan is clearly being nice and letting you off the hook for making ridiculous assertions without evidence, but I won't. Chapter and verse, MA, or shut up.
Put up or shut up.
Why bother posting stuff Dan, when he refuses to even engage with it?
He asked a simple question, one that was (for him) rather reasonable. I respond. And, because it wasn't what he wanted to hear, he skips it and move on. A conversation with him is like trying to nail jello to the wall, he just slips and slides around anything he knows he's wrong about.
What, specifically about the apostle's creed do you disagree with, MA?
It is your contention that someone with my beliefs cannot be a Christian. I've stated my beliefs, as I do every Sunday. So, what specifically do you have a problem with?
And I don't want to read more of your lame and stupid opinions, cupcake, I want to hear Chapter and Verse, why you disagree that the Apostle's Creed is a reasonable summary of traditional, orthodox, historical Christian belief.
Chapter and verse.
Put up or shut up.
Look guys it's like this. It's not your profession of faith...Marshall doesn't care about that. His concern is with behavior. But truly if it's our behavior that saves us, we're all in a heap of trouble.
I'm thinking this must be how Marshall reads John 3:16.....
For God so loved the heterosexual that he gave His only begotten son, that whosoever is heterosexual and believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.
Sounds crazy doesn't it? But that's about the gist of it.
Good gosh! Marty, from the peanut gallery, actually stumbles close to the point. Good for you, Marty! You get a gold star!
A profession of faith is mere lip service if not backed up by works. That's what "Faith without works is dead" means. This is what I see in your twisted notion of acceptable behavior and you willful practice or support of same. That's why, in my extreme examples, one might quesstion the claim of "Christian" by one who purposely engages in unChristian behavior. That's not me or anyone else standing in for God or assuming His authority. That's people who understand the clearly revealed Will of God seeing the claim contradicted by the behavior. The conclusions come easily and logically:
1) the claim is a lie or a sham
2) the claimant has a poor understanding of God's Will
3) the claimant has faith in a false god who superficially resembles the Real One.
4) most likely, a combo of all of the above
Alan's insistence that he is cool because he can recite the Apostle's Creed is an incredibly weak defense. But it is NOT what your faith looks like. They are mere words and I believe there is a warning about lip service in the Bible. One's actions is what one's faith looks like, not one's words. Actions and beliefs that are contrary to the plainly revealed Will of God belie any claim of faith in Him and put one's salvation at risk. In yet another example of "putting up" I offer in support of that sentiment Isaiah 1:13-15 where we see God unimpressed with the worship of those who were NOT living on His terms. What wager would you put up that they did NOT believe they were in error?
As to putting up or shutting up, as if he has the rank to make such demands, Alan has done nothing to dispute those verses I HAVE put up, or shown why they don't apply or are misunderstood by me.
"But it is NOT what your faith looks like."
Heh. This from a guy I've never met, who knows absolutely nothing about me or my "works."
When it comes to "works" we know (but MA clearly doesn't) what the Lord requires of us, because it is clearly stated in Scripture. MA, on the other hand, just makes up requirements like, "Thou shalt not disagree with the Lord, MA, your God." So, MA decides (because he believes that he is God) that salvation is based on works alone because he can quote one verse taken out of context, and faith is useless and meaningless.
Sorry, MA, but I doubt your ridiculous proof-texting of the one verse in the Bible you seem to actually know is going to be convincing to anyone.
Thanks, MA, but I will continue to give your uninformed, specious and incorrect opinions all the consideration they deserve.
Again, Marty, we see that MA has no chapter nor verse to support your completely reasonable conclusion about MA's objections.
And what of my beliefs that I clearly stated above do you disagree with? Which particular tenet do you think makes me not a Christian? The virgin birth? The resurrection? Which one, MA makes me not a Christian, and provide chapter and verse to back your lame opinion.
Chapter and verse, MA. Put up or shut up.
223 comments on and MA still provides no a single shred of evidence for his specious opinions.
I'd wager that we can get to 300 comments without MA providing any actual Scriptural backing for his contention that one must agree with him in order to be saved.
"belie any claim of faith in Him and put one's salvation at risk"
In other words, if you do the wrong works, you can't be saved.
Wrong. Strike 1.
You've just contradicted 2 of the 5 "Sola's": saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Nope, nothing about the dreaded gay marriage there.
And there's certainly nothing at all that gives you license to question Dan's salvation, since (though you seem unable to get this through your thick skull) He's. Not. Gay.
Strike 2.
Since you believe beliefs don't matter, and Dan's beliefs don't actually lead to his committing the "sin" you can't stop fantasizing about, your argument (as always) is dead.
Strike 3. Yer out.
Really what this is all about is that MA can't abide the fact that dirty queers and their "enablers" (I love this term, BTW, as if I have to be "enabled" to be the person God created me to be) might be given the same salvation he's received. In the end, he's just a stingy 3 year old who doesn't realize there's enough candy to go around.
Dan,
Your claim of finding your belief from Scripture and Scripture alone fails to impress. It puts your credibility and/or intelligence in question. I could buy an explanation that your conclusions are the result of demonic influence, but not a Godly response to "prayerful study". There is nothing in Scripture, in any of the five or so references to homosexual behavior, that suggests ritual sexual practice. Nothing. This is but your own eisegesis. There is also nothing in Scripture that suggests it speaks of only "some form" of the behavior as opposed to "ANY" form. This, too, is something you lay upon Scripture for your own purposes.
To be fair, I don't believe that those who oppose the behavior have support for the belief that Canaanites engaged in ritual sexual practice, despite how prevalent the belief is. There just is no such suggestion in Scripture to support the notion, and thus, they suffer from the same problem you all do, that "Thou shalt not..." isn't good enough for 'em. But, as if that wasn't enough, there are those who argue that there simply wasn't any such rituals anyway. This link, which has links of its own for more detail on the matter, speak to this. Now, I'm not saying that they are true. They may simply be engaging in the same thing you folks do, which is finding something that contradicts thousands of years of knowledge and understanding that is conveniently only revealed to them.
Thus, to say that two can arrive at different understandings isn't an issue at all for me. What is is the difference that exists and how the differing conclusion is explained and supported. In your case, a more expert example of whimsy and hunch would be impossible to find. So what irks is not merely your goofy conclusions, or your wildly unbelievable claim that you supposedly came to them by Scriptural study alone. It is your refusal to fill the gargantuan gaps and answer the many questions such claims can't help but provoke. Here's merely one quick example:
How can you go from...
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."
...to pagan sexual rituals, that as I've suggested, might not have even existed. How do you go from that verse, to the assumption that homosexual sexual pratices, as well as incest and bestiality, were not engaged in outside of religious ritual, and thus were what verse 3 was referring? Show me the reason that leads from that verse to your conclusion.
BTW, his quoting of Isaiah 1:13-15, which is about people who love the law more than the law of love is the height of irony.
Perhaps you should have read down to verse 17:
" Learn to do what is right!
Treat people fairly.
Give hope to those who are beaten down.
Cheer them up.
Stand up in court for children whose fathers have died.
And do the same thing for widows. "
Oh, but that's more of that stupid "least of these" talk that MA thinks is "sanctimonious."
Isaiah 1:13-15 is directed at you and your cronies, MA. You would be wise to read it again and again and again until you actually learn the lesson God is trying to teach you there, instead of just trying to proof-text with it.
" your wildly unbelievable claim that you supposedly came to them by Scriptural study alone"
Because Dan, you can't possibly know yourself as well as MA knows you.
His arrogance is astounding.
A bit more for Alan, before I go back to ignoring him.
First, it's amazing at how quickly his last comment gained blog owner approval!
""But it is NOT what your faith looks like."
Heh. This from a guy I've never met, who knows absolutely nothing about me or my "works.""
Apparently, you are either stupid or purposely misrepresenting my intention. A profession of faith is NOT what your faith LOOKS LIKE. It is what you claim your faith is. How you live and act shows what your faith LOOKS LIKE. So you can state what you believe all day long. I'm not impressed by what you say you believe. I doubt He is impressed with what ANY OF US says in that regard.
"When it comes to "works" we know (but MA clearly doesn't) what the Lord requires of us, because it is clearly stated in Scripture."
No. You don't. Because you can't show that one who claims to be a Christian can behave in any manner he so chooses regardless of God's clearly revealed Will. God requires faith. Faith requires works or it is dead faith. Not faith at all. Lip service.
"MA, on the other hand, just makes up requirements like, "Thou shalt not disagree with the Lord, MA, your God.""
You're a liar. I haven't said or suggest that and have refuted it repeatedly.
"So, MA decides (because he believes that he is God) that salvation is based on works alone because he can quote one verse taken out of context, and faith is useless and meaningless."
You're a liar. I haven't said or suggested that at all. Only a defensive sinner who can't stand to have his own self reflected back upon him would so distort my meaning in such a blatantly false manner.
"Thanks, MA, but I will continue to give your uninformed, specious and incorrect opinions all the consideration they deserve."
You've done nothing to show how any of my opinions are specious, uninformed or incorrect. You've only said so. You've only misrepresented my opinions in order to claim they conflict with thousands of years of orthodoxy. The same orthodoxy that insists homosexual behavior in any form is forbidden by God.
"And what of my beliefs that I clearly stated above do you disagree with?"
Never disagreed with those beliefs, but only how credible your claim of belief is judging by your actions.
"Which particular tenet do you think makes me not a Christian?"
The one where you think you can trump God's Will and dictate that what He called an abomination and detestable is really OK as long as you don't do it a certain way, though there's no Scriptural justification for such a thing. And you dare say I play God!
"223 comments on and MA still provides no a single shred of evidence for his specious opinions."
I've provided plenty. You simply lack the honesty and integrity to deal with them like a man. What's more, you've spent not one letter answering any of MY questions (except for one that you answered improperly---typical).
"I'd wager that we can get to 300 comments without MA providing any actual Scriptural backing for his contention that one must agree with him in order to be saved."
I'd wager you spend any amount of time and effort your choose and not find where I ever insisted such a thing. Not without lying again.
Indeed. I don't know what else to say. Marshall is showing himself to be delusional, if he thinks he knows my beliefs better than me.
It is a fact that I reached my position based on Scripture alone.
That another person can't comprehend it is not evidence that it didn't happen. I can't comprehend that Marshall really thinks that simple living is wrong, but I don't doubt that he does, and that he does so for what he considers good, biblical reasons. Marshall does not need my comprehension or blessing to have reached his hunch on the matter. Marshall is a free agent, responsible to God for his behavior and decisions.
Me, too.
It is a fact that I'm saved by grace alone through faith in Jesus alone. It doesn't matter if Marshall wishes to add hoops to jump through and ADD TO the gospel message as accepted in orthodox Christian circles.
Marshall can provide NO verses or rational to support his position because no verses exist to support that one must be saved by grace through faith AND one must disapprove of gay marriage. That does not exist in the Bible or in logical thinking.
I truly think Marshall knows this and he's just so backed himself into a corner that he can't admit his error. Marshall, there's no shame at all in admitting you've made a mistake. It's actually a very liberating thing, it's why I do it so frequently. Admitting a mistake makes you a BETTER person, not a weaker one.
I don't think, Marshall, that you truly hold to the heretical position you've backed yourself into. If you'd like to let that baggage go, please do. Otherwise, provide your support or go away. You've said (and repeated ad nauseum) all you need to say on this topic.
"Because you can't show that one who claims to be a Christian can behave in any manner he so chooses regardless of God's clearly revealed Will. "
Never claimed to, liar. Only a defensive sinner who can't stand to have his own self reflected back upon him would so distort my meaning in such a blatantly false manner. (Showing MA for the unmitigated hypocrite he is never gets old, does it? Nor, for that matter, given the expanse of his hypocrisy, will it ever end.)
No where have you provided any evidence that one must agree with you on gay marriage in order to be saved.
None. Zilch. Zero. 0. Nada. Nothing. Zip.
Chapter and verse, liar. Put up or shut up.
"What's more, you've spent not one letter answering any of MY questions"
Uhh.. Well... I realize that math (and any other thinking) isn't your strong suit, liar, but the "Apostle's Creed" above contains 500 letters and punctuation marks (not counting spaces.) Oh wait, I forgot you can't actually read. Find a 4 year to read it to you, liar.
"A bit more for Alan, before I go back to ignoring him."
Heh. Awww, how sweet! An early Christmas present from MA! It's perfect! What better present than your absence? We should *all* be so lucky! But now I'm guessing everyone else is going to be jealous that they don't get such a thoughtful gift, MA. You should ignore everyone so they don't get jealous.
To quote those great philosophers of our time, Motley Crue, "Girl, don't go away mad. Girl, just go away."
"You simply lack the honesty and integrity to deal with them like a man."
Actually, liar, I also dealt with this one: "BTW, his quoting of Isaiah 1:13-15, which is about people who love the law more than the law of love is the height of irony...."
But again, there's your reading problem rearing its ugly head again, liar.
Marshall: "to pagan sexual rituals, that as I've suggested, might not have even existed."
Wow. You're suggesting some random self proclaimed pagan blogger named Tess Dawson on these here internets might be an authority on the Canaanites sexual rituals? Really, Marshall, couldn't you do better than that? Seriously.
I wanted to ignore Alan, but he insists on outright lies and distortions that he forces me to defend myself, lest the feeble minded, like Marty (I'll get to her) be led astray (or in her case, led further astray).
To begin, Alan plays a sad child's game with his response to my Isaiah offering. A look at the times of our comments shows that we were going at it within minutes of each other. I simply missed that he had slipped in his response, and he tries to gain points (hence the childish aspect) by ripping me for a comment I was making before I knew the response was posted. A common blogging scenario, but Alan, like Marty, leaves no opportunity to bash go to waste.
As to the Isaiah bit, Alan fails again, as the piece refers to Israel giving lip service while maintaining their sinfulness. God is saying that He doesn't care about their worship rituals, but would rather they kept His Will in their daily lives. This is akin to dismissing professions of faith whilst engaging in sinfulness. In short, these people all claimed to have faith and belief in God, worshiped Him with Sabbath observances, and to Him it was meaningless while they sinned. Thus, their works were not pleasing to Him and He said He would hide His eyes and not listen to their prayers.
But this is not to say that it is "about people who love the law more than the law of love", because it is not. It is that they were NOT loving the law at all and still claiming to be believers and faithful. Like you guys, they were believing on THEIR terms, not His. THAT is what is being taught here.
Here are more of Alan's lies and distortions, as well as a few problems with his "orthodoxy" as I find them (because he likes proofs):
"We insist that God blesses these unions and that the "behavior" you obsess about is not forbidden within the context of marriage."
This is false on many levels. One, and this is incredibly ironic (and thus suitable for this thread), is that it is I who is obsessed with the forbidden behavior. You're the one without Scriptural justification (without a total bastardization of clear intent of Scripture), yet I'm the one who's obsessed with the behavior. No, pumpkin. I'm obsessed with those like yourself so obsessed that you engage in eisegesic gymnastics to call this sin acceptable.
But you can't get to the union without understanding the dynamics of that union. The sex between a normal marriage of a man and woman is sinful outside of marriage, but not acceptable if they are siblings, or mother and son. Marriage isn't what makes the behavior "non-forbidden". It's marriage by God's terms. Nowhere does Scripture imply those terms include anything beyond the traditional definition of marriage. So God would not bless a union that is based on the sinful and forbidden sexual relationship. Nor does His prohibition allow for any context whatsoever.
"Because MA = God."
I'm totally flattered you insist on this, but it is not something I have ever suggested.
"MA still provides no evidence, no verses that support his position. His rambling nothing more than a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
We're up to at least five or six verses in this thread that I've offered to support my positions. They may not support the positions you falsely insist I've put forth, but then, I'm not bound to do so. Those I've offered solidly support my position on the importance of works as demonstrations of claims of faith, as well as that improper works belie such claims.
Moving on...
"What part of "I don't get to decide if someone else is saved (or not)" are you too stupid to understand?"
What part of "I never said anything about anyone having such authority to condemn or save anyone" don't YOU understand? Observing someone engaging in blatantly non-Christian behavior and a fearing for their soul is NOT claiming authority to judge in the manner you deceitfully insist I'm doing. Questioning someone's claim of Christian or their salvation because of their willful disregard of God's Will is a matter of logical conclusions. So, if you "don't get to decide", and you're NOT saying that you'd assure the worst person in the world of his salvation, then what? You do nothing? You say nothing? If you cared about "the least of these", a warning is a must. That requires tying works to salvation, lest his sinfulness go unchecked, causing harm to himself as well as others. You can't simply say, "Grace will cover it" and ignore the sinful behavior.
"Actually, MA "the least of these" isn't Dan being sanctimonious."
You're almost right. When Dan uses it, it is "psuedo"-sanctimonious. And yes, I know where the phrase originates. I also know what it means and how it is meaningless when said by someone who won't support outlawing abortion "rights". So I was being sarcastic in my use of the word "sanctimonious" in the quote you highlighted. But of course, you chose to see that as another opportunity to pretend I have no understanding of Scripture.
"And the constant complaining about comment moderation, which has been explained about a dozen times, I just have to ask, is there any limit to your stupidity?"
I covered the initial lie of this quote, but to the finishing question my response is that my stupidity starts and ends with dealing with you. I know you'll not engage in an honest and gracious manner, and I know that you're the very swine before whom I should no longer cast my pearls. But I'm just too stupid to believe you're beyond hope.
"All your pointless typing, MA, and you still can't provide chapter and verse that supports your position that whosoever believes in Jesus must agree with you on gay marriage in order to be saved."
Because agreeing with me has never been a condition I've put forth as required. Agreement with the clear, unvarnished, non-mysterious, blatantly understandable, unconfusably plain Will of God might be important.
"So, MA can only back up his stupid claims by blatant logical fallacies and just plain BS."
I've provided all sorts of arguments and evidences that show the solid logic of my positions and problems with yours. You only make accusations of "logical fallacies" and expect that to settle it. Maybe that works at home, child, but not in the real world.
AS if that wasn't enough...
"He asked a simple question, one that was (for him) rather reasonable. I respond. And, because it wasn't what he wanted to hear, he skips it and move on."
It wasn't that it wasn't what I wanted to hear. It was a response to something for which I didn't ask. This has been explained. Stating what you believe is not explaining what your belief looks like. Kitten.
"What, specifically about the apostle's creed do you disagree with, MA?"
Nothing. Why do you ask?
"It is your contention that someone with my beliefs cannot be a Christian."
To which beliefs do you refer? The ones where you think you can decide what is or isn't sinful?
"So, what specifically do you have a problem with?"
The part where you think you have the authority to decide what is or isn't sinful.
"And I don't want to read more of your lame and stupid opinions, cupcake, I want to hear Chapter and Verse, why you disagree that the Apostle's Creed is a reasonable summary of traditional, orthodox, historical Christian belief."
Another claim I've not even come close to making. The truth is not in you.
""Thou shalt not disagree with the Lord, MA, your God.""
If you're going to keep this up, I should expect ten percent of your earnings.
"So, MA decides (because he believes that he is God)..."
Liar.
"...that salvation is based on works alone because he can quote one verse taken out of context..."
Liar. I didn't even come close to hinting such a thing. AND the verse was not taken out of context, nor have you explained how you think it was. The truth is not in you.
"Which particular tenet do you think makes me not a Christian?"
The one that you think gives you authority to decide what is or isn't siful. The one that believes in a god that blesses a union based on what the God of the Bible condemns as sinful behavior.
"In other words, if you do the wrong works, you can't be saved."
Not in MY words. Mine have been saying, all along, that if you willfully engage in sinful behavior, totally disregarding God's clear and indisputable prohibition against it, then your faith is crap and a fraud and dead. Or words to that effect.
"You've just contradicted 2 of the 5 "Sola's":"
That's OK. I don't worship Calvin.
"
And there's certainly nothing at all that gives you license to question Dan's salvation, since (though you seem unable to get this through your thick skull) He's. Not. Gay."
why is he sad? Of course, liar, this is another claim I've never made. I've NEVER said Dan is a homosexual.
Gotta go. More later.
Actually, there won't be more later, as I'm pretty much through with Alan no matter how he deceitfully and ungraciously responds. There is one more thing I'll address now because of the intensely egregious level of unfortunate foul belief is expressed in the comment.
"Really what this is all about is that MA can't abide the fact that dirty queers and their "enablers" (I love this term, BTW, as if I have to be "enabled" to be the person God created me to be) might be given the same salvation he's received. In the end, he's just a stingy 3 year old who doesn't realize there's enough candy to go around."
First, that dirty queers might be given salvation.
We're all given it. We don't all accept it. As our actions dictate whether our claims of belief are true or not, we accept by repentence and living on His terms rather than our own. We might slip up and backslide, but outright rebellion by willful engagement of forbidden behaviors does not show our faith is real.
An enabler is anyone who gives any help to the enabled, whether the enabled feels the need for it or not. It is a condition of the enabler. It is the beaten wife who makes excuses for the husband. It is the loving mother who says her criminal son isn't really a bad kid. It is the heterosexual who supports the agenda of the homosexual.
The egregious part is this "being the person God created me to be" crap. This is he most childish attitude an adult can attempt to put forth as a real argument. I'm sure Adolph was only being the person God created him to be. Or John Wayne Gacy. God created us to be holy because HE is holy. Holy is dictated by His restrictions on behaviors, and the virtues Jesus taught. He did NOT create anyone to give into carnal desires that are in clear violation of His Law (given so that we know the difference between sinful behaviors and those that are not). We each have our own personal versions of these desires. YOU have devised loopholes in order to continue indulging in yours. May God have mercy on you.
On to Dan and Marty's comments tomorrow.
Everyone: End of comments here. Move on. Marshall is just repeating his ridiculous falsehoods and anything that Alan says is just egging him on. If there is a new point to make, make it. Otherwise, move on, there is no need to repeat what we've already repeated.
Marshall, you're stuck on a heretical point - that we must do something else besides accept God's gift of grace through faith in Jesus. That is an egregious and heretical mistake. I find it hard to believe that you actually believe it, but you just keep repeating it WITH NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE to support it.
No biblical evidence (or no apology) = No more comments.
Move on.
I've had all the irony I can manage on this post.
"You're suggesting some random self proclaimed pagan blogger named Tess Dawson on these here internets might be an authority on the Canaanites sexual rituals?"
No, Marty. But thanks for trying to pile on. I believe I even stated I wasn't putting forth the link as credible, though I haven't read the links provided within it, where, if you were honest and not merely trying to pile on like some geeky school girl, you might find some more authoritative discussion of the topic, even if it is still untrue in the end.
The point of it, was that it suggests that the lame argument that Scripture is speaking of homosexual practice as part of pagan ritual, which even some anti-homosex Christians speak of, is weak. It is made up. Scripture prohibits the behavior. Period. No qualifies whatsoever anywhere between the covers.
Dan,
Like Alan, you're a liar. I've provided several verses in support of my position that works is linked to faith. You've merely dismissed them without any serious argument to refute my interpretation. I don't blame you. You couldn't if you tried since the offereings do indeed support me.
What's more, you refuse to even acknowledge my question regarding beliefs that stray from Biblical teaching. If you recite the Apostle's Creed, but everything else you say contradicts clear Biblical teaching, are you worshiping the One True God or a false one? How badly astray can one be from Biblical truth and still be worshiping the One True God? If you can't see how this impacts one's salvation, then your talk of using reason to arrive at your non-Biblical conclusions is either a matter of cold, calculated dishonesty, or rank stupidity. Even if the latter, the question is relevant.
In the meantime, I've said nothing on the subject for which I need apologize because I haven't said anything that conflicts with Biblical teaching.
Here's the other side of the question: How bad can one's behavior be before his claim of being a Christian can be justly questioned? If you believe there is no limit to how badly one can act, then you can't claim to know what it takes to be a Christian since your silence is tacit approval of the nonChristian behavior.
If you don't understand these questions, say so and let me know where your confusion lies. I'd be more than happy to further enlighten you on basic truths.
Marshall...
you're a liar. I've provided several verses in support of my position that works is linked to faith. You've merely dismissed them without any serious argument to refute my interpretation.
The question is, "Where in the Bible do you find support for the notion that one must agree with Marshall (or, if you prefer, tradition) on gay marriage in order to be saved?"
You have not - CAN NOT - provide biblical support for that position.
You can call people names or stomp your feet or whine about it all you want, but YOU CAN NOT SUPPORT YOUR HERETICAL HUNCH BIBLICALLY.
If you could do so, you would have by now. You can't.
Move on. No more comments (other than "You're right, I'm sorry" or "You're wrong: HERE'S the verse...") will be accepted on this post.
Move on.
"The question is, "Where in the Bible do you find support for the notion that one must agree with Marshall (or, if you prefer, tradition) on gay marriage in order to be saved?""
You insist on trying to get me to defend something I haven't said or suggested. I don't blame you. It's easier than answering questions that force you to think. While I continue to stay on track, you guys continue to accuse me of statements I've never said. Where's the grace in such behavior? Why are you running from the chance to defend the faith you claim to have? My questions are pertinent. And you have all failed to demonstrate any heresy or poor understanding on my part. All you do is make the charge and say, "Saved by grace alone." OK. I get that (though it is not complete). So I move to how is that demonstrated in your actions? What does your faith look like? You deceitfully speak of hoops and having to agree with me, of all people. If there is no link between faith and works, then there is nothing one can do that will deny themselves salvation. Thus, there is no one who is not saved, there was no one who was not saved, and there will be no one who is not saved. Repenting is a work. Belief is a work. Putting one's faith in Jesus is a work. Rejecting God is a work. If works are meaningless to salvation, then there is no sin. There is nothing from which we need repent. Paul was full of crap to say that not all things are practical. Why not? It ain't about works, Paul. It's about grace. We are saved by grace alone and everybody gets some no matter what they choose to do in life, no matter how they choose to live.
That's funny. The half dozen tracts I've offered suggest something quite different and none of you have offered anything in the way of showing why they don't.
I have indeed supported the notion Biblically and have done so more efficiently and with no outside influences. There are fewer (if any) holes in the logic of my offerings than any (by a galactic margin) you've ever weakly attempted to offer for your blasphemous audacity in saying a sinful behavior isn't sinful. You all lack honor as well as truth and grace.
Oh, so you AGREE with us that it is a patently STUPID and WHOLLY UNBIBLICAL thing to say "in addition to normal salvation by grace, one must ALSO believe gay marriage is wrong in order to be saved..."?
So, good then, we agree. Those who'd advocate such are advocating a heretical point of view and are far afield from true Christianity to do so.
What is your point, then? That orthopraxis is important? None of us have ever said otherwise.
Do you have a point then worth making, or are we all in agreement?
"Oh, so you AGREE with us that it is a patently STUPID and..."
I'm saying I've never made the statement and you guys are liars for continually insisting that I have.
I'm saying that when one engages in behavior clearly forbidden in Scripture, or supports others in their engagement of said behavior, and/or states that that forbidden behavior is not forbidden in certain circumstances for which Scripture makes absolutely no allowances in any way, shape or form, then one is either worshiping a god of one's own making or clearly engaging in heresies, neither of which bodes well for one's salvation and that the above reflects an absolute hollowness of any claims of faith in the God of the Bible. I'm saying the above is distinctly different from knowing a behavior is sinful yet engaging in it as a result of one's own human imperfection and weakness, consequently suffering from remorse afterwards and a desire to refrain from further incidents with God's help for His sake.
I'm saying faith without works is dead as a doornail, empty and hollow, worthless, meaningless and impresses no one, not least of all, Him.
YOU, as well as your cohorts, are not saying any of this. You are trying to convince yourselves that you have found a loophole somewhere no conservative and honest person can find in Scripture, that allows sinful behavior in certain contexts not described in any way by Scripture itself, and writing it off as a legitimate, mature and worst of all, equal interpretation.
If you are ever so willing, I am more than ready to totally rehash the debate on this behavior from square one, as it remains rife with questions you, and those who have influenced you, have never answered. Ever.
For now, I wish to draw to readers' attention, the perfect irony of this warning:
"The question is, "Where in the Bible do you find support for the notion that one must agree with Marshall (or, if you prefer, tradition) on gay marriage in order to be saved?"
You have not - CAN NOT - provide biblical support for that position.
You can call people names or stomp your feet or whine about it all you want, but YOU CAN NOT SUPPORT YOUR HERETICAL HUNCH BIBLICALLY.
If you could do so, you would have by now. You can't.
Move on. No more comments (other than "You're right, I'm sorry" or "You're wrong: HERE'S the verse...") will be accepted on this post."
This post was provoked by Dan's "bannishment" from Neil's blog. After years of hearing the same old nonsense, Neil decided to prohibit Dan's comments from publication there. After posting on Dan's comments published at a blog listed on Neil's blogroll, Dan lamented his inability to respond, as if he would say anything more than he has over the years to the concerns Neil has regarding Dan's positions. Years of it. Hundreds of posts covering the same ground and getting nowhere (they wonder why I still try). Now, as we can see by the copied and pasted excerpt above, Dan intends to do as much, with the exception of having responded to my comments as directly as Neil has over the years to Dan's. Few, if any, of my concerns have been addressed here or elsewhere on this issue (as well as some others). Yet he is preparing to prohibit my continued quest for answers. Perfect irony.
Marshall...
I'm saying I've never made the statement and you guys are liars for continually insisting that I have.
I have not insisted you have. I've kept saying, "It sure sounds like you're saying..." Even here, when I put it straightforwardly...
so you AGREE with us that it is a patently STUPID and WHOLLY UNBIBLICAL thing to say "in addition to normal salvation by grace, one must ALSO believe gay marriage is wrong in order to be saved..."?
...You haven't answered directly. So, Marshall, if you aren't communicating in a way that we can understand, why not just give a direct answer to a direct question:
DO YOU AGREE THAT IT IS WRONG AND UNBIBLICAL AND NOT PART OF THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION TO SAY THAT IN ADDITION TO "NORMAL" SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS, ONE MUST ALSO AGREE THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS BAD?
Do you agree? Yes? No?
The easiest way to make your position clear is to give a clear answer.
Marshall...
You are trying to convince yourselves that you have found a loophole somewhere no conservative and honest person can find in Scripture, that allows sinful behavior in certain contexts not described in any way by Scripture itself, and writing it off as a legitimate, mature and worst of all, equal interpretation.
Would it really matter if I pointed out one more time that this is a lie from the depths of hades? That this is false witness and slander?
Or would it help to put it in your own idiom...
You are trying to convince yourself that you are not engaging in slander - which is clearly and straightforwardly NOT part of the Kingdom of God - that you are trying to find a loophole that will allow you to bear false witness with abandon that no conservative and honest person could find in scripture.
So, I guess you're not saved by grace, after all (using YOUR measure) since faith without works is dead as a doornail and you clearly reject clear biblical teaching in favor of your OWN interpretation to allow sinners a chance to engage in all the bearing of false witness they want? To celebrate it, even!
Your comment is false. A lie. Slander.
Objectively and demonstrably so. So, I guess you ain't saved, huh?
At least BY YOUR OWN MEASURE.
Marshall...
This post was provoked by Dan's "bannishment" from Neil's blog.
False, again. This post was provoked by SOME BLOGGERS who regularly ban and moderate and misrepresent others - who write false comments about others' positions and then refuse to allow them to defend themselves against the false allegations - about bloggers like that who THEN have the audacity to "warn" their friends about blogs where the blogger does EXACTLY what they have done, or at least that is the accusation.
That is the definition of irony.
Here, you have presented your case. You have "defended" yourself against comments made about you. And at this point, you are mostly just repeating the same things over and over and doing so boorishly and offensively, attacking commenters on my blog (despite my asking for you all to quit doing so).
Yes, they have attacked you - and I've asked them to quit, as well - but the difference is, they have attacked you BY THE SAME MEASURE and in the SAME WAY that you began the attacks. They are responding in kind, as an object lesson which you still don't get.
The thing is, I DON'T WANT a blog where childish name-calling and false representations of positions happen in the comments and so I HAVE INSISTED that they end. IF you have something new and fresh to say and to say in a respectful way, by all means, say it.
But there is no need for you to keep making your false charges over and over again. They were unsupported and false the first time you made them. They were cleared up and yet you still make them over and over.
Move on to NEW POINTS. The old false charges are stale and still false and still petty and still unproven/unsupported.
You aren't banned. You aren't moderated (except to keep out excessive childish name-calling - and you have not had as many comments removed as Alan has, for the record, EVEN THOUGH Alan's were just a mirrored reflection of your behavior and done as object lesson). You still have the ability to defend yourself, but I AM insisting that you do so respectfully.
There is no irony in my behavior, Marshall.
Move on.
"I have not insisted you have. I've kept saying, "It sure sounds like you're saying...""
First of all, I was speaking generally. Didn't feel the need to name specific individuals for specific statements, all of which are going the same place. Second of all, I respond to this crap every time it's put forth and yet it persists. By this time it is a blatant lie as I, unlike you, don't simply reject it by restating my position in the same words. I actually give an argument for what I mean. You don't and haven't as evidenced by the many unanswered questions.
"The easiest way to make your position clear is to give a clear answer."
I've done that in the most honest manner possible, but you insist on re-framing the situation. Homosexual marriage is only one aspect of the issue at hand, though it is an obvious example of it. The issue is the connection between works and faith. If there was none, there'd be no "Faith without works is dead" statement in Scripture. Nor would there be the other references I've provided.
As to the biased question, I do believe that you risk salvation preaching that which cannot be supported in Scripture. Saying you can support it requires doing so and you attempts do not answer all the questions those attempts provoke. Until you can, you can't expect anyone to take the excuse that you admit you might be "mistaken", when thousands of years of understanding together with those unanswered questions inform you plainly of your "mistake". The logical and rational conclusion is that you purposely ignore what has been plain for so long that there can be no mistake. The logical and rational conclusion is that you had to have outside influence to guide you to your sad and spiritually threatening position because Scripture itself offers no such guide itself and I await answers to those unanswered questions to prove those conclusions wrong.
So there is no lie or slander involved in my statement regarding what you try to tell yourselves. The conclusions are logical and rational based on YOUR words, as always.
Thus, this:
"You are trying to convince yourself that you are not engaging in slander - which is clearly and straightforwardly NOT part of the Kingdom of God - that you are trying to find a loophole that will allow you to bear false witness with abandon that no conservative and honest person could find in scripture."
Is a sadly childish attempt to accuse me of doing what you are doing since you cannot prove slander merely by saying I have slandered. You don't like what I'm saying, that's for sure. But calling it slander is a desperate attempt to avoid defending your weak position. I get that. What's more, my attempts to provoke a legitimate argument for your plainly unScriptural position(s) is a good work in line with Christian understanding. It demonstrates my faith and is a manifestation of it, not the counter-Christian hellish act you wish to label it. My intention is to edify and enlighten, to bring you back into the fold. (Alan, too.)
As to what provoked this post, it is all there in the first two paragraphs. Perhaps you don't understand the word "provoked". Other supposed incidents of your banishment might have grated, but it was Neil's that finally provoked you to post on the topic. Isn't that true?
Marshall, is it any wonder that we don't know what your position is when you won't answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer?
DO YOU AGREE THAT IT IS WRONG AND UNBIBLICAL AND NOT PART OF THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION TO SAY THAT IN ADDITION TO "NORMAL" SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS, ONE MUST ALSO AGREE THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS BAD?
Do you agree? Yes? No?
Given your evasive answer, it APPEARS that your answer is "No, 'normal' salvation by grace through faith in Jesus is NOT enough. You must also disagree with gay marriage."
IS THAT YOUR POSITION?
I only want one of three responses here, Marshall:
1. Yes, salvation by grace is enough.
2. No, you must also oppose gay marriage.
OR
3. "It's not a simple yes or no answer and here is why..." and explain why it's not yes/no in a very brief sentence/paragraph. 50 words or less.
One of those three options, Marshall. Naught else.
Naught else it is. I refuse to be forced to respond to a leading question (not so unlike "Have you stopped beating your wife?") that is not reflective of my position. What's more, this "50 words or less" crap is an insulting ploy and embarrassing for your own self.
Oh, what the hell! I doubt I can be contained to fifty words. Deal.
Yes. One cannot be saved by grace alone when one's beliefs so blatantly counter clearly revealed teachings on human sexual behavior (as well as other things). One teaches heresy when one presents such poorly constructed justifications for such corruption of those teachings. As these corruptions so clearly contradict the plainly and easily understood Will of God on the matter, it is laughable to put forth that it is the God of the Bible in Whom such a "believer" puts his faith. As this is indeed a clear corruption, it constitutes a clearly unChristian "work" that corrupts those who might be so equally willing to buy into such patent nonsense. It offends the Spirit to contend that wrong is right.
So NO. Salvation by grace alone as YOU and your cohorts try to preach it is indeed not enough. Do you see the distinction here, or are you going to pretend I'm preaching a different gospel than what the Holy Bible teaches?
Wow. I didn't think you'd really cop to holding heretical positions, Marshall...
One cannot be saved by grace alone when one's beliefs so blatantly counter clearly revealed teachings on human sexual behavior (as well as other things),
Grace alone is not enough. One must also hold the right position on gay marriage.
Salvation by perfect knowledge on certain (vaguely defined) subjects. That's a heretical position, at least for most orthodox evangelical Christians, Marshall.
Go ahead and ask some reputable conservative Christian teachers: Must one have perfect knowledge/the right position on certain subjects in order to be a Christian? The orthodox answer is, No.
We are NOT saved by our perfection, by our works, by our knowledge. If that were the case, we'd all be doomed.
At least that helps clarify why we (and maybe some of your comrades, too) butt heads as much as we do: You are holding to positions which are unorthodox and anti-Christian, Marshall.
Stan? Craig? Doug? Are you all still around? Surely you all don't agree with this sort of heresy, do you?
Dan, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they did.
Grace from whom, Dan? Some imaginary god that doesn't exist?
You support a clear heresy. There's nothing whatsoever that one can describe as "vague" regarding why men and women were created. There's nothing vague about it from either a purely biological reason nor a Scriptural. It's clear as day. Equally clear are the many descriptions of what are sexual behaviors displeasing to the God of the Bible. There's nothing vague about it.
What there is is a desire by you and others of like mind to suggest alternatives to what is clear so as to create space for that which Scripture clearly prohibits. By suggesting these possibilities, which cannot be inferred by anything within Scripture itself, you invent a god that is just different enough from the Real Deal in whom you have more difficulty worshiping. This alternative god provides no grace that saves because he doesn't exist.
The above is far different from someone who has a poor understanding of Scripture. Those who may have been led astray by beliefs of yours imparted to them, for example, may indeed believe in the Real God, but until they study on their own may believe as you do on this and other areas that are rank frauds rather than real teachings. They are saved by grace. Those who corrupt Scripture are not.
Fred Phelps believes that God "hates fags". I'm unaware of his beliefs about Scripture beyond this equally clear bastardization of Scripture. I can't recall anywhere in Scripture where it claims that God hates anyone, yet he believes it. As this is clearly contrary to Scripture, I can only fear he worships a god of his own making, just as you're doing by pretending your position on this issue (of marriage) is in any way possible.
So this now points us in any of three directions:
1) Rehashing the false teacher discussion.
2) Rehashing the homosexuality discussion.
3) Providing an answer to the standing question: "How far astray from Scriptural teaching can one be without eventually worshiping a false god?"
#3 is the question that deserves attention, because it is at the heart of my position here. Not being "mistaken" about something in Scripture. If our understanding of Scripture is wrong or corrupted (as yours is), then it affects our faith and our works that our faith should motivate.
more...
You go way out of your way to make wrong right on this issue. As with Phelps, you distort in favor of clearly defined sinfulness. Enabling, supporting and/or celebrating such behavior, or the unions based on that behavior puts you outside of Scriptural teaching. You cannot be so counter to Scripture and be worshiping the God Scripture reveals at the same time. Pretending Scripture is "vague" on the subject doesn't fool anyone, and certainly not Him.
It all goes back to the question. James talks about works saying in Chapter 2 verse 24, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." Your works, and what you believe about God and then express to others, which influences them, is an expression of your faith.
Saved by grace alone through faith in Christ. You believe things, or pretend to believe things, that cannot be linked to the Christ of the Bible, the God of the Bible.
What's heretical and unorthodox about anything I've said?
What's more, if I didn't express it plainly enough above, I've never said anything about perfect understanding of Scripture. I'm focusing on your perversion of Scripture which you masquerade as some sort of legitimate interpretation despite it's blatant contradiction of the clear and unmistakable. No hunch or caprice on my part. Just simple reading what is written. No mistake is possible by honest men. "Orthodoxy" is not a word that applies to what you regard as a true understanding of the faith. You say words, but they don't align with your actions or beliefs as you present them.
Marshall, we've been over all of this before.
Facts that you seem to be missing or are just outright distorting:
1. I/we do NOT "go out of our way to make right wrong" on this issue. That is a falsehood.
We disagree with you, sincerely and strongly based upon what the Bible does and doesn't say.
2. I/we do NOT "distort" scripture. That is a falsehood.
We disagree with you on what the Bible does and doesn't say.
3. We do not "pervert" scripture. That is a falsehood.
We disagree with your hunches on this topic.
4. We are NOT saved by having an inerrant understanding of all topics. We are not saved even by having an inerrant understanding on CERTAIN topics.
5. You have NO biblical support for saying, "Here is a list of topics/behaviors: On THESE behaviors, you can not be mistaken or God's grace does not cover you."
6. Having no such list, you are holding to an unbiblical, ANTI-biblical heresy to say that we are NOT saved by grace alone, but instead, by grace AND by thinking gay marriage is wrong.
7. You are ADDING to scripture something that isn't there. A big No No, according to Scripture.
8. You are throwing burdens upon believers' shoulders that God did not place there - one of the sins of the Pharisees.
9. It is NOT a "heresy" - as you claim - to disagree with another believer about gay marriage. That is a wild and unbiblical charge.
Those are the facts. You have nothing in your argument to support your claim that one must be saved by grace AND by being "right" (ie, agreeing with you) on gay marriage. That argument does not exist in Scripture. The evidence? You have not been able to produce A SINGLE VERSE to support that false claim.
I'll tell you what, though Marshall: I'll open this question in a new post to any conservative types. Let's see if you can find even some amongst your own camp who will agree with this heresy (unfortunately, you might find some - still, I hope that they would not all jump down that rat hole).
Post a Comment