Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Blessed


Love is always blessed
and in all ways
a blessing

May we support love
not criticize it
May we encourage love
not tear it down.

71 comments:

Marshall Art said...

May we recognize the difference between love and lust and never confuse the two, as do supporters of sexually immoral behaviors.

Dan Trabue said...

No one here is speaking of lust, Marshall. Perhaps that is your own dirty mind at work?

I'm speaking of love, supporting one another, doing good for one another, sharing one another's joys and sorrows, wanting the best for others. You know, love.

Lust never entered into this conversation, please keep your impure thoughts to yourself. Thanks.

Marshall Art said...

Not impure thoughts at all, Dan. Only the accurate observation of how people like you make the incredibly mistake, and do so routinely.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm talking about Love, Marshall. Respect, kindness, help, being there, tending to, nurturing, supporting, LOVING others. This is a good and noble thing, Marshall. May we support that, whatever your hunches about other people's sex lives may be.

LOVE is a good and blessed thing. Do you actually disagree?

Dan Trabue said...

I rather doubt you do. Rather, it's that you have a hunch about what isn't loving in your opinion. That's fine, if you don't think two men marrying isn't love, don't do it. But give other adults the respect and the grace to make that call for themselves. That is loving and that is what ought to be supported because THAT is always a blessing and blessed.

Marshall Art said...

See, there you go, suggesting that two men marrying is an act of love. It isn't, clearly, because real love between two righteous men does not result in the two of them living as man and wife...and yes, despite being two men (or two women) they are intending to live as would a husband and wife. Sinful behavior is never love no matter how bright a face you put on it. As such, what you are calling "love" is merely lust and not blessed.

Dan Trabue said...

It is an act of love. Whether or not you recognize it is sort of the point of the post: Let us SUPPORT LOVE. You don't have to think it is love, you don't have to understand it, but in the name of God who IS love, let us support love, let us support grace.

Whether you understand it or not.

At the very least, stop fighting love and if you can't say something loving, remain quiet.

You are not a god to tell everyone else what is and isn't love, Marshall. Stop fighting it.

Dan Trabue said...

"By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

St John.

Learn from St John. Learn from St Paul...

We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'

Stop kicking against the goads, Marshall. Embrace love, embrace grace.

Dan Trabue said...

Or, to address your claim another way, where you say...

See, there you go, suggesting that two men marrying is an act of love

I ask: Says who? On what basis would you make such a crazy-sounding claim? Obviously, two people - gay, lesbian, straight - who commit to one another, to share their lives, joys and sorrows together, are engaged in a lifetime act of love. Who gives you the right to decide for some people what love is? Do you not see how arrogant that is? How irrational?

We do.

Dan Trabue said...

It's why you've (collectively) lost this argument, by and large, at the societal level. Your argument is from a place of irrationality, emotionality and arrogance, not much to make people want to agree with your crazy-sounding claims.

Marshall Art said...

"You are not a god to tell everyone else what is and isn't love, Marshall."

Well, that's the great thing about being one who puts my faith and trust in God and His Word as so clearly revealed in Scripture, Dan. I don't have to be a god. I just study the Bible wherein love is described in good detail. In it, it says...

"Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth."

But you do indeed delight in and celebrate evil while abjectly and eagerly rejecting the truth. That which is called "abomination" can surely be described as also being evil, and because those you know who participate in such evil do so in a "committed" relationship, you celebrate that evil and dishonestly refer to it as "love". This clearly contradicts what the Bible describes as love.

At the same time, you reject the truth and lie about what the truth is as Scripture clearly states that certain sexual behaviors are prohibited. But, since your friends are in "committed" relationships, you rationalize the behavior and seek out loopholes (which really aren't there) to legitimize the sinful behaviors, thereby lying about what is or isn't truth as regards the issue.

"...you don't have to understand it..."

You assume that I don't. The fact is I understand it quite well...well enough to see through the cheap rationalizations you parrot in order to defend the perpetration of sexual immorality.

"At the very least, stop fighting love and if you can't say something loving, remain quiet."

Here again you reject the truth, which is that my defense of truth is an act of love...the type of love that really matters. I love enough to be rejected by those for whom the truth is inconvenient. You don't love enough to risk the friendship with those who live sinful lives. You not only confuse love with lust, you confuse it with popularity.

"By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

This does not include enabling people in their sin, as you do by pretending their "commitment" to each other justifies their carnal desires for each other. I'm committed to the loving friendship I have for all those I've befriended. I do not love them if I overlook their blatant sinfulness and pretend it's OK because their "nice" about it. That wouldn't be love for them at all. That's fear that they'll rebel against God's Word and reject me in the process. But it's how you roll.

"This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands." --1 John 4:2-3

"Stop kicking against the goads, Marshall."

Do you even know what that means? It means useless resistance. I do not resist God's clearly revealed teachings. I merely struggle with obeying fully. YOU, however, are definitely kicking against those clearly revealed teachings meant to guide you to living a holy life. But you love the world too much for that, and you fear the rejection of those who love it as well.
emotionality and arrogance

Marshall Art said...

Deleted my own comments. Maybe I'll re-do it later.

Marshall Art said...

So anyway....

"Who gives you the right to decide for some people what love is?"

Are you actually saying I need permission to speak the truth? That it requires some Constitutionally enumerated right to rebut some self-serving, dishonest drivel? I don't think so. I don't believe it is Christian to stand by and NOT correct blatant falsehood, nor is it the least bit loving to allow one's fellow man to be corrupted by said blatant falsehood.

Arrogant is to presume one knows better than God regarding what love is...that one can define love in a manner that enables behavior God clearly prohibits regardless of the context in which it occurs, or regardless of how those who engage in said behavior claim to feel about one another.

There is nothing "irrational" about speaking the truth. YOU are being irrational in defending lies and sexual immorality. YOU are being arrogant in your presumption of superior knowledge and authority over God and His clearly revealed Word in Scripture.

"It's why you've (collectively) lost this argument, by and large, at the societal level."

We haven't "lost" anything. One cannot lose when there is no one willing to oppose, and you and yours have not honorably engaged in debate on this issue at any point. All you've done is ignore the truth of our arguments (indeed...ignoring the arguments altogether) and pretend you've put forth truth of your own. Yet you don't defend your "truth" against obvious flaws and defects pointed out by those who defend actual truth.

If there is anyone who has lost, it is those who live in a culture where your lies have taken hold in law. Worse, those who truly have lost are those who believe they have "won" by legal enabling of their dysfunction and immorality. YOU personally lost long ago when you first pretended to have found your loopholes that allow for the sexual immorality you now so fervently defend. You are truly an example of one given over to your sin. Crazy-sounding claims? God's Word is "crazy-sounding claims" to you? That's because the Truth is Hate to those who Hate the Truth. And that's you in a nutshell.

Dan Trabue said...

Are you actually saying I need permission to speak the truth?

Absolutely not. You are welcome to your opinion, as I always note. What I object to is mere mortals conflating their opinions - especially those that are anti-love (anti-Christ, after all) - with either facts or God's Word. State your opinion all you want. Just be clear that you're offering your own opinion and you do not speak for any gods but the ones you've created.

And yes, you've lost the intellectual and moral debate about the morality of marriage. You all are widely and increasingly seen as the immoral ones and the irrational ones and why? Because you look at two loving people engaging in obvious loving lifestyles and call that love "evil..."

You are coming across as anti-Christ and that is ugly as hell (naturally enough) and it looks silly at best and mean-spirited and hateful and irrational at worst and, well, for those reasons, you've lost the debate on this point.

Sorry, lick your wounds and move on. Perhaps even humble yourselves a bit and see what you might have to learn about making an argument successfully.

Dan Trabue said...

What I object to ARE mere mortals..., etc.

Marshall Art said...

"You are welcome to your opinion"

I didn't offer opinion, Dan. Clearly, I offered only truth. I am well aware of the distinction between the two. It is you who prefers to call truth "opinion" when you find truth inconvenient. Said another way, you lie. And that truth I presented can be neither "anti-love" nor "anti-Christ" given how it flows directly from the teachings of Christ. An example of "anti-love/anti-Christ" is endorsing, celebrating and tolerating that which is in direct conflict with Biblical teaching. That's what YOU do, and you do it well.

...you do not speak for any gods but the ones you've created."

There are two ways to look at this "speak for God" crap you puke out every time you're confronted with Biblical truths you find inconvenient:

1. Christians are encouraged, if not mandated, to "spread the Word", so to speak. Thus, it is a Christian duty to "speak for God", as there truly is no other way to evangelize.

2. What I present as truth or fact is that which is directly supported by Scripture, as I am easily able to cite passages and verse that say exactly what I am presenting. That is to say, I don't so much "speak for God" if by that you mean that I'm saying something He hasn't already said or that Scripture does not already teach it. No. That's what YOU do, as with your ludicrous pro-homosexual heresies. What I do is to merely repeat what any honest and sincere seeker of God's Will can clearly read for himself without confusion or ambiguity.

"And yes, you've lost the intellectual and moral debate about the morality of marriage."

To lose means one has an opponent against which one competes or does battle. Your side doesn't engage. Far from it. You lie, obfuscate, equivocate and misrepresent. But you don't engage as honest and moral people. This isn't hard to understand for our side given that all the truly intellectual and moral aspects of this debate is found in arguments defending real marriage and opposing the sexual immorality you favor. This is evident in the negative consequences sexual immorality has wrought upon our culture.

Marshall Art said...

"You all are widely and increasingly seen as the immoral ones and the irrational ones and why?"

Because the truly immoral and irrational ones, that would be YOUR side of the issue, desperately need to demonize those of us who defend truth and the Will of God as regards marriage and human sexuality. In short, you're liars. Case in point:

"...you look at two loving people engaging in obvious loving lifestyles and call that love "evil...""

An abject and purposeful lie. We look at lustful people engaging in an obviously sinful lifestyle that IS evil according to the clearly revealed teachings of God in Scripture. More deceit:

"You are coming across as anti-Christ and that is ugly as hell"

The truth comes across as ugly as hell only to those who find the truth inconvenient. That would be you and those you defend.

"...it looks silly at best and mean-spirited and hateful and irrational at worst..."

Only to those mean-spirited, hateful and irrational people who engage in and defend sexual immorality. It looks like preaching God's truth to everyone else.

"Sorry, lick your wounds and move on."

I'm not wounded at all. But the culture is, as is clear by the suffering and death brought about by the worship of the flesh by sexually immoral people. And you enable it and champion it. Shame on you.

"Perhaps even humble yourselves a bit and see what you might have to learn about making an argument successfully."

Clearly you don't understand the meaning of the word "humility". There is none manifest in one so arrogant as to dare insist he knows better than God what constitutes sexual immorality. That would be you. Shame on you.

As to the argument, it isn't so much that our side failed to compose an effective argument. As stated, and so often delivered at this very blog as well as elsewhere, the arguments defending real marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman, not closely related, currently married to another and of legal age are sound, a reflection of God's will regarding human sexuality and "intellectual" in every way. The real problem is more a matter of having lead the horse to water but failing to get the horse to drink. We can't stop stupid people who think with their crotches to use their actual brains instead. That's on them. That's on you. You all are given over to your sin and consequently, you are in rebellion against God. Good luck with that.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, it is YOUR OPINION that what you say is "truth" is truth. It is not a fact. You can not demonstrate it, you hold it in your mind, based on your faith, as a truth, but that is, factually speaking, an opinion.

I hold other opinions about what is true.

You remain welcome to your opinion, I disagree.

If you think your hunches are equal to facts, well, you are just mistaken. If you are not able to tell the difference, you may be delusional, or at least, just confused.

Now, if you're just going to turn around and say, "nu-uh! It IS fact. It is it is it is!!!" save your breath, you've already expressed your opinion and repeating it over and over won't change that it's your opinion.

Marshall Art said...

But again and as always, I can support my "opinion" that what I say is truth actually is by repeating what is clearly revealed in Scripture. Thus, I indeed have, over and over and over, demonstrated the truth of what I say.

YOU, on the other hand, simply deny what is proven to be true and asset without evidence that which clearly conflicts with it. Thus, it is YOU who is perpetrating the "Nuh-uh" argument in the face of what is blatantly obvious and true. Any time you want to start all over from the beginning, I'm game.

Dan Trabue said...

You are delusional. Sorry. Get help.

Marshall Art said...

What an incredibly cogent, insightful and game-winning comment that demonstrates fully what "embracing grace" is supposed to look like!!

That you ignore how your previous comment demonstrates what a liar you are does not surprise. NEVER, EVER have I done no more than to merely insist that what I say is true is true merely because I insist it is. I have never defaulted to an insipid response such as "nu-uh! It IS fact. It is it is it is!!!". THAT is your latest lie and one you tell often due to your own lack of support for your position. Shame on you for both your deceitful nature as well as your devotion to immorality.

Any time you're ready to provide actual support for your position and/or evidence that mine is in error, I continue to stand ready to receive, review and respond to it.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, you are conflating your unprovable opinions with facts and with God's Word. You do not appear to be able to distinguish between fact and opinion. That is delusional. There is nothing hateful in pointing out that reality.

IF you could distinguish, "This is MY opinion: that the Bible is clear on these points... I'm not saying it is a demonstrable fact. My opinion is capable of being wrong and these ARE my opinions so it is possible that I'm mistaken, but I don't think so..." then you would not be demonstrating a delusional mindset. But if you can't acknowledge that reality, what am I supposed to do with your responses?

How would you deal with someone who was not able to distinguish fact from opinion?

Marshall Art said...

And there you go again. Where do you see a conflict between fact and opinion in my comments/positions? The hate is in the false accusation. It remains false until you can cite an example and demonstrate/explain why it is a fact after all. Until then, you're just making false accusations...bearing false witness...against someone who has provided Scriptural support for the positions taken.

In the meantime, know that I am in no way required to submit any position as opinion just to please your narrow rules. I am NOT mistaken in my position until such time as someone like you proves I am.

Put another way, it is only YOUR opinion that the facts of Scripture I repeat are only opinion. As such, I'm still struggling with how to deal with someone (YOU!!!) who is not able to distinguish his opinion about my facts is not itself a fact.

I can play this game all day if you haven't the cahones to actually support your allegations about the facts I present.

Dan Trabue said...

Where do you see a conflict between fact and opinion in my comments/positions?

It is your opinion that a married couple that happens to be gay or lesbian is not acting in love. It is an opinion, not a fact.

Do you understand the difference? Can you agree with this reality?

Marshall Art said...

I don't deny that they they are acting in love, nor do I deny that you affirm that blatantly false position. But the reality is that they are acting from a lustful compulsion, just as you might be by getting jiggy with your best friend's wife. Sure, you and she would say the same thing the homosexuals/lesbians would, but it isn't love at all. Love doesn't lead to sinfulness, which both your adultery and homosexual unions are according to Scripture. The FACT is that Scripture deals with the acts, not the contexts in which they take place, not the "feelings" the people claim to have for one another.

What is "opinion" here is YOUR insistence that because Scripture doesn't mention "loving, monogamous" unions of homosexuals then, by golly, it can't be speaking of them when it prohibits homosexual behavior. You have nothing to back up your position except for your arrogant assertions. You are not only in error, but willfully and knowingly so.

Dan Trabue said...

The fact is, Marshall, your opinion about those ideas remain YOUR OPINIONS and not facts.

Do you understand that?

Do you understand that if you say 1,000,000,000 times that "I REALLY REALLY REALLYREALLYREALLLLLY believe that the Bible teaches us this idea..." it remains your opinion? If you believe it so much you wet your pants and get a headache, it still is your opinion.

Do you understand that? If not, then you are not able to separate reality from opinion, at least on this point. That is delusional, at least on this point.

Marshall Art said...

What would you have me do when you say "that's your opinion" and it isn't?

God prohibits homosexual behavior because HE said it is an abomination. In other words, because it is an abomination, it is forbidden. The prohibition regards the act of homosexual behavior. There is absolutely NO reference to any context or scenario in which it might take place. There is no reference to the feelings of the participants to each other. This is fact, not opinion. It stands regardless of my opinion of it, or whether or not I believe it is true. I state, as well as support, only that which Scripture says, not whatever I want to believe about it.

So you can stomp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue and crap your pants and you still can't take what Scripture clearly states and force it to be merely my opinion. No matter how badly you need it to be my opinion, it will remain the fact it is until God clearly changes His Mind in a manner we can easily observe.

The only way you can prove that I am wrong about this is to suspend your childish "nuh uh" argument strategy and present a Biblically supported case to the contrary. You can't do it, but that's what it would take to correct what I know to be true if in fact it isn't actually true...which it most clearly is, your morally bankrupt protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

When I can read clearly a prohibition and find no mitigating verses to question the clear implications of the clearly stated prohibition, I could only be delusional if I did not accept those implications...which you do in favor of your world approved and Scripturally baseless alternative. Thus, it is YOU who is delusional on this issue to maintain what is not honest enough to qualify as an opinion (it is abject rebellion), by seeing what exists nowhere in Scripture to come to the conclusion on which your "opinion" rests.

So, based on the teachings of Scripture, I am right and you are wrong:

Homosexual behavior is always wrong.
Love does not exist where sinful behavior is the result.
You delight in evil and are tormented by the truth.

Dan Trabue said...

As always, you are welcome to your wild-ass hunches, no matter how crazy or immoral or downright evil they may sound to me. You are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Marshall Art said...

Except that I don't offer "MY" facts at all. I simply restate facts, and have even done so word-for-word from Scripture. That they might sound "crazy or immoral or downright evil" to YOU only demonstrates how you are a true manifestation of the concept of "truth sounding like hate to those who hate the truth". Indeed, you're the poster boy for that concept.

The following are more accurate examples of "wild-as hunches":

---Because God does not speak of any context in which homosexuality might take place, that which takes place in "loving, committed, monogamous" unions are OK by Him.
---Such unions can be called "marriages" despite no Scriptural evidence that anything other than one man/one woman unions could possibly qualify for the term.
---A union based on the indulgence in immoral sexual behavior indicates true love.

These and other nonsensical and insupportable beliefs of yours are really not so much "wild-ass hunches" as they are willful rejection of reality and outright rebellion against God and His clearly revealed Will as presented in Scripture.

You clearly do not know what a fact is.

Dan Trabue said...

fact: a thing that is indisputably the case.

Yes, I know what a fact is.

I don't give a damn how you interpret the Bible, Marshall. I don't care if you think the various passages of the Bible communicate that you are Pope of Australia. It remains your opinion, not a thing that indisputably the case.

You remain delusional. So, short of some hard data - and NOT just you repeating endlessly, "I think the Bible says... I think the Bible says..." - this conversation is over.

Marshall Art said...

After reviewing the definition of "interpret" at various dictionary sites, I don't see how merely stating word for word what Scripture says falls under that definition. YOU, however, are RE-interpreting what those words mean based on nothing that Scripture offers toward enabling an honest effort to do so. Thus, I don't even NEED to say, "I think the Bible says..." ANYTHING, when all I've ever done is repeat word for word what it says. In doing so, there is no hidden meaning that I need to extricate from those words. They are plain, they are clear, they are unambiguous and they do NOT support your position on matters of either human sexuality OR love. You force meaning into Scripture to make it mean what you need it to mean. You cannot provide any Scripture, or outside commentaries by noted theologians, that can make it work for you. So, you denigrate those who have no trouble understanding the clear meaning of plainly stated teachings.

No surprise you choose to end the discussion. I would, too, if I had no way to support my position.

Dan Trabue said...

Because, Marshall, merely stating the Bible word for word gives us, "I, God, want you to go in and kill all of that city, including the babies..." but that does not stand as a rule (you would certainly agree)... you interpret it to say

1. This is a holy text
2. There IS a God that inspired this text
3. There are some rules in that text that are universal
4. This is not one of those universal rules, it is time and place specific

And so on. These are ALL interpretations that you do on this text and every other one. It is a FACT that the words are there, but what meaning we assign to them is factually a matter of human opinion.

Do you understand that?

Marshall Art said...

Try again, only this time, use something that is actually relevant. No one but a false christian would suggest that a record of God commanding His chosen people to destroy anyone could be mistaken for a command to those of us today. You embarrass yourself by daring to run that nonsense. So again, no interpretation is necessary for such passages. They, too, are unambiguous and obvious. To interpret implies one must extract meaning. No such effort is required here. WE don't assign meaning to words that are invented to convey meaning by their purposeful arrangement in sentences. Complex legal documents may have to be interpreted. "Thou shalt not" does not.

Dan Trabue said...

So again, no interpretation is necessary for such passages.

Interpretation is needed for ALL written text. We - none of us - read all texts as if they were literal wooden commands/facts. We interpret, we gauge text and context and genre, we separate fact from fiction, imagery from literality. We all interpret everything we read.

the Bible is no exception.

Thus, you read Genesis 1 and INTERPRET "Is this a literal history meant to be taken woodenly literally? Is it a generally factual history, but not the 6 day creation part? Is it metaphor? Is it myth?" etc.

You read Jesus command to sell your belongings and give it to the poor and INTERPRET, "What is this saying to me? Is this a literal command from a God that I follow and thus, I too, should sell my belongings and give it to the poor? Is it a general guideline, but not a literal command? Are Jesus' teachings literal rules to follow?" etc.

You INTERPRET everything you read, Marshall.

When you look at what YOU THINK is "obvious" and decide, "Well, 'obviously' it means THIS..." you are interpreting the text.

Do you understand that?

A simple, Yes or No, please.

Dan Trabue said...

Or put another way: We DO assign meanings to words when we read and interpret. That is what reading is, for rational adults. That is literally what reading is, do you understand that?

Marshall Art said...

Not much time at present except to say that interpretation and reading comprehension are not synonymous, regardless of how badly you need it to be. I absolutely do not need to "interpret" everything I read, particularly if the one writing what I read has written with clarity. Scripture is quite clear 90% of the time with regards when it is relating to us standards of behavior. And again, I do not need to assign meanings to words I read. I know the meanings of almost every word I read. What's YOUR problem? Part of it is you do not have the honesty to acknowledge the intended meanings of sentences based on the words used to compose them, and insert meaning the words themselves cannot convey. This is how you arrive at your positions. Citing passages where interpretation might be required does not mitigate the fact that not all passages require deep thought (or for you what passes for deep thought).

Dan Trabue said...

You do not "need" to assign meanings to what you read, and yet you do.

Do you still not see that?

And I am not saying that "all passages" require deep thought... despite the fact that you seem to miss so much that seems so obvious and straightforward. I'm saying it requires interpretation.

Just as a point of fact.

You done, then?

Marshall Art said...

I'll be done when you stop making unsubstantiated comments. Where have I ever assigned meaning to any words? It's idiotic in a mental deficiency way. I don't even need to "assign" meanings to words that already have meanings I clearly understand. When I come upon a word I don't know, I look it up to find what the meaning of the word is. Where does this "assigning meaning" crap come from, aside for leftists and homosexual activist/enablers who distort (what YOU refer to as "assign meaning") the actual definition of words?

Moving on, you have yet to demonstrate that I have ever failed to comprehend anything in Scripture, that I "miss so much that seems so obvious and straightforward". You must be referring to those many times that I have corrected your wicked eisegesis. THAT'S a point of fact you lack the honesty and integrity to admit.

And as to being "done", I would very much enjoy being done with this sniping back and forth in favor of actually addressing the issue of your poor understanding of what constitutes "love". Find a spine and let's get to it.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, you look at the Bible and assign some presumptions:

1. That the Bible was "inspired" by God; (although the Bible makes no such claim, nor is there any hard data to support the claim conclusively)
2. That the Bible, being God-inspired, is "inerrant" or "infallible"; (even though the Bible makes no such claim, nor is there any hard data to support the claim)
3. That OT stories should be taken as a relatively literal history; (although the Bible makes no such demands, nor has God, nor does reason dictate it, nor is there any hard data to demand it)

...among others. These presumptions lead you to assign meaning to (for instance, and probably) "in the Beginning, God created the heavens and earth" that data does not support. These presumptions lead you to assign meaning to other texts that you think (in your opinion) is "obvious" (like your presumptions you make about any texts about marriage or sexuality) that the text does not demand to be a fact, nor does data support.

My comments are substantiated by reality, Marshall. You are delusional because you are not demonstrating an ability to separate out your opinions about what these texts mean from fact.

You hold OPINIONS, Marshall - personal, fallible, human opinions - about how best to interpret these texts. And you are welcome to your OPINIONS, but you really need to learn that these opinions are not facts, not demonstrably known in the real world.

My comments are substantiated by reality, Marshall. Will you embrace and acknowledge reality?

Marshall Art said...

1. I don't know of any other way one can "interpret" 2 Timothy 3:16 except to say that it is explaining that Scripture is inspired by God. Thus, it stands as a clear and firm example of the Bible "making a claim" of such. What's more, if "God-breathed" isn't synonymous with "inspired by God", what it your wild fantasies could be a better alternative explanation? Perhaps you have a conservative theologian who can provide it (no "progressive" Christian is trustworthy).

2. Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, it is thus inerrant and infallible. Though you insist it must make such a claim, it does not have to simply to satisfy someone like you. As the concept refers to God's will and mandates for us, how can it be otherwise? If it is NOT inerrant or infallible, where does it go wrong in your less than humble opinion? Provide something concrete to back it up.

3. Once again, there is no need for the Bible to state that it is literal history for it to be so. And yes, there is archaeological data to support what it says. No doubt not enough to satisfy one who needs it to say what you need it to say (there never is for such as yourself), but such hard data exists in good supply as it is.

"These presumptions lead you to assign meaning to (for instance, and probably) "in the Beginning, God created the heavens and earth" that data does not support."

There is no "hard data" that confirms and alternative explanation for the origin of all things, nor any that proves the Biblical explanation as false. Regarding what you refer to as my "presumptions" regarding the Biblical position on marriage and human sexuality, Scripture is quite clear in providing me with that which is the basis for my position. It is clear and unambiguous. It simply does not rely on the simplistic and exact wording your childish demands require. Honest and mature people have no problem with inferring what Scripture teaches on these issues.

"My comments are substantiated by reality, Marshall."

Not that you've ever demonstrated, and certainly not in this thread.


"You are delusional because you are not demonstrating an ability to separate out your opinions about what these texts mean from fact."


Not that you've ever demonstrated, and certainly not in this thread. That would require providing an alternate "interpretation" and something to back up why anyone should buy into it. I use Scripture. What do you use?

"You hold OPINIONS, Marshall - personal, fallible, human opinions - about how best to interpret these texts."

The verses, passages and texts always in dispute between us do not require "interpretation" as they are all quite clear, plain and unambiguous. Yet never do you provide any logical reason why they should not be understood as they are written. You simply assert that I am "presuming" or some such crap, while I await without satisfaction your enlightenment.

You should never speak of how the world regards anything, but restrict your OPINION about my understanding of the clearly stated Scripture to only your dislike of the truths I simply restate.

"My comments are substantiated by reality, Marshall."

Not that you've ever demonstrated, and certainly not in this thread. I constantly and consistently embrace and acknowledge the reality of what Scripture teaches. Until you can prove that I am wrong, then I am not. It's that simple. It is not "opinion" until you can show that it is not fact. You haven't yet. You never will be able to do so as it is indeed the reality and as such the reality that you refuse to embrace in favor of your devotion to that of the world.

Dan Trabue said...

Not that you've ever demonstrated, and certainly not in this thread.

Last time, then. Allow me... You claim:

I don't know of any other way one can "interpret" 2 Timothy 3:16 except to say that it is explaining that Scripture is inspired by God. Thus, it stands as a clear and firm example of the Bible "making a claim" of such.

Here are other ways one can interpret 2 Tim 3...

1. The Bible is not actually inspired by God, these are the writings of humans who were offering their best understandings of an actual God and they got it more or less right.

2. "scripture" is "inspired" by God, but "scripture" does not equate to the Bible. Scripture could be considered:

A. Only the OT
B. Only the Pentateuch
C. All holy, sacred texts, not limited to the 66 books of the Bible
D. The books of the Catholic Bible, too, including the Apocrypha
E. All words breathed/spoke/written by humans that tell of God's Way of Love
F. Specifically the literal words of God and nothing else
G. Others...

3. There is no god, therefore, "scripture" (however defined) is not "inspired" by "god," these are the writings of humans, inspired emotionally to try to tell truth the best they knew and they reached some reasonable truths and some unreasonable truths.

For just eight examples of other ways to interpret it. There are, no doubt, other ways one could interpret that passage. And here's the important part: They ALL would be human opinions, not facts. We do not have an objective way to establish that one or the other is a fact or not. The non-believer and rationalist would make a case (not a bad one, either) that, having no objective data to demonstrate one or other of these opinions as fact, that we have to assume that they are ALL unprovable and non-facts until such time that their factuality is established. That is, the burden is on believers to establish their opinions as facts if they want them accepted as facts and until such time as they do, then it is NOT an established fact, just as a point of fact.

On this point, again, I'm just pointing to established facts. If you have some data to establish your hunches as facts, by all means, present that data. But merely asserting, "I am understanding this text aright and no other possible interpretation or presumptions are acceptable" is not establishing your hunches as a fact, it is only establishing you as obstinate/arrogant at best and delusional at worst.

Dan Trabue said...

Carrying on, you claim (with no support at all)...

Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, it is thus inerrant and infallible.

Says who? On what basis? What if God inspired a text that was fallible? Are you saying your god is not capable of doing that... that your god is limited? Or who is to say and on what authority that speaking of a collection of texts in a variety of genres and styles and time periods, that "inerrant" and "infallible" are helpful constructs to understanding it? Again, the TEXT says what it says. You do not disagree that Jesus, etc said to love your enemies and overcome evil with good and all that, the text literally says that. But what is the MEANING of that text? Well, for some of us, it is "obvious" that Jesus was a pacifist, but for others, it isn't obvious at all. The text requires interpretation. Thus, the human interpretation is either correct or incorrect, but the text itself is not "infallible," or "inerrant" nor does it claim to be. I'm not saying the text is not inerrant, I'm making the rational statement that the claim is irrational and meaningless on the face of it exactly because it has to be interpreted by fallible humans.

Are you understanding the reality and logic of the case I'm making, Marshall? Because I don't think you are getting it or understanding my actual points. Can you repeat back to me my actual point I'm making correctly?

If not, then on what basis do you think you have the ability to repeat back the point biblical authors were making?

Consider that.

Dan Trabue said...

For instance, is Twain's "Huck Finn" infallible? If so, why? If not, why not?

I mean, it fully successfully and without error (I guess) conveys the story Twain was trying to convey... in what sense is it either fallible or infallible? Errant or inerrant?

How about a basic math textbook - one that was short and meticulously written and edited so there are no errors in it... is it not inerrant? If not, why not?

I just don't think that "inerrant" or "infallible" are words that make any sense applied to a text, since that text will always have to be interpreted and our interpretations are not inerrant or infallible.

Consider, I am preparing to write a wholly inerrant and infallible sentence:

"When adding like items together - whether it is one apple and another apple, or one orange and another orange, or one red chair and another green chair, one plus another one always equals two. So, one apple and another apple, added together, always equals two apples. The same is true - must be true! - whether one is speaking of apples or oranges or chairs."

Isn't it true that this sentence is inerrant and infallible?

If so, in what sense is the bible unique?

Or, if you want to say (even though it makes no such claim) that "the Bible" is "inerrant" when it comes to matters of morality or faith, what does that mean? I mean, the text is there and says what it says about loving enemies and overcoming evil, so then, does that mean that WE cab not err when it comes to rightly interpreting the text? No, I'm sure you don't mean that, since clearly, you think I err. So, what does it mean, then?

I'm telling you that the terms "inerrant" and "infallible" are meaningless in the real world as it applies to the Bible. It's gobbledygook and nonsense. But by all means, explain how it is meaningfully "inerrant" and what that means to you.

Marshall Art said...

"Here are other ways one can interpret 2 Tim 3..."

1. Not in any way an interpretation of the verse at all. Thus, it is irrelevant.

2. Not in any way an interpretation of the verse at all. Thus, it is irrelevant.

3. Not in any way an interpretation of the verse at all. Thus, it is irrelevant.

"There are, no doubt, other ways one could interpret that passage."

There's now far more doubt than ever given the fact that you did nothing to provide an actual interpretation of what 2 Timothy 3:16 says. What you have done is provide opinions regarding whether or not Scripture IS the word of God, not whether or not the Bible regards itself as inspired by Him. Two very different and unrelated issues. You haven't merely raised or changed the goal posts. You've moved to an entirely different game. Try to focus. That focus should be on the fact that you haven't established anything with regards how I "interpret" 2 Timothy 3:16, or that the Bible states that it is inspired by God.

Furthermore, there is a ton of archaeological evidence that lends credence to the notion that the Bible can be believed as both a historical record AND the inspired Word of God.

Marshall Art said...

"Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, it is thus inerrant and infallible."

Says who? On what basis?"


Says Scripture itself. It says of God, in so many places, that He knows all. Thus, how could anything He inspires be "errant" or "fallible"?

"What if God inspired a text that was fallible?"

Really? That's the path you're taking now? That God would purposely inspire a fallible text? How would that work, exactly? Talk about desperate!!

You would judge the whether or not the Bible is inerrant or infallible on the basis of human interpretations? What does bad interpretation have to do with the inerrant and infallible nature of Scripture? That's like saying Christianity is a false religion because some who claim to be Christians are assholes. It's idiotic.

"Are you understanding the reality and logic of the case I'm making, Marshall?"

I understand that you have a real problem with recognizing either. I'm supposed to validate your illogical and unrealistic arguments in order to be logical and realistic myself??? Really??? How convenient for you!! Not gonna happen. You haven't demonstrated either. And as far as repeating your positions back to you, I've been doing that for years and you've never been honest enough to acknowledge it. Why would doing so now be any different? Dealing with someone so keen to engage in eisegesis does not implicate me in poor interpretation. You're self-serving and inane corruption of Scripture does not mitigate the accuracy of my "interpretations". Judging me by your own admitted fallibility is itself an incredibly illogical and unrealistic practice.

More later...

Dan Trabue said...

Save it, Marshall. You do not recognize the reality that not everyone accepts your human preconceptions and biases as a valid starting place to interpret.

The fact is your hunches about your interpretations remain nothing but your hunches, certainly not an established fact.

But I'll give you one last chance: Prove your facts. Just one of them. Prove, for instance, that God intended Genesis to be taken as a literal history. First, of course, you'll need to prove that a god exists, that this god is similar to the god you imagine and then, you can proceed that this god of yours wants everyone to take Genesis as literal history.

When you provide hard data to support those facts, we can move on. If you can't provide that hard data (and you can't), then you can admit it's not an established fact and that you are operating out of some preconceived human presumptions to establish a starting place to interpret and make your guesses as to what the text means.

Hard data or move on. Easy enough.

Marshall Art said...

Wasn't actually finished responding to your comments completely (can't wait to address the laughable Huck Finn bit---you're a hoot!), but seeing this most recent one in my email compels me to attack that first idiotic paragraph:

"You do not recognize the reality that not everyone accepts your human preconceptions and biases as a valid starting place to interpret."

I most certainly and absolutely DO accept that. How could I not given your existence??!! You alone prove the point, but that point was never at issue. The issue is that you have yet to establish that there is anything wrong with what I infer from the clearly stated teachings over which we disagree. You offer no alternative that you've ever backed up with Scripture. Instead, you now attempt to pretend that it matters in the least that some might not believe in God at all and thus, somehow via dots you never connect, that means my position is mere opinion. Sorry pal. It doesn't work that way.

I'll get to your most recent silly challenge when I have more time and after I've finished responding to your previous comments I've not yet had time to address.

Dan Trabue said...

No more responses, Marshall, until you prove God wants us to take Genesis as literal history. Hard data, not hunches or opinions.

Dan Trabue said...

And that isn't a threat to delete or anything. That's giving you a chance to settle this once and for all. Instead of you keep saying "yuh-huh, I AM telling you facts" and me pointing out, "Um, no..." over and over, just support your facts with data. That will end the back and forth.

And, when you can't support it with hard data (and you can't), then be rational enough to acknowledge it and man enough to admit it.

Marshall Art said...

Boy. Talk about avoiding the issue!!! My initial objection is to your nonsensical and self-serving position on love, and after providing Scriptural support for my (and the TRUE) perspective on the issue, you now have danced so far away to demand I prove something entirely unrelated to the topic!!!! I've been deleted by you for just such an infraction. Of course this is due to your failure to respond to the Scriptural support for ANOTHER unrelated demand (Scripture inspired by God).

So I tried to get you the proof you demand, but God isn't answering His phone right now. Do you have any alternative idiotic expectations to deflect your obligation to support your position? Or are you simply going to continue with your baseless assertions? I need to know before I continue (which will likely be a few days from now due to time concerns)?

Dan Trabue said...

By all means, Marshall, pick the claim of your choice. Prove that there is a god that is something like the god you imagine and that this god does not want gay folk to marry, if that's the "fact" you want to support with actual data.

The point is, you can't demonstrate Genesis is factually meant to be taken as literal history. And you can't demonstrate that there is a god similar to your imagined god that is opposed to gay folk marrying. You can not factually provide hard data for any of your fevered opinions and the reason for that is that they are mere human opinions, not demonstrable facts. And, as I have been saying, you are welcome to your own opinions, just not your own facts.

Now, given that you can not provide any hard data for ANY of your hunches we've been speaking of, will you have the intellectual integrity and basic decency to admit that?

Craig said...

"No more responses, Marshall, until you prove God wants us to take Genesis as literal history. Hard data, not hunches or opinions."

Interesting. When I told you that I wouldn't allow you any more comments until you hade answered numerous unanswered questions, you got all pissy and blamed me for not answering your questions. Now, you expect MA to do something that you clearly would not. I'm shocked, just shocked. Who would ever have remotely thought that you would be inconsistent. Demanding that others hold to a standard you refuse to hold yourself to.

Dan Trabue said...

I very specifically didn't say that Marshall wasn't allowed. I asked him to answer the question because I was asking him and because it would resolve and clarify. Do you think it is rational for him to say, "I do know that this is a fact because the Bible says so..." and me to respond, "no, Marshall, that's an opinion..." and him to say, "Nu uh! I DO know!" and me to respond, "No, Marshall, that's an opinion, not a fact..." and keep doing that?

Marshall is claiming to be able to speak authoritatively on a topic, I'm simply asking him to do something more than assert his "facts" are facts, I'm asking him to provide the hard data. Something which obviously he can't do and hopefully, his inability to do so will kick off something in his head and he'll recognize, "Oh, it's an unprovable opinion, not a known fact," as I've been saying all along.

Do you think this is unreasonable?

And I've factually answered your questions, by and large, Craig. Directly, clearly, factually. That you can't see those answers does not mean they don't exist.

So, there is no comparison. At all.

I stand ready to answer questions and admit when I can't answer with more than an opinion. You all do not appear ready to do the same.

But any time you think you have a question that I have not answered, by all means, ask it again. I can answer it again. Answering questions directly is a good thing, I say.

You?

Marshall Art said...

An incredibly false representation of the back and forth between us, Dan. This is easily seen in a review of this very thread. If you want to argue anything about my position, why not stick to the topic rather than bring up something wholly unrelated to it? I have indeed supported my position by citing Scripture in rebutting your self-serving and nonsensical notion of love being "blessed". When you cannot even fathom the true and Christian concept of love, you are hardly in a position to argue that "all love" is blessed. THAT is the issue here, not anything about Genesis.

But hey, if you need to divert from that which you cannot defend....

Dan Trabue said...

"Citing scripture" and then offering your opinion of its meaning IS offering your opinion. There is nothing false about it.

Marshall, if you have ANY hard data to support ANY of your opinions we've talked about, please present them now.

If you do not, please be mature enough to say so.

If you have hard data to support your hunch that two gay folk loving and marrying one another, for instance, are not blessed, please present it.

You won't because you can't. I'm just asking you to admit to reality.

There is nothing false there, Marshall.

Marshall Art said...

I find it sad and pathetic that you lack any shred of honesty and integrity. You regard any opposing position from yours as "opinion" without providing any substantive alternative or reason why a given opposing position is only "opinion" and not factual. In short, it is opinion because you say it is, not because you have proven it to be so, nor have you provided a more logical, rational or fact-based alternative. That makes things pretty easy for you to disregard opposing positions in favor of your preferred fantasies that provide for you all the room you need to believe that which is so blatantly counter to Christian teaching. How convenient.

I've provided all sorts of "hard data", beginning with actual passages and verses that substantiate my position. Indeed, I've done so every time I've countered your ludicrous world worshiping nonsense. What's more, I'm more than mature enough to say so.

So, if you have "hard data" to support your wish that a union of two homosexuals engaged with each other as would a husband and wife would ever, could ever be blessed by God, please present it.

In the meantime, I'll stand by the following:

* 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
* 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
* 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
* 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

As God has described homosexual behavior as an abomination, without any reference to any context in which it might take place, we can then note that such behavior can also be regarded as evil and that as 1 Corinthians 13:6 notes: Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, such as the truths just listed above.

So now you need to admit to the reality I've just presented, beginning with the reality that I've just now provided "hard data" from Scripture directly dealing with the issue at hand. You won't because YOU are false, just as is your crap about my having stated opinion about what is absolute fact from Scripture. Go ahead. Point out the opinion and do so with "hard data" that refutes what I've presented. I dare you.

Dan Trabue said...

You regard any opposing position from yours as "opinion" without providing any substantive alternative or reason why a given opposing position is only "opinion" and not factual. In short, it is opinion because you say it is

It is opinion because there is no hard data to support your hunch. What about that is dishonest? What about that is mistaken?

Again, and for the final time: IF you have hard data to support your wild-ass and immoral-sounding hunches, provide them.

If you have no hard data, admit it.

But don't get all pissy because YOU are unable to support your hunches with data. Be a man, fella.

Given your response, though ("now you need to admit to the reality I've just presented, beginning with the reality that I've just now provided "hard data" from Scripture directly dealing with the issue at hand."), I still just don't think you understand what data is, or what reality is, or what logic is. Just because YOU PERSONALLY hold opinions about the meaning of an ancient text, does not make it a fact.

Do you understand this?

At this point, I think you just simply don't understand.

Good luck with that, I don't know what to do with that level of confusion.

Dan Trabue said...

In the meantime, I'll stand by the following:

* 100% of the verses addressing marriage between gay folk never ONE TIME condemn it.
* 100% of the verses referencing Jesus and marriage between gay folk, he not one time condemns it.
* 100% of the verses referencing polygamy never condemn it
* 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to polygamy in a bad or negative/condemning way.
* 0% of the verses dealing with nuclear bombs support using them to kill children, the way you do (with your support for actions like Hiroshima
* 100% of the verses in the Bible dealing with slavery accept it as a morally acceptable thing
* 0% of the verses of the Bible support the hair-brained and rationally self-defeating theory of Sola Scriptura
* 0% of the verses of the Bible support the notion that we must take Genesis as literal history

I could go on, but hopefully, you get the point. Random cherry pickings of ancient texts do not equate with fact or "God's Word..."

That is, the fact that polygamy or slavery are never ever ever not one time ever EVER condemned in the Bible does not mean that these are good, moral actions. The fact that polygamy and slavery is practiced by biblical heroes does not mean that they are good, moral behaviors.

The Bible is not a rule book and you don't treat it that way when it's a behavior you are okay with. The problem is, when it comes to picking on a behavior that you hold a rather whimsical and baseless bias against, if you can find a verse that hints at support for your hunch, you're fine with citing it. But that does not make it a fact.

It just doesn't. As a point of fact.

Marshall Art said...

"It is opinion because there is no hard data to support your hunch. What about that is dishonest? What about that is mistaken?"

That I've just provided hard data that I have not been dealing in mere opinion, or blatant eisegesis so typical of you. YOU, on the other hand deal in lies and distortion, as well as blatant idiocy. Let's review:

100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.

This is neither cherry-picking nor opinion. It is a fact, and one easily rebutted with evidence to the contrary. It thus stands as hard data. So go ahead. Provide just one verse that renders the statement false.

100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

Again, provide just one verse that renders this false. You cannot because no such verse exists. Tales of polygamy do not satisfy due to the fact that none stand as God's ideal in the least, nor can you make it so.

100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).

I know of no Biblical reference to same-sex parenting in Scripture. Do you? No, you don't. Another fact and thus more hard data.

0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

You must have tons of verses that render this statement as false. What? You don't? Thus it must be more hard data.

Marshall Art said...

Now for your lies, distortions and idiocy:

100% of the verses addressing marriage between gay folk never ONE TIME condemn it.

Submit just one verse addressing marriage between homosexuals. Just ONE, and this won't stand as rank idiocy and deceit. In my list, there ARE verses dealing with both marriage and family.

100% of the verses referencing Jesus and marriage between gay folk, he not one time condemns it.

Again, no such verse exist, so your statement is idiotic and deceitful. But Jesus, who is God, DID mention the behavior in which homosexual "spouses" engage and clearly and unequivocally declared it an abomination, and He did so without regard to any context in which it might take place. Didn't He? Yes. He did.

I could go on, but you would only ignore the truth of the point. You've got nothing in the way of "hard data" to support your immoral and unChristian position, and you have less that rebuts mine or exposes it as "mere opinion".

I do NOT engage in cherry-picking or searching out that which supports a personal preference as you do. You're projecting and attempting to justify your own bad behavior (the distortion of Scripture).

Dan Trabue said...

Of course, no such verses exist, Marshall. That's the point. This is not a rule book for modern living we are speaking about. There are no rules offered for how 21st century saints should live with regards to marriage, or driving cars, or smoking cigarettes or waging nuclear war or other topics. You can't just lift a verse and say, "Because it seems like (to me) that this might suggest (to me) a rule that would be good (or so it seems to me) for us today" and expect people to take it as a fact or as God's Word.

So, seeing as how you are entirely incapable of providing any hard data to support your wild ass and immoral hunches, I will dismiss them as wild-ass and immoral.

Dan Trabue said...

provide just one verse that renders this false. You cannot because no such verse exists.

I don't need to. YOU are the one saying that God has factually offered a rule about gay guys marrying. The burden is on you to support the claim.

You can't. Thus, you are either a liar when you say you're speaking for God or you're just that deluded. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not deliberately lying, but that leaves us with a severely deluded man.

Good luck, Marshall. I hope that your complete inability to support your claims will help to open your eyes to your delusion.

Marshall Art said...

"Of course, no such verses exist, Marshall. That's the point."

So, you're point is really that you're willing to make shit up and then argue against said shit. Is that what passes for "reason" in your fantasy world?

What's more, to think that there is anything different about human nature today compared to human nature at the time Mosaic law was handed down from God is even worse. There is no difference. Nothing mankind has discovered has altered that. "Rules" for behavior, that which pleases or displeases God has not changed, nor is it possible that you have any evidence to dare even hint at the contrary.

I have never merely "lifted a verse" to suppose something not actually supported by Biblical evidence. I do far better in putting together all that speaks in any way upon a subject to come to the only conclusion to which honest people truly concerned about God's will could possibly arrive. In other words, I do what you only claim to do with regards to understanding God's will as revealed in Scripture. And when I find that which is inconvenient for me personally, I don't then resort to "reason" or science to carve out loopholes through which I can force my personal preferences. I alter my preferences to align with God's will as clearly revealed in Scripture.

And I certainly don't, and wouldn't, ignore "hard data", such as I have just provided, and pretend that such data does not exist, hasn't been brought forth and isn't clear. So to say that I am "entirely incapable of providing any hard data" is a conscious and malicious lie. I've just done so:

ALL verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms. This is an absolute fact that you cannot rebut or about which you cannot provide the merest shadow of a doubt. There's no "hunch" involved here.

Dan Trabue said...

"Rules" for behavior, that which pleases or displeases God has not changed, nor is it possible that you have any evidence to dare even hint at the contrary.

Prove your hunch. Hard data please.

But I don't think you really believe this at all. For instance, God (according to you) was willing to put up with polygamy back then. Never once is it condemned and many heroes of the faith engage in polygamy, including David who was "given" his "many wives" by God, according to your theory.

But does that mean that you think polygamy is acceptable and a moral option (or at least not a sin) today? Or do you think it is wrong? You probably believe it to be a great moral sin, but it certainly was not in ancient times. What changed? The culture? God?

Or how about killing the babies of our enemies? You believe God commanded it sometimes, so the act is not, in and of itself, immoral, or at least back then. I think that's what you would say. But presumably you would agree with all sane people and say that it is a GREAT moral atrocity to do it today, even in "God's name..." What changed? God? Culture?

I don't think you think this yourself.

But by all means, prove your hunches with hard data.

In the meantime, if your hunches sound wildly evil to me, I will continue to ignore them and treat them as evil.

Sorry. I can do naught else.

Marshall Art said...

"Prove your hunch. Hard data please."

Your dishonesty knows no bounds. Hard data includes Scripture itself and the many thousands of copies of the original manuscripts and teachings that have remained unchanged. Along with that, there is no record of God every altering His Will for us...EVER. So again, if YOU have "hard data" that even hints that anything of God's Will has changed, softened or otherwise allows you to perpetuate the lies you hold so dear, by all means, I'm ready, willing and eager to see it. I'll wait here.

"For instance, God (according to you) was willing to put up with polygamy..."

Again you lie. Not "according to me", but according to Scripture, which you ignore to pretend He regarded it as an ideal for us to follow. In your cowardly way, you insist there must be clear language of which YOU approve to substantiate the position with which I agree, rather than man up and either submit to scholarly interpretations or provide "hard data" that renders it questionable.

As far as David, we've dealt with this before without you offering anything akin to a reasonable alternative. God gave David EVERYTHING that was Saul's, including his wives. But there is no hint that David indulged himself. The classic response to you is with a nod to the times: what was to become of those wives of Saul if David did not support them? I suppose you would expect God to let them starve rather than to bring them under David's care and protection. What's more, while God gave David Saul's wives. There is nothing that states David took them as his own wives.

That God tolerated some less than acceptable behaviors, such as divorce, does not in any way mean that those behaviors then became moral. That's idiotic, but typical of the desperation of one like yourself to deny reality.

Your continued references to God commanding the killing of babies in wartime also confirms your dishonesty. His commands do make make the acts He commanded moral for us to do on our own. There is no command to kill babies in wartime, but only commands specific to a specific people in a specific time for a specific purpose of His. Thus, in the following battle after such a command was given, if God did not also command it for the following battle, it would have been immoral for the Israelites to seek out babies of the enemies to kill them.

There is nothing that God could command that would render the action a "moral atrocity" if it furthered His own ends. It is a moral atrocity if we do it on our own without His direct command. God's Will and His commands are never immoral, never an atrocity. Abraham wouldn't have disobeyed. David wouldn't. No Biblical character considered righteous after having obeyed the strangest of commands of God would have. But Dan Trabue knows better than all those people. Dan Trabue dictates to God what is moral.

You cannot prove any of my positions are evil. But obviously truth is evil to you if it counters your pro-immorality positions. You are of the world and unwilling as well as incapable of justifying your worldliness. You simply crap on those who defend truth and dismiss "hard data" that doesn't work for you, without ever presenting "hard data" of your own to defend your immoral and unChristian positions. Typical.

Dan Trabue said...

I repeat: Hard data, please. Your pointing to an ancient text and YOUR SPECIFIC HUNCHES about it do not qualify as hard data.

At this point, Marshall, it appears quite clear you have no hard data, you have your hunches that carry all the weight of swamp gas and stomach vapors. Which is fine, you're welcome to your swamp gas. Just don't expect us to accept your gas as sweet-smelling facts.

Marshall Art said...

From what other source can you name bring us understanding and knowledge regarding God's will for us, if not Scripture? As we have been discussing that which is clearly addressed in Scripture, where else must I go to find and produce what passes in your fantasy world as "hard data"?

The "ancient text" I reference is our only source for such knowledge regarding God's will for us and our behavior. I reference that text with the (very possibly unwise) assumption that you are a believer in God and a follower of His Only Begotten Son. I make that assumption based on your own insistence that you are such a believer and follower. Now I find (actually, now you confirm what was always quite clear) that you do not follow Scripture at all and all claims of serious and prayerful study are worthless if denying Scripture's teachings on human behavior are not "hard" enough "data" to support my position and expose your own as crap.

Perhaps, then, what is required here is a clear and unambiguous explanation of what you mean by "hard data" necessary to argue for or against a behavior and its morality and/or relation to Christian living. You might want to provide such in supporting your unChristian position regarding human sexuality. In what way, without that apparently worthless "ancient text", can you prove or support the notions you prefer to believe are correct? Go ahead and release your methane. I'll do my best to suspend reality.

Marshall Art said...

Have you turned off the comments on this thread?

Dan Trabue said...

No, Marshall. I have told you in the past, after some time (2 weeks?), comments need to be approved. I have to do that to keep spam from appearing on old posts. After the time has passed, I have to personally approve of each message. I've been gone on vacation and now that I'm back, I've published these. (but not the one that said "Test," because there was no need).

Dan Trabue said...

Here's what I asked... I repeat: Hard data, please. Your pointing to an ancient text and YOUR SPECIFIC HUNCHES about it do not qualify as hard data.

Here's what you said in response (and in lieu of hard data or admitting you have none)...

From what other source can you name bring us understanding and knowledge regarding God's will for us, if not Scripture?

It is my opinion that, as the Bible says, we can learn about God and God's will from holy texts, from creation, from God's Spirit, from God's law written upon our heart, from our God-given reason, even from an ass. There are many ways we might form opinions about God and gain understanding about God, even according to the Bible.

Do you understand this?

Carrying on then: If you are asking/suggesting, "Don't we have ONE WAY of knowing about God and that way is 'the Bible...'?" No, we have zero reason to presume we have only one way or one primary way of knowing about God.

God has not told us this. Reason does not insist upon it. There is no hard data at all to support such a theory (and certainly not to support a belligerent demand). The Bible does not tell us this. Just as a point of fact.

Do you understand this?

Further, while we may learn about God's ways/will (in my opinion) in many ways (including but not limited to the Bible), we have no hard data to support any hunches/conclusions/interpretations we may form about God based upon any of these sources. Just as a point of fact.

So, again I ask you: Provide hard data or admit none exists.

Dan Trabue said...

[hint: the latter - no hard data exists - is the right answer.