Friday, November 6, 2015

Some questions for Marshall





Frequent commenter here, "Marshall Art" said recently, at another blog, that people like me are mistaken in how we portray Marshall (et al). He said....

I am "speaking for God" by restating the exact words that appear in Scripture, as if I made it up myself and merely claimed it is what God says, means or thinks. There's simply no need to do so when Scripture states things so clearly.

Nor is it "opinion" when having re-typed the words of Scripture, or even copy/pasted it from an on-line site that presents multiple Biblical version (KJV, NIV, ESV, etc.)

Now I'm told I am "assigning meaning" to words whose meanings are well known and easily verified by a look at any dictionary.


Just a few very simple clarifying questions, Marshall.

I. First of all, in spite of our disagreements, I am assuming the best of you, that you are a good and decent man, trying to do the right thing. I am assuming that  you would not intentionally misrepresent those who disagree with you.

Am I correct in my assumptions about your good will and honorable intent?

II. Proceeding on, then, I would posit that you do not believe what you just said. I would posit that you, like me, would agree that we need to and do interpret Scripture all the time. It's what reading is, for rational adults.

So, for instance, no one is disputing that Genesis 1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." and all the rest of the text that sits in the book of Genesis in its various translations. The text says literally what it says. That's just a fact.

Do you recognize that we all agree with that fact?

III. From that point, then, we all use our reason - taking into consideration the source, the text and context, the apparent writing style, the time period, etc - to sort out, for instance, the genre involved. You (or others, if not you) look at the text and reason out that "this literal text that sits there waiting to be read is written in a style that is a literal history.

Others, also using their reason and taking into consideration all the same things, reach the conclusion, "this is NOT a literal history... it reads more like a mythic or figurative genre, given what we know of the text and given the data at hand..."

That is simply another observable fact: That both/all "sides" look at the text and use our reason to decide on the figurative or literal nature of the text, on the genre, on the meaning - if any - of the text involved.

Do you recognize that we all use our reason to sort out those sorts of conclusions?

IV. When you say, "I am "speaking for God" by restating the exact words that appear in Scripture, as if I made it up myself " do you recognize that we are, as a point of fact, NOT saying that when you quote Genesis 1 or any other passage, that we are claiming by that quote in and of itself, that you are speaking for God?

No, we do not say that when you say, "Genesis 1 says.. X" That is a demonstrable fact. Why would we? Clearly the text says what it says. No, we say that when you go from what the text literally says to what the text means. Thus, when you say Gen 1 says what it says and then proceed to say, "Therefore, it is a literal history..." THAT is when we say you are presuming to speak for God?

I know you've been busy lately, but hopefully, you'll find the time to answer these questions so that we can clarify your mistaken impression.

33 comments:

Marshall Art said...

"I. First of all, in spite of our disagreements, I am assuming the best of you, that you are a good and decent man, trying to do the right thing. I am assuming that you would not intentionally misrepresent those who disagree with you."

I don't misrepresent you. Never have. If you are unable to adequately express yourself so that the conclusions drawn by others from your own words do not offend you, that's not my problem. It doesn't qualify as misrepresentation. Thus, it is a given that my intentions are always honorable. I don't see a profit in bullshit.

"II. Proceeding on, then, I would posit that you do not believe what you just said."

Of course I do, or I would not have said it. There's nothing in the quotes of my words that you've presented that are untrue.

"I would posit that you, like me, would agree that we need to and do interpret Scripture all the time."

What you "posit" is that you disagree with what Scripture teaches on various topics and thus, you default to crap about interpretation. When you can provide evidence that contradicts my Scripture-based positions with which you find disagreeable, then you might be able to support allegations that I have improperly interpreted clear and unambiguous Scriptural teaching.

"The text says literally what it says. That's just a fact.

Do you recognize that we all agree with that fact?"


If you mean that sentences actually exist in Scripture, I don't recall ever disputing that point. The dispute is whether or not meaning is clear, or whether meaning you prefer is possible.

"III. From that point, then, we all use our reason - taking into consideration the source, the text and context, the apparent writing style, the time period, etc - to sort out, for instance, the genre involved."

You don't do this. You only say you do. When problems with your self-serving "interpretations" are called into question, when evidence from Scripture is brought to bear refuting your preferred alternate reality, you whine about opinions and hunches. I don't deal in opinions or hunches without clearly stating that I am doing so.

Marshall Art said...

"Others, also using their reason and taking into consideration all the same things, reach the conclusion, "this is NOT a literal history... it reads more like a mythic or figurative genre, given what we know of the text and given the data at hand...""

First of all, I've never ever seen ANYONE other than you run this "mythic genre" crap, and you've never provided anything other than unsupported opinion regarding the text and what for you passes as data (not that I recall you ever offering solid and sound data ever).

"Do you recognize that we all use our reason to sort out those sorts of conclusions?"

Not in your case. I've yet to see anything akin to reason backing any position you hold on Scripture. I HAVE seen equivocation, wishful thinking, and outright distortion to rationalize what you call conclusions about Scriptural teaching on issues in dispute.

Marshall Art said...

"No, we say that when you go from what the text literally says to what the text means. Thus, when you say Gen 1 says what it says and then proceed to say, "Therefore, it is a literal history..." THAT is when we say you are presuming to speak for God?"

Then my suspicions that you're an idiot are true. Saying any part of Scripture is history, literal or not, has nothing to do with even seeming to speak for God. Perhaps you find a better example that isn't so...stupid.

What's more, you have not, despite your claims to the contrary, offered anything more than ONE reference to someone who you suppose justifies your ignoring of OT teachings regarding human sexuality. His OPINION that Scripture is NOT a literal history requires that one equates all ancient writings as reliable in their truth claims. I don't care that stories of Zeus or Apollo are myth. It doesn't mean anything about Scripture is myth. What's more, it doesn't stand as PROOF, or even evidence, as regards the veracity and reliability of Scripture as historical record. In short, there's NOTHING, nothing whatsoever that provides us legitimate reason to believe that the Bible is not an accurate recording of actual events. THAT is fact, regardless of one's position on whether God created all in six days, or that Satan spoke through a serpent or that God flooded the earth. YOU "posit" that because other ancient texts might be myth, then Bible MUST be myth as well, regardless of your alleged belief in the existence of only one God...that because men made up crap about Hercules, then men made up false stories about God.

I don't "speak for God". I speak of what God has actually said. I take all that He has said to come to conclusions about that which He has not directly addressed...such as homosexual "marriages". So on the contrary, it is YOU who speaks for God to presume He would bless such unions when there is nothing you can provide that indicates it is even remotely possible. Nothing I say is that which cannot be supported by clear and unambiguous teachings of Scripture. If I thought I could prove with references to verses or passages from Scripture that we shouldn't wear white after Labor Day, I would and could say that God doesn't want us to wear white after Labor Day. But as I can't imagine making such a case, I would be speaking for God to make such a statement. Otherwise I am not speaking for Him, but stating what He has said. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you can grasp this not so difficult distinction. I can't give you the benefit of the doubt that you possess the honesty to admit the distinction exists.

AS such, my position cannot agree to what you'd like to believe about how we reason out Scripture. I don't believe you use reason to learn the truth of Scripture, but to justify and rationalize what you'd prefer Scripture said.

Put another way, I can agree that we both don't like all of what Scripture says or teaches. But I'm willing to accept it and align my beliefs and behaviors accordingly. You aren't. You clearly aren't.

Speaking for God, indeed.

Dan Trabue said...

aying any part of Scripture is history, literal or not, has nothing to do with even seeming to speak for God.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. That was my short hand way of saying that IF you are saying "This text must be considered literal history, it's how God intends for me to be taken..." then you are speaking for God. Is that what you are saying?

When you say things like "I don't speak for God. I speak of what God has actually said..." it sounds like you're not separating out YOUR INTERPRETATIONS from the reality of what God has or hasn't said. Please, tell me you understand the difference and we'll both be starting from a place of understanding and reality.

Unfortunately, I just don't think you are starting from that place.

Marshall Art said...

"I'm sorry if I wasn't clear."

You rarely are based on how routinely you complain of being misrepresented. Here's a tip: Skip the shorthand and be as clear as possible from the start.

And here's where you blur the position of others once again: I don't recall equating Scripture with God's word, as if God penned the 66 books Himself. I speak specifically of what God wants as revealed to us in Scripture. If you cannot see the distinction, let me know.

When I say things like "I don't speak for God. I speak of what God has actually said...", it would be best if you took MY words literally that suggesting it sounds like something the actual words I use cannot imply. Again, there's no need to interpret the message of a STOP sign. What is revealed to us in Scripture is rarely any more difficult to understand than that. Thus, when I speak of what God has actually said, I'm actually typing out the actual words as presented in whatever Bible I'm using to make a point, be it the NIV, KJV or whatever. There's no mystery message to decipher from those actual words. You insistence that I'm "interpreting" is a ploy. You want to have liberty to have the clearly written words mean what you need them to say to justify your unChristian positions. Thus, you claim I'm "interpreting" the words differently. This is untrue. I'm simply not bullshitting about what the words mean in the arrangement in which they appear in whatever passage I cite.

What YOU need to understand is that I am fully aware of this game you play and am unwilling to participate. If you believe there is a meaning apart from what the words clearly relate, then 86 the whiny "interpretation" dance and simply provide your argument with "hard data" of your own. "I don't buy it" is a cop out. "That's your hunch" is a cop out. What's more, without a counter argument supported in the manner you demand of me, your rejection is a blatant lie. You "nyuh uh" defense is tiresome.

That's the place from which I start. What do the words say, and why would I believe the meaning is different than what the words clearly imply.

Dan Trabue said...

But, Marshall, it quite literally IS your hunch, not a proven fact. That IS the point. As a matter of fact, your hunches about what God wants us to believe about Genesis or about homosexuality or about bombing cities, these are ALL YOUR HUNCHES.

It's not a cop out, it is a demonstrable fact.

Do you understand that?

Dan Trabue said...

. I speak specifically of what God wants as revealed to us in Scripture. If you cannot see the distinction, let me know.

Well, good. I'm speaking specifically of what YOU think God wants as YOU THINK God has revealed it in Scripture. So, it appears we're talking about the same thing, with the important distinction that I see clearly what you're referencing is what YOU THINK God wants, as opposed to what we factually know what God wants.

Do you understand that?

Again, there's no need to interpret the message of a STOP sign. What is revealed to us in Scripture is rarely any more difficult to understand than that.

I tend to agree about much of it. But who says you are rightly understanding what it says? I, after all, think I am rightly understanding what it "obviously" is meaning/suggesting/saying. On what grounds are your hunches demonstrably "right..."? Or do you agree with me that your hunches are NOT demonstrably right, any more than mine are? That your hunches are your opinions, not "god's word..." and not fact?

Marshall Art said...

"But, Marshall, it quite literally IS your hunch, not a proven fact."

Mere assertion does not make this statement true in the least. And that's all we get from you regarding our positions is your assertion that it is only hunch and opinion and nothing more substantial. Here's a hint for you that I know with certainty I've shared on more than one occasion: We get it. We KNOW that you regard our positions in this way. What is left for you is to offer something that actually supports your contention, such as an alternative explanation or opinion for which YOU can provide "hard data" enough to persuade or at least inject doubt into our minds regarding said positions. Is the some date or time in the future when we can expect to see such, or will we have only you "nyuh uh" defense for the rest of time? Thus...

"As a matter of fact, your hunches about what God wants us to believe about Genesis or about homosexuality or about bombing cities, these are ALL YOUR HUNCHES."

To whatever extent an actual position of mine might legitimately fall under the classification of "hunch" or "mere opinion" OR actual fact, each position is based upon "hard data" you only reject, while in the meantime, there is no "hard data" offered by you to provide a reason to alter our perspective or position.

So once again, countering a claim with "that's you hunch" is worthless, has no value, means nothing except that you find the claim inconvenient and contrary to your personal preferences, preferences for which you provided no logical or fact-based evidence for adopting. IF it is a demonstrable fact that my position is only hunch, opinion or anything less that reality, you need more than the assertion to make your case. Indeed, you need at some point to actually DEMONSTRATE what you claim is demonstrable.

"...I see clearly what you're referencing is what YOU THINK God wants, as opposed to what we factually know what God wants."

No you don't. You assert what that you clearly see what you want to see, what you prefer to be true or in this case, what you prefer is untrue. But until you can DEMONSTRATE why my position is wrong, it is mere assertion and as such without value. Here's an example: I never simply say that your position is stupid. I explain why. When will you explain why my position is untrue, not a fact, only a hunch or opinion? Still waiting.

"But who says you are rightly understanding what it says?"

If not, show why.

"Or do you agree with me that your hunches are NOT demonstrably right, any more than mine are?"

Obviously not. YOUR positions are not even hunches or opinions, but selfish preferences as HAS BEEN demonstrated time and time again by the use of various passages and verses from Scripture. My positions ARE right and true until such time as someone who disagrees can offer something substantive to DEMONSTRATE why they are not. You haven't. You simply default to your typical "nyuh uh" objection not-so-hidden in your "it's just your hunch" nonsense.

Dan Trabue said...

We get it. We KNOW that you regard our positions in this way. What is left for you is to offer something that actually supports your contention

Marshall, for the last time: I'm just pointing to reality. IF you have hard data to support your claim, then by all means provide it. But pointing to a biblical passage and saying "I think it means this..." is NOT hard data. It is merely pointing to your own opinion.

YOU are making the claim. The burden is on YOU to provide the data. Or, more correctly, it is on YOU to admit that you can not provide hard data and admit that, yes, indeed, it is your opinion, not something you can support with hard data.

Pointing to a biblical passage and saying "In my opinion, this passage means that God thinks X" is NOT. VERIFIABLE. DATA.

Do you understand this?

Before we continue, before you say anything else, just answer that one question. Yes or No.

This is just reality until such time as you provide something to support your thus-far empty claims.

Are you grounded in reality? That remains to be seen by your answer to this question. If you're not grounded in reality, then there's not much point in my continuing to talk with someone who is delusional on some points.

Dan Trabue said...

Earlier, you said...

First of all, I've never ever seen ANYONE other than you run this "mythic genre" crap

Of course, there are many who consider the notion that all or parts of Genesis are mythic or figurative in nature. CS Lewis, for instance...

"For Lewis, “myth” is not a bad word. It does not necessarily carry connotations of falsehood or contrivance or deception or muddleheadedness. For Lewis myth is a highly imaginative way of speaking about the world that can speak truth at least as well as history or science can (and, indeed, can speak truths about which history and science must remain silent). For Lewis, “myth” does not automatically mean false."

https://resurrectingraleigh.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/c-s-lewis-on-the-bible-genesis-and-myth/

There are, of course, others. Do you mean to say you are unaware that there are Christian scholars who consider these texts to be figurative or at least possibly figurative in nature?

There are, of course, many...

"It should be noted that many Christians have believed for many decades that there is no real conflict between evolution theory and the creation story. Perhaps Adam and Eve evolved from other primate forms and the Bible simply doesn’t mention that – it doesn’t really change the story. And what if we don’t have two specific ancestors for all of humanity? That doesn’t take away from the point that humans have a capacity for good and evil that seems unique in the animal kingdom."

http://thehathorlegacy.com/christian-scholars-who-dont-take-the-creation-story-literally/

So, if that was the point you were making, well, you're just not informed. There are, of course, many Christians who take parts of the Bible - including Genesis - to be figurative in nature.

Just fyi.

Marshall Art said...

Not much time right now, but I must address a thing or two. So, I respond to your "question":

"Pointing to a biblical passage and saying "In my opinion, this passage means that God thinks X" is NOT. VERIFIABLE. DATA.

Do you understand this?"


Clearly. Unfortunately for you, this is not what is happening here...EVER!! When I point to a passage, is to directly counter a false, corrupt and deceitful concept you espouse. Therefore, it absolutely qualifies as "hard data" since it directly refers to the aforementioned false, corrupt and deceitful concept you espouse. For example, when you I offered the list referring to what percentage of verses said what about marriage, family and homosexual behavior, those are factual offerings for which no counter offerings have ever been made by you. Such offerings of mine therefore establish, confirm and/or teach the FACT that:

-marriage is a one man/one woman proposition
-family comprises both a mother and a father
-there is no possible chance that God would bless a same-sex union.

As the issue revolves around what God would do, how God would react, what God might think about the issue at hand, citing Scripture is absolutely "hard data".

YOUR response to this, since you lack integrity, is to question whether or not my understanding of any given verse on the topic is properly understood. When I respond that the words arranged in a particular manner in the sentences related to the issue can only mean one thing, your questioning of that fact is a claim for which YOU must bring about "hard data" to refute or rebut. Said another way, I've done my part. Now it's up to you to do yours, and I've been waiting years for you to do so.

Gotta go to work.

Dan Trabue said...

No, Marshall, it's not hard data to cite a passage, say, "THIS is MY INTERPRETATION of that data and that's how we know what god wants..."

It just isn't.

So, having failed to produce any hard data, Marshall, I bid you fare-well.

If nothing else, thank you for firmly establishing for all other readers that you have no hard data. I hope you figure it out for yourself, too.

Good bye, and happy Thanksgiving.

Marshall Art said...

No Dan, now you're simply lying again and demonstrating your moral cowardice. This is an example of how I roll:

Dan: God blesses homosexual marriages.

Art: No, God would not bless homosexual marriages.

Dan: What hard data do you have be prove this?

Art: The following verses (I then list some or all of those that directly relate to homosexual behavior, such as Lev 18:22) regard homosexual behavior as sinful in one way or another. The citing of these verses constitutes "hard data".

{At this point, as usual, I also provide the list regarding the percentage of verses that speak of marriage a comprising one man/one woman, the percentage of those referring to families as being comprised of one father and one mother, the percentage of verses that speak of homosexual behavior in only negative ways and the fact that there exists no verses that speak of homosexual behavior in a positive way.}

Dan: That's just your hunch/opinion, not fact.

And that's where it ends with you. If my position in merely hunch or fact, then there must be some passages or verses that contradict my position in support of yours. You offer none whatsoever. You demand hard data for my position, but offer none for yours.

In addition, you have made a truth claim...that God blesses homosexual marriages. But you offer nothing but YOUR opinion/hunch and nothing more.

What's more, if my understanding of what to my mind is clear and unambiguous teaching is mistaken, you provide absolutely nothing in the way of more accurately explaining those verse you falsely claim are being distorted by what you need to believe is my subjective "interpretation", as if interpreting what is clear is even required.

So what are we left with?

1. No "hard data" to support your position on issues such as homosexual "marriage".

2. No alternative explanation for what a verse or passage used to rebut your position might otherwise mean, if in your opinion it does NOT mean what I see it clearly implies.

3. A totally grace-free, unChristian routine of willful, purposely perpetrated distortions and misrepresentations of both my position and how I defend it. An example of the latter begins your most recent post:

"it's not hard data to cite a passage, say, "THIS is MY INTERPRETATION of that data and that's how we know what god wants...""

This is not the least bit representative of how I argue a point. I more than hint at reality in my little script that begins my response. An honest correction is as follows:

"My position is such, and I cite such and such passages/verses as my hard data to back it up."

Pretending I've committed some interpretation error alone is not nearly enough for an allegedly honest Christian to overturn or cast doubt on a position taken. So once again, if my citations are somehow wrongly applied, or suggestive of a flaw of understanding, your assertion of that possibility does not in the least bit make it so, regardless of your desperate and morally corrupt need to believe it is.

The bottom line is that I have NOT failed to produce hard data. I most certainly have by citing the passages and verses I have. If you wish to insist that I'm misunderstanding what I cite, which would then indeed render them as failing to qualify as hard data, then you must demonstrate why, provide a legitimate and Scripture supported alternative explanation for those verse cited. Doing no more than what amounts to childish "nyuh uh" retorts doesn't cut it.

Dan Trabue said...

Dan: That's just your hunch/opinion, not fact.

And that's where it ends with you. If my position in merely hunch or fact, then there must be some passages or verses that contradict my position in support of yours.


No, Marshall. No. You are simply mistaken, as a point of fact.

I don't need to proof text ONE verse to demonstrate that your proof texted verses are not hard data. You have to demonstrate that you are interpreting them correctly and factually to demonstrate that your hunch is anything more than a hunch.

The burden is on you.

Why? Because you are the one making a fact claim.

My opinion that marriage is a good thing and surely God-blessed is clearly MY OPINION. I am not making a fact claim about God's opinion. You are. Therefore, you must provide data to support the claim OR admit you can not support the claim.

At this point, for everyone else involved, it is clear you have no hard data, only your opinion. And your opinion does not equal fact. It just doesn't.

Again, I hope one day the veil is lifted and you will be able to see that reality. For your sake.

Good luck.

Marshall Art said...

"I don't need to proof text ONE verse to demonstrate that your proof texted verses are not hard data."

Yeah, I know. For you, "nyuh uh" is sufficient. Truly you are a coward and devoid of integrity. But let's look at what "proof texting" is:

From Wiki:

"Prooftexting (sometimes "proof-texting" or "proof texting") is the practice of using isolated, out-of-context quotations from a document to establish a proposition in eisegesis. Such quotes may not accurately reflect the original intent of the author,and a document quoted in such a manner, when read as a whole, may not support the proposition for which it was cited. The term has currency primarily in theological and exegetical circles."

Clearly, this is not what I do in the least. I don't take verses out-of-context (though you do), nor do the verses or passages I cite fail to accurately reflect the original intent of the author by any standard used by Biblical scholars. If I have, you have never once demonstrated either.

From Theopedia:

"Proof texting is the method by which a person appeals to a biblical text to prove or justify a theological position without regard for the context of the passage they are citing."

Again, not at all a description of anything I've done or do. What's more, I have no desire to stray from context for any reason or purpose. I'd much rather align myself with the context from which I derive my hard data than to dare attempt to support a personal preference, as you do with heinous regularity.

From biblestudy.org:

"The problem with this method is that the person who is Proof texting usually gives their selected verses a meaning that may be entirely different from what the writer intended."

If there was ever a good description of what YOU do as if you're paid big money to do so, this is it. I, on the other hand, choose my citations BECAUSE of what the message of the entire passage or chapter hopes to teach. Thus, I do indeed demonstrate that I am interpreting them correctly and factually as the facts they are, not mere "hunch" or "opinion".

Marshall Art said...

"The burden is on you.

Why? Because you are the one making a fact claim."


Two problems here:

1. I'm NOT making a fact claim so much as defending the actual teaching of Scripture. The context within which a cited verse resides supports the contention. The words, their definitions and the arrangement of them in the verse cited can only mean one thing.

2. YOU, however, are making a claim by suggesting a meaning which the cited verse in question does not and cannot imply, particular with regard to the topic of homosexual behavior. If you're saying the sign does not mean "STOP" completely, no matter what, then it is you who is making a claim that requires some kind of support.

"My opinion that marriage is a good thing and surely God-blessed is clearly MY OPINION. I am not making a fact claim about God's opinion. You are."

Typical bullshit equivocation on your part. And in so many ways!

1. Your "opinion" is regarded by you are the reality, for you live as if it IS the reality. Thus it is indeed a truth claim. How could a sincere Christian support, endorse, enable, celebrate and preach that which is not in fact the truth?

2. The stated opinion, even if it was the actual position over which we are at odds, is idiotic on the face of it even with regards to only unions of one man and one woman. There's no doubt that many marriages of those who divorced without reasons stated as acceptable by Christ Himself are very likely NOT God-blessed. Incestuous marriages are another example. Non-monogamous marriages would be another. Thus, your stated "opinion" is a lie, as it is not truly what you are intending to promote.

3. The stated opinion is a willfully deceitful stand in for what you truly try to insist is true (and thus a truth claim), which is that God would bless a homosexual marriage.

4. As you believe your "opinion" is a proper understanding of Biblical teaching, you are indeed "making a fact claim about God's opinion." There's no way to get around it, particularly as you present it in just such a manner by saying such marriages are "God-blessed". How can you even suggest it is NOT God's opinion while using the term "God-blessed"? Because you're such an inveterate liar that you don't even recognize the lies that fly out of your mouth?

5. Since you clearly believe that such unions could possible be "God-blessed", you are indeed making a claim that requires some evidence in support of it. Even as an opinion you put forth requires some reason for holding that opinion besides your preference for and personal support of sexual immorality, especially in the face of thousands of years of church tradition and Biblical scholarship to the contrary.

There is no veil obscuring my vision. The truth of Scripture is obvious except to those like yourself for whom the truth is inconvenient.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm NOT making a fact claim so much as defending the actual teaching of Scripture.

Very funny. Sorry that you don't get it.

I would ask, "Actual," according to whom? But you still wouldn't get it by me asking it for the hundredth time.

If you ever have any actual data to support your position, please bring it. Clearly, though, you don't. Have a good life, Marshall.

Dan Trabue said...

Okay, I can't help myself:

Do you recognize that making a "fact claim" is the same as defending the "actual teaching of Scripture..." You are claiming that your interpretation is the "actual" intent, which is just another way of saying the factual intent. Presumably, then, you are saying that "this is God's intent, I know, because I know what God intended and I can't be mistaken on this point... thus, it is a proven actual/factual interpretation..." Do you see that?

Or if that isn't what you mean by it, what do you mean by the "actual teaching..."? Actual according to whom? This is another appeal to your own genius, to your own opinion, which is all that I've been saying, over and over in a hundred different ways.

Marshall Art said...

I see where Craig gets his frustration. You simply ignore the answers I've given. From whom? From the text. Am I not getting the intent of the authors correctly in your perverse opinion? Well then. Prove it. Show why YOUR "interpretation" is more accurate than mine. Don't give any more crap about opinions and hunches. Start actually defending your heresies.

As to data to support my "opinion", I've provided it every time, even before you ask. You're free to ask again on a specific point, but I'm sure you'll simply ask about a 6 day creation again, as if that's the wedge between us. Get some balls and get on with it. I've nothing to hide, no fear of defending my positions and quite ready to do it over and over again until you find some shred of honesty and integrity within your corrupt and godless soul.

"Presumably, then, you are saying that "this is God's intent, I know, because I know what God intended and I can't be mistaken on this point... thus, it is a proven actual/factual interpretation..." Do you see that?"

No, because that's not at all what I do or say. Nothing like it at all. You lie once again.

Actual teaching according to what Scripture actually says. Again, if you believe a teaching is something other than what I clearly see it actually says (given the words used, their meanings/definitions and the order in which they appear in the verse or passage in question), then freakin' bring it for a change instead of the constant childish "nyuh uh" counter. It's not an appeal to my own genius (thanks for recognizing my genius), but an appeal to Scripture itself. The words aren't mysterious. They are not ambiguous (regarding the issues we commonly debate).

Dan Trabue said...

The text according to WHOM? The text according to you, Marshall. I'm not ignoring your answers, you're not getting my questions, or so it appears. I GET that you think you are interpreting these passages correctly. But does the reality that it is YOUR interpretation and not a fact not sink in to you?

"Actually says" according to WHOM?

Look, you read, "kill men who lay with men" and YOU THINK, YOU INTERPRET this to mean that God would be opposed to gay guys marrying. The text does not say that, this is your interpretation. Do you understand that?

Clearly, (and here is what I'm appealing to), marriage is a great place - the best place, I'd suggest - to enjoy one's sexuality. Clearly, marriage builds up society, clearly marriage makes for happiness in one's life... given all these things, then why wouldn't we support marriage, gay or straight? Because you find a passage that you interpret to mean something?

Okay, so that's how you interpret it, but on what basis is that a "fact..."? It simply isn't. Not in the real world. It is an opinion.

I don't know how else to say it.

Dan Trabue said...

Look, we all agree that the text says what it says. Gen 1 says what it says. No one is disputing the literal words. We're disputing the interpretation. Your interpretation - your human hunches about the meaning of of Gen 1 are an opinion, not a fact. Do you understand that?

Marshall Art said...

"The text according to you, Marshall. I'm not ignoring your answers, you're not getting my questions, or so it appears."

If I'm reprinting any part of the text, Dan, it is the text according to the text. If I'm dealing with the words in that text, the definitions of those words and the arrangement of those words within the cited text, then I'm not "interpreting" so much as merely stating what it says and thus, due to those definitions and arrangement of words, what is clearly means. The issue from this point is your own alternative explanation never given when you object to the only possible meaning those words, their definitions and their arrangement within the text can imply. If your "hunch" is that the text means something else, try actually stating that alternative and provide some evidence that supports it. Until then, your "hunch" doesn't even rise the the level of an opinion. It is mere childish objection to the truth, as when a child whines about his bedtime.

"But does the reality that it is YOUR interpretation and not a fact not sink in to you?"

Not until you can demonstrate that there exists a real possibility that it is not indeed a fact. That requires an alternative meaning and evidence to support that alternative. Even in science, a fact is a fact until newly discovered facts dictate otherwise.

"Look, you read, "kill men who lay with men" and YOU THINK, YOU INTERPRET this to mean that God would be opposed to gay guys marrying. The text does not say that, this is your interpretation. Do you understand that?"

What wouldn't I understand that? What I don't understand is why you continue to misrepresent what I do. I do not "interpret" such verses to mean "God disapproves of homosexual unions". I use those verses as evidence to support the contention that there is no way God would or could bless homosexual marriages. Do you think you could employ some honesty at some point in dealing with those with whom you disagree?

Gotta go.

Dan Trabue said...

If I'm dealing with the words in that text, the definitions of those words and the arrangement of those words within the cited text, then I'm not "interpreting" so much as merely stating what it says

The text says, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... God created Adam... took Adam's rib and created Eve."

That is what the text literally says. Period.

BUT, to say, "Thus, it MEANS that there was literally nothing ~6,000 years ago, then poof, God created light and dark on one day, then the earth on the second day, then separated the waters from the earth on the third... then one man - Adam and from Adam's rib, a woman, Eve... it LITERALLY happened that way..." THAT is an interpretation.

Do you understand that?

. I do not "interpret" such verses to mean "God disapproves of homosexual unions". I use those verses as evidence to support the contention that there is no way God would or could bless homosexual marriages.

Right, you take that verse and a few others and you use those verses to INTERPRET your hunch about what God could "no way" approve. I don't mean just the one verse, that's shortcut for the ten or twenty scattered throughout the Bible that you cobble together to form a wild hunch about what God wouldn't do. God did not tell you it, YOU EXTRAPOLATE out something from these few verses, out of context, to say what God would approve.

Don't speak for God, Marshall. You ain't God. Just admit that it's your hunch. It's okay to have a hunch about what God might think - even if it's ridiculous and immoral - just don't claim that you know it as a proven fact. You don't.

Marshall Art said...

"Right, you take that verse and a few others and you use those verses to INTERPRET your hunch about what God could "no way" approve."

I get it. So you think there is an error in the gathering of evidence from Scripture to come to the only possible conclusion that gathering can provide. The "interpretation" of evidence is not a fluid, subjective act. It is purposely objective, taking things as they mean (words and their definition and the message they convey by virtue of how they are arranged in a sentence, paragraph and/or chapter).

YOU, on the other hand, do NOT let the words lead you to a righteous conclusion. YOUR "HUNCH" depends upon purposely distorting verses, and more importantly the words within them...such as "marriage"...in order to arrive at your self-satisfying heresy.

What's more, to call my position "ridiculous and immoral" simply because it is opposite yours...and that's factually the reason why you so smear it, as you've never provided any evidence that it is wrong or that yours is more likely true...is as lacking in the Christian grace of which you claim to be so concerned as anything you do on a regular basis. It's a proven fact, both that you're wrong and that God would NOT and could NOT and does NOT bless homosexual unions of any kind.

Man up, get a spine, and gather your evidence that might even remotely hint that your position is possible.

Dan Trabue said...

I get it. So you think there is an error in the gathering of evidence from Scripture to come to the only possible conclusion that gathering can provide.

No, you don't get it. Again: I am just pointing out the reality that your interpretation is YOUR INTERPRETATION, while mine is mine. That's just a reality. Neither one of us can demonstrate that we hold the right interpretation or that the other is in error.

Now, do you understand?

What's more, to call my position "ridiculous and immoral" simply because it is opposite yours...and that's factually the reason why you so smear it, as you've never provided any evidence that it is wrong or that yours is more likely true..

No, you don't get it. Your position is ridiculous and immoral because

1. You are conflating your hunches with facts and with God's word. That is ridiculous and immoral;

2. You do not appear to be able to distinguish between opinions and facts. That is ridiculous and possibly delusional;

3. Your position on the Creation, for instance, conflicts with known data. That is ridiculous;

4. Your position on homosexuality would try to deny rights and human dignity and liberty to other humans. That is immoral;

I could go on, but I have real reasons for thinking your positions are not rational, moral or biblical. That's the point, NOT because you disagree with me. THAT, too, is silly.

Marshall Art said...

"Neither one of us can demonstrate that we hold the right interpretation or that the other is in error."

Absolutely false. What is true is that YOU can't demonstrate that you hold the right "interpretation" and that it isn't totally erroneous.

"1. You are conflating your hunches with facts and with God's word. That is ridiculous and immoral;"

Not that YOU'VE been able to demonstrate, despite my repeated challenges that you give it a go.

"2. You do not appear to be able to distinguish between opinions and facts."

Not that YOU'VE been able to demonstrate, despite my repeated challenges that you give it a go. It's merely an assertion without basis but your own need for it to be so.

"3. Your position on the Creation, for instance, conflicts with known data."

Aside from this being irrelevant and worthless for the purposes of this discussion, I have no position on Creation other than the fact that the Creator has the power to create all things in the blink of an eye, 6 24hr days or over the course of many years. Nothing is beyond His ability as far as we are able to tell.

What's more, the "known data" is not proof that creation took millions of years. That data, and how it is interpreted, is only a theory and the best imperfect man can determine using his imperfect tools, methods and intellect. Funny how you can't grasp that man is capable of understanding God's will on human sexuality, but he is fully capable of determining the age of the universe. Totally logical.

"4. Your position on homosexuality would try to deny rights and human dignity and liberty to other humans. That is immoral;"

Not THAT'S what an opinion looks like. The entire statement is based on your subjective notion of what is or isn't right or wrong, with no connection to Biblical truths regarding sexual immorality. My position on homosexuality is that it is clearly a mental disorder based on the self-evident truth of the compatibility and complimentary nature between man and woman. It is counter to the intent of both God and nature. It is illogical and totally self-destructive as it ends the blood lines of both deviant parties so engaged.

My position is the the behavior is sinful and depraved based on all Scripture has to say about human sexuality, sexual immorality and what our biology dictates. It is the perverted use of sexual organs based on their function and design.

"I could go on, but I have real reasons for thinking your positions are not rational, moral or biblical."

Perhaps, but they are superficial and contrary to anything remotely related to Christian understanding. They are worldly and based on your desire eagerness to enable sexual immorality so that, strangely and perversely, you appear more "Christian" to those who have been given over to their sinfulness, as if their approval is more important than God's. In short, you have no reasons at all for thinking my positions irrational, immoral or un-biblical. None that aren't silly.






Dan Trabue said...

"Neither one of us can demonstrate that we hold the right interpretation or that the other is in error."

Absolutely false.


Demonstrate it, then, Marshall. End this conversation by simply demonstrating with hard data that your hunches are, in fact, supported by fact.

You can't. All you can do is point to more verses, again, and say, "See, that's what it says!" and offer your hunches about what it means. But as a point of fact in the real world, you can not demonstrate your interpretation is fact-based.

But I've pointed this out before.

Marshall Art said...

"But I've pointed this out before."

Yes. You make assertions like this constantly. But you offer nothing, that is, NOTHING!!! that even hints that my "interpretation" is false, mistaken, in error, "a hunch", and worse, less that would pass for evidence that whatever alternative "interpretation" might float your boat could possibly be more accurate. You begin your last comment demanding again that I prove my position, despite having given myriad examples of evidence that supports the accuracy of my position. You simply reject it all with no reason except that you don't buy it. Now, with my previous comment, I've challenged you three or four more times to offer your alternative "hunch" along with any legitimate reason (that is, "hard data") that would suggest your goofy and Christ-free nonsense is possible. It's time for YOU to man up and put up.

Dan Trabue said...

But you offer nothing, that is, NOTHING!!! that even hints that my "interpretation" is false, mistaken, in error, "a hunch",

I offer reality, Marshall. No where in all of reality is there hard data to support your claim as being fact-based. I have been quite clear on this. Now, your job, if you accept it, is to disprove my claim. It is quite easy. I have cited ALL OF REALITY to support my claim that your claim is an opinion, not a fact. All you have to do is provide one bit of reality-based fact to support your claim to disprove my claim.

I'm still waiting for even one bit of hard data.

Marshall Art said...

Just another assertion and another infantile demand intended to deflect attention from the fact that you cannot defend any of your beliefs in any way to any degree as no more than your personal preference for how you'd like things to be, as opposed to how they are. That is most definitely NOT reality, but your own twisted, unChristian fantasy.

I've provided hard data and done so constantly to defend my position on every level and to every degree based on the only understanding of your convoluted logic any reasonable person could have. You've done nothing more but dismiss it as if I haven't provided data and then demand again that I do what I've already done. And still, NEVER, to you in any way provide anything that shows why you would hold the opinions you hold. That's not an exchange. That's not a debate. That's not mature discussion of differing positions. It's simply you engaging in your now famous infantile "Nyuh uh" objections.

So here's where we stand. I've offered "hard data" to support my positions. Go back and pick one (provide a link, please, or the date and time of my comment) and demonstrate why it fails to be hard data at all, or why it does not support my position as I say it does. I'm not going to continue providing ANY data, hard or otherwise, only to have you dismiss it and pretend I've not offered any. Where's the incentive for me to continue doing so with that bullshit attitude of yours, which, BTW, stands as "hard data" of your hypocrisy and absence of Christian grace.

Dan Trabue said...

So, NO, you do not have ONE SHRED OF HARD DATA to support your position? That was what I knew to be true. I just wish, for your sake, you could see that to be the case.

Marshall, absent any hard data (and not "I read a line in the Bible or in Dr Seuss or in my fortune cookie that I think means X..." but actual hard data), don't bother commenting further on this post. Hard data, data that can be verified by an independent viewer.

You've got nothing, dear brother. Sorry. Good luck.

Marshall Art said...

"So, NO, you do not have ONE SHRED OF HARD DATA to support your position?"

As I say in a more recent post, I no longer know what position exactly you wish me to defend with your self-serving double standards of "hard data". Be specific and I'll be happy to provide all the data honest people would need. Can't speak for you, though.

Dan Trabue said...

ANY of your hunches, Marshall. You hold a hunch about Adam and Eve being literal people, am I right? Defend it with hard data.

You hold a hunch that God would not approve of two gay guys or lesbian gals getting married, am I right? Defend that hunch with hard data.

Go.

I'll post this in the newer post where we are still waiting for any hard data to support your whimsical and immoral hunches, or to admit that your hunches are only unprovable hunches.