I.
We affirm that people are complex and God is not known, completely.
We deny that some humans are the spokesmouths for God, even though they may act as if they are.
II.
We affirm that love is good and that hate is bad.
We deny that those who'd take away rights and choice and liberty from others are acting in the common good.
III.
We affirm that women, gay folk, transgender folk and, well, folk in general are wonderful, strong, kick ass and live well, if imperfectly.
We deny that seeking to disempower and marginalize people for being who they are is a good thing.
IV.
We affirm that those racists and oppressors who, once upon a time and even in the name of God, sought to say "This person should not marry THAT person. God forbids it!..." that such attitudes have been cast upon the dustbin of history and recognized far and wide as wrong-headed and arrogant. Any who would, today, seek to go back to these devalued and antiquated values (i.e., bad values) would be ignored and rightly so.
Similarly, we affirm that most of us have likewise moved past the days of trying to demonize and marginalize women, gay and transgender folk or deny them their basic human liberties. Those who seek to do this will soon, like the "anti-miscegenists" of old, be summarily dismissed as crackpots and holding on to backwards, immoral and irrational ideas.
We deny that those who would promote anti-women, anti-LGBTQ attitudes speak for God, for the good, or for reason.
======
The "Nashville" types have lost this argument. They just have. It's all over but the fighting.
There will be much kicking and ranting on their part as they increasingly realize that they are the ones viewed as immoral and irrational, but this is just the way it is. They have lost and their numbers will increasingly diminish and their "arguments" (which amount to not much more than, "But I'm telling you, GOD doesn't want it! GOD agrees with me!") increasingly be ignored.
Within a generation or two, churches will continue meeting, lives will continue to be lived and LGBTQ folk and women will live empowered lives. The matter won't be broached any more in 99% of churches - at least in the US, any more than the "anti-miscegenationists" have any serious traction any more. Those who oppose gay marriage will simply be ignored until, by the end of the century, they will be, for all practical purposes, gone.
The few who remain will rant and gnash their teeth, insisting that God's Way is narrow and THEY are the few who remain faithful. They will deny even other Christians but no one will care, any more than we care about what the "anti-miscegenationists" say. The reason? No one cares what irrational, immoral cranks say.
I am at least almost a little sorry that these anti-gay folk, anti-women folk will feel so oppressed and ignored, but not really. They've brought it upon themselves and their arrogance does nothing to help build any bridges worth crossing.
They have been eclipsed by a more rational, more moral and, I think, more Godly way, and ultimately, that is a very good thing.
196 comments:
That's quite a bit of wishful thinking on your part. But the reality is that I believe you may be right, if Scripture is any indication. No...not in the way you desperately want to believe, but in the manner spoken of in Scripture...that few will be welcomed by Christ in the final days. Those that won't are of your stripe...those that reject the clear and unambiguous teachings of God as clearly and unambiguously revealed in Scripture.
You again prefer to believe that numbers and consensus dictates morality, whereas those you demonize as irrational, immoral cranks understand and acknowledge that morality is dictated by God...as do the signatories of the Nashville Statement on Human Sexuality. YOUR "Rest of the World" statement simply demonstrates that you are indeed of the world, rather than merely in it.
I. People are not as complex as those like yourself need to believe in order to rationalize engaging in behaviors displeasing to God, Who is known well enough to understand when any given behavior is indeed not pleasing to Him.
The humans you deny as spokesmen for God are only those who affirm boldly God's clearly revealed will. In the meantime, you boldly affirm that what you desire is pleasing to Him simply on the basis of having the desire.
II. You affirm love according to YOUR notions of what constitutes love, not according to God's notion, which is also clearly revealed to us in Scripture. There is no mystery here. True love of the type important to God does not enable behavior He prohibits clearly. Hating those bad behaviors is not among the list of behaviors He finds abhorrent.
Acting opposed to the enabling of bad behavior does not constitute denying anything to anyone. Liberty and choice used to engage in bad behavior is not worthy of anyone's support, and altering law to enable such is not conducive to a moral culture.
III. No one on the right has a problem with women, except with those who choose to kill their own children, born or unborn. We defend unborn females with equal vigor, and choose not to marginalize them simply for their unfortunate conception by selfish women. The right also has a problem with women who wrongly thing they are no different than men, when there are significant differences between the sexes that serve society to acknowledge.
Homosexuals and "transgendered" people are those who are in need of both spiritual and mental/emotional counseling. Being who one is does not justify behaviors that are immoral. These people desire that which is clearly and unambiguously immoral by God's standards.
IV. You are too dishonest to affirm the reality that most racists in American history were center-left, and continue to be today, despite your desperate desire to portray the center-right as racist. No one on the right has any desire whatsoever to segregate anyone, except for the criminal, immoral and insane.
Similarly, the right has never denied rights to anyone. Period. (Except for the criminal and the insane) In the meantime, the left seeks to deny rights to those who are center-right at every opportunity. You're doing that right now with your preposterous "Rest of the World" statement.
You might want to...someday at least...provide some evidence to support your positions with regard to Scripture and human sexuality. It's been years since we've first met in the blogosphere and you've yet to do this. All your weak attempts thus far have been soundly shown to be lacking despite your whining to the contrary.
Marshall, do you recognize the reality that the only churches you could find now that preach against "miscegenation" - if any exist - are conservative and probably extremely fundamenalist?
Also I wonder if, when it gets down to the same situation (probably in your lifetime) with anti-gay folk, where the only churches who "take a stand" against gay folk marrying will be isolated little oddball fundamenalist churches, will you keep going to church or just drop out of organized religion?
Dan
A church that is against interracial relationships...
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2011/11/30/kentucky-church-no-interracial-couples-welcome
Dan
The humans you deny as spokesmen for God are only those who affirm boldly God's clearly revealed will.
And here is your problem: You conflate the opinions of people like these guys and yourself with God's Word.
We deny that you all speak for God. You affirm it, based on little more than your say so. No thanks.
~Dan
So the one example you could produce is one where there is great disagreement within the congregation on the policy which, as your link says, isn't necessarily beyond being rejected. As the article gives no Biblical support for the policy, it's a great stretch to use it as an example of an "extreme" or "fundie" or "conservative" church. And as there is no Biblical support for such attitudes, the term "conservative" doesn't in the least bit apply in the first place. Whether or not they are mostly conservative in the political sense isn't even addressed in the article. As such, you fail greatly to support your premise.
Furthermore, you seem more than willing to pretend there is a parallel between skin color and behaviors of any kind, in this case sexual. As there is indeed a clear and unambiguous prohibition against engaging in homosexual behavior, without any consideration of any kind for any context or scenario in which it might not be prohibited, I would be proud to be a member of the last remaining congregation that held fast to Biblical teaching against the behavior.
You also continue to push that nonsense that restating and defending the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture is no more than "conflating opinion with God's Word"...which is a blatant, willful and bald-faced lie. You ignore the teachings of Scripture on this issue (as you do on others) which even pro-LGBT scholars accept. Are those scholars conflating their opinion with the Word of God? Were they to do so on "simple living", I seriously doubt you'd make that charge.
Pointing out the teachings of Scripture, clearly revealed therein, is NOT "speaking for God" in the manner you insist. It is simply telling the truth. The truth is inconvenient for those who put their own sexual self-gratification above God's will.
Marshall, I asked some reasonable, responsible questions. Please answer or cease commenting.
As to the churches and individuals who still are "anti-miscegenation," my one point is that they almost don't exist any more, just as will be the case for those who are anti-gay marriage within a generation or so.
My other point is that those who DO support it still are conservative and fundamentalist in nature. That is, they are biblical literalists who take the Bible as inerrant, who think "the gays" are hell-bound, who affirm a literal Genesis, etc, etc, etc. On nearly every point, they tend to affirm conservative Christian positions. Do you disagree with this reality?
Do you recognize that they reject liberal teachings, by and large?
It's difficult to find examples online because anti-miscegenation is so evil and so stupid that no one will admit to it out loud hardly anymore. But I grew up around people and churches like that, and they were conservative in nature. They were virulently anti-liberal in nature.
Do you recognize that reality? Or are you just ignorant/not aware of any people like this on which to base an opinion? Saying "I'm ignorant of this topic/these people" is okay.
Please answer the questions put to you.
Thanks.
As to this silliness...
ou also continue to push that nonsense that restating and defending the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture is no more than "conflating opinion with God's Word"...which is a blatant, willful and bald-faced lie.
That is, of course, YOUR OPINION. Do you get it now?
No, of course not.
And, of course, it is not a lie to state the reality that your opinion on this topic IS your opinion, not God's Word. Don't embarrass yourself.
Dan
I'm quite certain I answered all questions quite clearly. But I'm more than happy to be more specific and will copy and paste each question of yours I see throughout the post and comments and respond directly in the next couple of days. No time at present. In the meantime, I will address this:
"As to the churches and individuals who still are "anti-miscegenation," my one point is that they almost don't exist any more, just as will be the case for those who are anti-gay marriage within a generation or so."
I'm repeating myself here, but my response to this "point" is that those churches never should have existed in the first place, there being no Biblical support whatsoever for their beliefs about race and interracial marriages. There most certainly is, however, clear and unambiguous Biblical teaching against engaging in homosexual behavior, as well as enabling sin, including this one. So to pretend there are any parallels is inane and willfully deceitful, with just one exception. The true parallel here is that each side...that which prohibits interracial marriage, and that which celebrates SSM...is guilty of corrupting Scripture to rationalize their positions.
1. Marshall, do you recognize the reality that the only churches you could find now that preach against "miscegenation" - if any exist - are conservative and probably extremely fundamenalist?
2. I wonder if, when it gets down to the same situation (probably in your lifetime) with anti-gay folk, where the only churches who "take a stand" against gay folk marrying will be isolated little oddball fundamenalist churches, will you keep going to church or just drop out of organized religion?
3. As to this silliness...
"You also continue to push that nonsense that restating and defending the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture is no more than "conflating opinion with God's Word"...which is a blatant, willful and bald-faced lie.
That is, of course, YOUR OPINION. Do you get it now?
That is, do you understand that IT IS YOUR OPINION - not an established fact - that God thinks the same as you are interpreting God to think?
Do you understand that you can't PROVE that God thinks the same as you do?
Those are the questions you need to answer.
~Dan
*sigh*
I said I'd get to it, but I'll given the short answers now:
1. No. But I wouldn't categorize them in that manner. I would categorize them as being the same as those who promote/celebrate/enable SSM----churches who badly corrupt the Word of God on a given issue. Most "conservative" "extremely fundamental" churches don't do that. It's what makes them conservative and fundamental.
2. Defending God's clear and unambiguous teaching on homosexual behavior does not make a church "oddball". It makes them honest. It makes them actual Christians. If mine is the only church left in the world that adheres to the clearly revealed Word of God as presented in Scripture, without equivocation in order to appease the flesh (like progressive churches), I'd be among the few, the proud, the Christian.
3. Restating what Scripture clearly teaches is not opinion. It is restating what Scripture clearly teaches. It teaches homosexual behavior is an abomination and therefore prohibited, with absolutely no way to pretend there is any hint of any context or scenario where it might not be. It is an established fact. What's more, I've never, EVER...not even once...suggested, hinted, implied or claimed that God thinks the same as I do. But what God thinks on this issue is crystal clear, despite your weak and childish attempts to pretend otherwise. The day you can actually find anything in Scripture that supports your position that SSM is the context in which homosexual behavior is NOT prohibited and an abomination, bring it. You simply can't do it without redefining words or flat out injecting into Scripture that which it doesn't say.
So now that I've answered your questions...and actually quite sufficiently at that...I've one for you:
The best translations of Scripture says, "Thou shalt not murder". This prohibition is stated in exactly the same way as Lev 18:22, and also exists with absolutely no exception, just as there are none about homosexual behavior. If you believe murder is wrong, sinful, contrary to God's Will, are you also merely expressing an opinion, or stating the truth that God forbids murder?
This might seem quaint and old fashioned, and it's really I have to say on the matter. There is an excellent Biblical precedent for dealing with this sort of theological disagreement, and perhaps it would be wise for the "right side of history" folks to consider adopting. We find it in Acts 5.
"17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18 They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20 “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people all about this new life.”
21 At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.
When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. 22 But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23 “We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24 On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were at a loss, wondering what this might lead to.
25 Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” 26 At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.
27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”"
I guess it's easier to make stuff up and go for the quick kill, instead of being patient and trusting that God is actually sovereign.
I realize that appealing to scripture isn't as fashionable as it once was, but this seems like a really good attitude to take.
1. Re "quick kill" and making stuff up, I have no idea what you're talking about, Craig. I've qick killed no one and I've not made anything up. Clarify if you wish. My guess would be you've misread and misunderstood something again.
2. I'm fine with appeals to Scripture. We've done that all before. That wasn't my point in this post. My point was merely to note that increasingly few people care what the opinion is of a few people in Nashville. We will go down the road of what seems most moral and rational and Godly as we understand it and almost certainly, the Nashvillians will go the way of the anti-miscegenationists.
Do you seriously disagree? Even Stan and Marshall concede that point.
Dan
But we agree for different reasons. We agree that they will be ignored because people like you are part of that which will bring about the 2nd Coming. Your sinfulness in rejecting God in favor of sexual immorality is evidence of that. Those who remain will be those who adhere to God's Will without regard to how it burdens their own lives and interferes with their own carnal desires.
And as for making stuff up, of course you have, as your position finds no Scriptural support whatsoever, whereas the signatories of the Nashville statement have plenty of it...given that they appeal directly to what Scripture says. What Scripture says on human sexuality is not mysterious, ambiguous or hard to understand. Pro-SSM people simply lie about what it says in order to provide them license to ignore what is clear.
My point is that God is the author of history, and if the folks who wrote the Nashville statement are correct, then absolutely nothing you or your side can do will change that. Conversely, if you and your side are correct then nothing anyone else can do can change that.
If you aren't willing to accept the biblical precedent, so be it. I've tried to inject at least a nod to God's sovereignty.
Out.
Nothing in what I said disagrees with that. I am in no way disagreeing with biblical precedent. I'm disagreeing with people who's opinions have fallen on the ash heap of history, and for good moral, rational and biblical reasons.
At the same time, biblical precedent and good reason suggests denouncing behaviors that cause harm to others is a good thing to do. Standing up for justice for the oppressed is good, too.
Dan
So, in your opinion, Dan, society is the metric that determines morality? The World gets to determine what's right and wrong, without any regard for Scripture. It's not a matter of real Christians agree with you and backwards Christians don't. Even the homosexuals know that the Bible clearly puts homosexual behavior in the sin column. But you and your kind have decided that they are right, so you have sought ways to make Scripture confusing, obfuscating the truth in place of your desire.
I assume you believe in the theory of evolution. In that theory is the premise of the survival of the fittest. Good is determined by what promotes the continuation of the species. Homosexual behavior does not promote the continuation of the species, and is a genetically deficient trait. There, an argument against homosexuality without using a single biblical reference. They're out there. The reason most people argue with YOU using Scripture is because you claim to believe in the Bible, so the reasonable person would use Scripture to debate with you.
I've never understood the argument that saying what the Bible says is making your words into God's words, and yet you necessarily must do the same thing in order to debate Christians about homosexuality. The Bible clearly says "A", says I. Oh no, the Bible really means "B" when it says "A", says you. And yet, some how you're not conflating your opinion to God's word, but I am. We obviously can't both be right. You desperately want to have your cake and eat it, but completely ignore the double standard you must use to get there.
I believe you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. Let me try to explain. Here is what I'm saying on this topic...
I believe that gay people having the Liberty to choose to marry or not to marry is a good thing. I believe it for many reasons.
I believe the data shows that monogamy is a healthier solution then polyamory. Therefore I believe encouraging monogamy is a good and healthy thing.
I believe it promotes stronger families. I believe it can help strengthen Community relationships and individual relationships. And I believe it's just a basic human right that people get to decide who they do and do not marry.
I believe the criteria for not allowing something should generally be Harm and there is no harm in allowing gay people to marry in fact quite the opposite. I think this much is clear.
For those who value Christian teaching, I think the Bible and, by extension, God, teaches us the value of human Liberty. I believe the Bible warns us against people telling other people what God does and does not say. I believe using the Bible as a rulebook to create modern rules is not a proper or wise way to approach what the Bible says any more than I believe using it as a literal history book or a science book is wise or rational or biblical.
Thus, I support LGBTQ rights for a variety of reasons, in addition to being informed by the Bible. But, I do not say "God wants gay folk to have the right to marry and I know this because the Bible and I can't be mistaken on that point!"
They do. If they can't be mistaken, then their opinion on the matter is the same as God's. How is that NOT conflating their opinion with God's?
So, where's the double standard in my position? Where's the hypocrisy?
Thanks
Dan
To your first question, as a point of observable fact, humans decide what they think is moral and not. Some do so saying the Bible is their sole source for deciding what is moral, but it's still a human deciding.
God has not told any of us in a verifiable way that tattoos and gay marriage are not okay in 20th century US, or that polygamy and slavery are okay. Any opinions in those topics are unprovable human opinions.
Does that answer your question?
Dan
Another series of clarifications about this...
"I've never understood the argument that saying what the Bible says is making your words into God's words":
1. IF the Bible were a literal rule book and all we needed to do to understand it was take each line as a literal rule or a literal bit of history, then there'd be no interpretation ever involved. If it says God says that it's okay to sell your daughters or force women to marry you, then the Bible would be saying it's okay to sell your daughters and forcibly wed women.
2. But, NO ONE takes it that way. Not conservatives, not liberals, not inerrantists, not atheists... no one. We all are united in our understanding that the Bible needs to be interpreted and read aright to be properly best understood.
3. Thus, the inerrantist who says, "THAT line is hyperbole and THIS line is not a universal rule, it was directed towards ancient Israel only, but THAT rule IS universal..." they are interpreting and reading into what the Bible says and offering THEIR human opinion about the meaning of the words. The atheist or the progressive who looks at Genesis and says clearly these are myths, THEY are offering their human opinions about the text.
We all do this.
4. Thus, it is vital for us all, as a starting point, to admit that our interpretations of biblical texts ARE our interpretations of the authors' words, not "fact," not "God's Word," but our opinions. Now, I think most of us do this. But, some inerrantists/fundamentalists types do not. They read Leviticus 18-20 and say, "That verse is a universal rule, this verse reflects a rule only given by God to ancient Israel... AND WE CAN NOT BE MISTAKEN ON THIS POINT..." When they read the words of the Bible, assign their interpretation the weight of the very Word of God... they are conflating their opinions with God's word.
5. I am not doing this. I read Lev 18-20 and say it is my opinion that clearly, these are not universal rules... indeed, that trying to use the Bible to lift out rules for ancient people and say that they are for all people everywhere is a wrong approach to the Bible. In my opinion, you should not do that, it is bad exegesis and bad literary criticism.
I am clear that I am not speaking for God. I may be appealing to what I THINK is clear and reasonable and even consistently biblical, but I'm not saying that I can't be mistaken or that my opinion is, thus, the same as God's word.
That to me seems a significant difference. Does that make sense?
Dan
No. It only makes sense if one is trying to defend their indefensible positions...indefensible if one has a true respect and reverence for what Scripture actually says and how it says it. You say,
"THEY are offering their human opinions about the text.
We all do this."
That ain't the point. The point is how one arrives at opinions, how one comes to one's "interpretations". That your methods are suspect is far from being mildly suspect given how easily you ignore relevant verses and passages. Take the universality of Lev 18:20, for example. Evidence that it pertains to more than just the tribes of Israel is in verses before it (v.3) and after it (v.24-27). According to these verses, the practice was detestable for Egyptians and it was detestable for Canaanites. Thus, it wasn't detestable just for the Hebrews. It was detestable...PERIOD. Never have you responded to this point that I've raised on numerous occasions over the years, except with some lame and unsupported (by Scripture) argument that it referred to religious ritual, as if doing it and any of the other sexual prohibitions outside of religious services was somehow NOT detestable. What's more, there is absolutely no indication in Scripture that the prohibitions actually referred to religious ritual services at all.
As such, there is clearly no "speaking for God", as if what I say isn't what God has clearly said. I add nothing to what He has said, whereas you do in order to pretend that He would ever possibly bless a union of two who will most assuredly engage in that which He tell us is detestable...as if their expressions of "love" and "promises" of fidelity and monogamy make any difference to how detestable the prohibited practice is. This isn't interpreting you're doing at all. It what's commonly referred to as "making shit up".
The Nashville Statement, on the other hand, merely affirms what is clear and unmistakable to honest people, including Bernadette Brooten (a lesbian), William Loader and other scholarly people who also support SSM. Are these pro-homosexual scholars (and I've listed a half-dozen in discussions between us in the past) "speaking for God" or assuming something about which they have no actual proofs or evidence? Neither. They're affirming that which is true. And they do so in the same way as I and others have done (albeit in greater detail and even more evidence from a better understanding of the original language).
Now, I was going to address your list of beliefs above, but they are far too convoluted and you dismiss a number of realities in order to hold those beliefs and as such it would require quite a bit of effort to do it properly (though I can and will if need be). Instead, I'll just hit one or two things from that comment:
"Thus, I support LGBTQ rights for a variety of reasons, in addition to being informed by the Bible. But, I do not say "God wants gay folk to have the right to marry and I know this because the Bible and I can't be mistaken on that point!"
That's good because there's no way you could honestly say such a thing due to the fact that the Bible does not in any way inform that position...not that you've ever taken the time to explain how. Feel free to provide a link to the post you feel gets the job done, and I'll be happy to show once again why it doesn't.
"They do. If they can't be mistaken, then their opinion on the matter is the same as God's. How is that NOT conflating their opinion with God's?"
This gets back to the absurd notion that we can't know anything with certainty. That you disagree on a given point is one thing. To disagree with no actual evidence-based Scriptural support is quite another. Here, it's not a question of whether or not these theologians "can't" be mistaken. The fact is that they aren't. If you disagree, you need to bring "hard data" to back up your contrary position. You have yet to do that. You simply make contrary assertions. But more specifically, if they can't be mistaken, and aren't, then yes, their opinion is the same as God's. I would hope the opinions of all good Christians are the same as God's. That should be considering He's God. But such is not "conflating" anything. It's acceptance of God's teachings, will or commands. There's no ambiguity except what you seek to inject. It's agreement, and more importantly, obedience.
As for your latest list, you "Another series of clarifications about this...":
1. This whole "not a rule book" thing is nonsensical. There's no way you do not hold fast to a variety of teachings, which makes them rules for how you live your life. But the notion that Scripture is not a rule book is just a ploy to absolve you of following that which conflicts with your world view...in this case, your view of human sexuality. How you can suggest that no interpretation is required first before following a rule, one from Scripture or one from the job, is inane. One cannot truly follow a rule or teaching without first understanding it and interpretation is understanding. That leads us to knowing the difference between what is time/people specific and what is universal. You pretend such things are unknowable, mysterious and beyond our capacity as humans to understand. What kind of God expects His creation to follow His will without knowing what that is? It's absurd. Thus...
2. No one "takes it that way" because it is obvious that those particular commands are not meant for us as the sexual prohibitions of Lev 18 are. There is absolutely NOTHING in the way that law is presented that suggests or hints that they are meant for anyone beyond the Chosen People as there is for the sexual laws of Lev 18 (see my comment above). So just as it is proper to acknowledge that your example is not representative of universal law, so it is proper to acknowledge that Lev 18 laws are.
3. What matters is whether or not what the "inerrantist" says is true, and if he can back it up. The Nashville statement says nothing that isn't true and can't be supported as true. You just don't like the truth. Those "opinions" have been supported, and exhaustively and comprehensively so, by theologians and scholars both for and against SSM.
4. You keep making this claim but you've never taken step one toward explaining which laws are and are not universal and why. You simply assert that we're "conflating" our "opinions" with the word of God. OK. Prove it. Prove us wrong, or even suggest doubt. You haven't yet, nor can you. You've never gone farther than to make this false claim. Don't worry. We can take it. We'd be more than happy to learn that we're wrong and thus improve our understanding of God's will.
But the reality is that you have no argument. Only the assertion. You simply want us to accept that we might be wrong when all evidence, context and interpretations over the last 4000 years says we're right. If we might be wrong, then you might be right and "might be" is good enough for you to go on enabling those whose immorality is likely condemning them to an eternity apart from God.
5. "I am not doing this." Clearly you do not. You look at Lev 18:20 and say, "Oh, I don't like this one. This makes those old lesbians I know in total rebellion and they'll be so sad to have to deny themselves their lesbian pleasures." Thus, it's easier for you to pretend it isn't a universal rule. No argument. No evidence. No support from Scripture. Just assertion to please people, not God.
It is never wrong to point out Scriptural teaching and insist all are better off living accordingly. It's bad to withhold Truth. It's worse to distort it as you do.
"I am clear that I am not speaking for God."
Nor should you ever until you actually begin speaking the truth about what Scripture teaches. And that's the truly significant difference. The signatories of the Nashville statement are telling the truth about what Scripture teaches.
Here, it's not a question of whether or not these theologians "can't" be mistaken. The fact is that they aren't.
sigh. Marshall, it is an UNPROVABLE claim. To say, "God does (or does not) approve of gay guys marrying" is not provable one way or the other. As a simple fact of reality, it's not provable.
Thus, YOUR HUNCHES about what God thinks on the matter are YOUR HUNCHES. Not facts. And since they are your hunches, then you can be mistaken.
Look, as I've often said, it's not a matter of whether or not there is text that says, "If men lie with men, it's wrong, kill them." The questions are:
Is that God's position?
Can you prove it?
Is it God's "will" for people today?
Is this text representative of some sort of universal law? If so, can you prove it?
If you can't prove any of it, then it is an opinion, not a fact.
Do you understand?
Can you admit that you are wholly unable to prove your hunch?
If not, then you do not understand the difference between reality and fantasy and good luck with that. That appears to be the case.
~Dan
Interesting, you demand that others prove their claims, and demean them if they don't. Yet, you won't do what you demand of others.
Is that what you mean by grace?
What claim do you think I'm making?
Dan
Just 2 as examples.
1. "95% of blacks vote democrat"
2. That I am a "racism apologist".
I don't "think" you've made these claims, they're right out in public for all to see.
It's pretty low hanging fruit, but it makes my point.
Jumping in quickly to point out a more significant example, even as I have no illusions about Dan's willingness to live up to the standards he imposes on others:
- the assertion that a claim must be proven or proveable for that claim to be known or knowable -- i.e., to be a fact and not just an opinion or a "hunch."
Dan's position is, if you can't prove your position, your position is just a hunch.
So far as I have seen, he has never even attempted to prove his position, to show how it measures up to its own stringent requirements.
Craig, I meant is there what claim HERE do you think I'm making?
I've already addressed those two claims on the post where you raised the question, I shan't repeat myself.
Bubba,
My position is this: An idea/theory about something which is unprovable (ie, is not definitively known) is an opinion, not a fact which can be proven and is, thus, indisputable.
I believe this to be true because it's the basic definition of opinion and fact. That is, it's just reality in the English language.
Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case.
What do you want me to prove? The definition of opinion and fact?
Take it up with the dictionary.
And just to clarify: Dan's position is, IF an idea is not provable - if it is disputable - then it is not a fact, but an opinion. Your hunches which you can't prove about God are, in total, opinions, not facts.
Do you want to try to dispute reality?
~Dan
"sigh. Marshall, it is an UNPROVABLE claim. To say, "God does (or does not) approve of gay guys marrying" is not provable one way or the other."
But they aren't saying "God does (or does not) approve of gay guys marrying", are they? No. They're not. They're saying what God, through Scripture does say about human sexuality and marriage. If therefore by default one concludes that God doesn't approve of SSM, that conclusion is logical and reasonable by virtue of what Scripture does and doesn't say on the subject. YOU, on the other hand, make assertions to the contrary despite all that Scripture says or doesn't say on the subject.
At the same time, based on all that Scripture does and doesn't say on the subject, the conclusion has been proven. You just reject reality due to your devotion to carnal desires of those for whom you have no Christian love.
"Look, as I've often said, it's not a matter of whether or not there is text that says, "If men lie with men, it's wrong, kill them." The questions are:
Is that God's position?
Can you prove it?
Is it God's "will" for people today?
Is this text representative of some sort of universal law? If so, can you prove it?"
First off, it's quite an indictment of your character to purposely and routinely choose Lev 20:13 (instead of Lev 18:20) as if killing homosexuals is in any way a goal of honest Christians who revere the teachings of Scripture on human sexuality. Clearly you do this to demonize rather than to seek truth. That's no longer unexpected of one who only claims a regard for "embracing grace", but only as a bludgeon to use against people of opposing opinions against which you can't defend. So your following questions are moot when posed against the straw man you've erected. Instead, I'll answer them in relation to Lev 18:20, since that's where the truth of my position originates.
"Is that God's position?"
Yes. It is God's position that homosexual behavior is unlawful because it is an abomination. No where in Scripture is there so much as a vague hint that there is a context or scenario in which one might engage in such behavior without it still being an abomination.
"Can you prove it?"
Yes, and I've done it over and over again referencing the clear and unambiguous verses from Scripture related to the subject. In doing so, I've had no reason to inject my own biases or to inject my own meaning into that which is plain and crystal clear to any honest student of Scripture.
"Is it God's "will" for people today?
Is this text representative of some sort of universal law? If so, can you prove it?"
It is God's will for all people of every era, it is universal and I have proven it in comments above. Thus, it is not opinion when I say God disapproves of SSM, it is the only possible conclusion based on all that Scripture does and doesn't say on the subject. There is less firm foundation for evolution than there is for this conclusion. When you can actually provide evidence, fact, HARD DATA to refute any of this, I will mark my calendar to commemorate the occasion. Fantasy your ass.
"And just to clarify: Dan's position is..."
"...if MY terms for proof aren't met, it's not a fact."
Therefore, God MUST say in Scripture, "I, the Lord your God, prohibit SSM." otherwise it is not provable that God would not condone, bless, tolerate or approve of SSM. The law doesn't impose that burden on lawyers and law enforcement, science doesn't impose that burden on nature...but dammit, Dan insists one have something so distinctly specific in order to deny him the license to believe what suits him personally. There is far less that he has ever offered to support ANY of his beliefs, but he holds them because he has carved out this liberty by demanding from opponents that which he has no intention of providing for his own.
No, Marshall. Proof is proof. Saying, "There is a line in an ancient text that I, MARSHALL think means that God is opposed to all gay people having sex anywhere ever," is not proof. It is literally an opinion.
If it were "proof" and indisputable, no one would be able to dispute it. People do, with good reason and not simply "it's my opinion of an interpretation of an ancient text."
Get help. Ask a wise friend who understands the difference between opinions and facts.
Seriously, this is delusional thinking, I don't know what to do with you.
Craig, Bubba? Anyone able to help Marshall understand that his interpretation of an ancient text is not the same as definitive proof of what God thinks, or even if there is a god? Demonstrate your rationality, please.
Or admit you're delusional like Marshall by simply remaining silent. No need to defend the ridiculous.
~Dan
"No, Marshall. Proof is proof. Saying, "There is a line in an ancient text that I, MARSHALL think means that God is opposed to all gay people having sex anywhere ever," is not proof. It is literally an opinion."
Nonsense. Opinion is pretending it isn't speaking exclusively to the behavior itself without regard to any context or scenario in which it might take place. It is as I've said...I don't read anything into it. I don't offer opinion about what it might mean, or pretend that I can't affirm what it means because, though there's nothing anywhere in Scripture to suggest it, there might be something that allows for a way to engage in it without it being detestable.
You dispute it not because there is any evidence to support opposing the 4000 year understanding of it, but because you simply don't like it. You and other enablers and activists don't have "good reason". You only have personal preference and the desire that it can't possibly mean YOU.
If you wish to confirm that I am delusional, then you'll need to bring some evidence to bear that refutes my position on this incredible clear and unambiguous verse. "Irrational" is merely stomping your feet and holding your breath until I change my tune and soften my conviction on what is so obvious. When you can borrow and pair of testicles and engage in such a presentation of compelling evidence, I'll be more than willing to alter my position, should that evidence be actual evidence and not more of your wishful thinking.
By the way, one more thing about prohibited behaviors in Scripture: one's desire to engage means nothing. One's propensity, compulsion, "orientation"...none of that has any bearing on whether or not one is prohibited.
I don't read anything into it.
You are reading into it that it represents the thoughts of an actual God. You can't prove that God exists, or that these represent those God's words. It's your interpretation that says that.
Atheists might read it and think it's a piece of fiction. That would be what they are reading into it. You are taking a text and saying, "Not only does the text say 'men shall not lie with men. if they do, kill them.' BUT, those words represent the will of an actual God. Not only that, but even though the words there were spoken contextually to the ancient people of Israel, they represent a universal rule from that God."
You are reading into it all manner of things that the text does not insist upon. The text is only text. YOU decide it's literal rules from a literal God that are literally universally applicable.
But you won't understand that any more than you'll understand the other times I've explained it.
Bubba? Craig?
~Dan
"You are reading into it that it represents the thoughts of an actual God. You can't prove that God exists, or that these represent those God's words."
I'm sorry. I keep forgetting I'm dealing with someone who doesn't really believe in God, only a concept of his own creation. My only mistake, actually, was acting as if I was dealing with a believer, who wouldn't even try to suggest that I first have to prove God exists before affirming that what Scripture says is clear.
I don't have to prove God exists to know with absolute certainty that the deity described in Scripture....you know...the Book about which we've been referencing in this discussion about the outrage of theologians signing onto what the Book says about humans sexuality....is not stuttering in calling homosexual behavior detestable without every saying one word that mitigates that in any way. What a lame and desperate ploy!!!
Furthermore, I gave you EVIDENCE...HARD DATA...that supports the FACT that this God of Scripture regards the behavior as detestable...and abomination...for EVERYONE by virtue of the fact that He references its practice by the people from whom He liberated His Chosen People, as well as by those who He is driving out before them. So now I guess you're saying that it was only detestable for Hebrews, Egyptians and Canaanites??? Really??? To conclude for that the prohibition is universal for all people for all time is somehow "reading into the text" that which is not there??? Are you that convicted in your immorality to suggest such a thing???
And what does it matter what atheists believe about the text, or what Druids think about the text, or what Hindus think about the text, or what cats and dogs thing about the text? Do you believe in the God of the Bible or don't you? If you do, then considering the positions of all of those, including the cats and dogs, is not relevant to whether or not the God of the Bible considers the practice detestable or not and for whom (everyone, everywhere, all the time). It's pathetic that you're going to these insane lengths to defend your support for this immoral behavior.
Try, instead, bringing YOUR facts, YOUR "hard data", YOUR verses and passages from Scripture and show how YOUR conclusions are NOT invention and eisegesis. I've done my part. All you're doing is crapping on it and pretending there is some flaw in my methods, conclusions and positions...just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Really, I must have missed where you provided proof of those claims. Maybe you could copy paste the proof over here.
Just checked.
You never provided proof of the first (you did try to claim that your very specific claim wasn't, but that's not proof), and your only comment after I asked for proof of #2, was a snarky one liner.
So, I guess that's 3 claims you've made and can't prove. It's not looking good
Oh, Bubba's got you nailed. Your claim is self refuting, in essence it commits suicide.
Dan writes:
"And just to clarify: Dan's position is, IF an idea is not provable - if it is disputable - then it is not a fact, but an opinion. Your hunches which you can't prove about God are, in total, opinions, not facts."
I have long understood what this position is, just as I understood his prior claim to be attributing arrogance to an inanimate text entirely apart from impugning the character of its author. I believe that earlier claim to be dishonest, I explained why and even presented evidence in a numbered list, and Dan never even attempted to address even one entry in that list. I believe this claim about facts is mistaken, I have challenged Dan to prove that his claim meets its own standards, and he has yet even to attempt to do so.
Again:
"Dan's position is, IF an idea is not provable - if it is disputable - then it is not a fact, but an opinion."
- Has Dan attempted to prove his position? No, so by his own claims, we should dismiss his position as mere opinion and "hunch," but that's apparently okay. His position is self-evident reality.
- Dan's made the standard for facts even higher, needlessly conflating concepts that ARE not synonymous, to claim that facts are not only provable, they're indisputable:
"If [Marshall's position] were 'proof' and indisputable, no one would be able to dispute it. People do, with good reason and not simply 'it's my opinion of an interpretation of an ancient text.'"
Everyone else in this discussion disputes Dan's position regarding facts -- Craig, Marshall, and myself; Dan's outnumbered 3-1 -- but that's okay, too. Those who dispute DAN'S position are obviously delusional and irrational, their disputing his position is NOT an argument against its reality, it's evidence against their sanity.
- Dan denounces people who believe that divine revelation or even human texts are sometimes clear beyond reasonable and good-faith disagreement -- these people are arrogantly presuming to speak for God or the text's author -- but he equates his own position with objective reality, and that's okay, because Dan has the authority to speak for reality, just as he has the authority to speak for the entire rest of the world in rejecting what those men of God affirmed in that statement that happened to be signed in Nashville.
("We deny that some humans are the spokesmouths for God, even though they may act as if they are." Moses and the rest of the OT prophets claimed to speak for God; Jesus claimed to be God and treated what Moses said as equivalent to what God said; Dan claims to follow Jesus and His teachings, even as he simultaneously claims that the meaning of the ancient texts recording His teachings are ultimately unknowable, but all that's okay: what's NOT okay is questioning the sincerity of Dan's claim to be a Christian.)
- And Dan objects to the idea that a text's meaning is clear, but literally the **ONLY** evidence he offers in defense of his position is the meaning of a text -- more specifically, a dictionary definition, but that's okay. Dan not only speaks for reality, he speaks for the intent of all other writers.
If anyone see incoherence in any of this, that's his problem, not Dan's.
Dan, let's go back to your claims about the dictionary.
"My position is this: An idea/theory about something which is unprovable (ie, is not definitively known) is an opinion, not a fact which can be proven and is, thus, indisputable.
"I believe this to be true because it's the basic definition of opinion and fact. That is, it's just reality in the English language.
"Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
"Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case.
"What do you want me to prove? The definition of opinion and fact?
"Take it up with the dictionary."
Take it up with WHICH dictionary, Dan?
MY ONE AND ONLY QUESTION, at least for now, is this: Very SPECIFICALLY, which dictionary contains the definitions you're citing above?
If this dictionary is online, I would appreciate the URL (web address), or if it's on paper, I would appreciate details on the edition, publisher, and year of publication.
Either way, I'd like to be able to verify your claim about how the dictionary defines its terms, especially since dictionary definitions are apparently decisive in proving your position.
Those definitions were the first ones that popped up when I googled them. It appears to be a google dictionary.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Dictionary#dobs=fact
https://www.google.com/search?q=Dictionary#dobs=opinion
But here, I'll cite others...
FACT: 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2. something known to exist or to have happened
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact
I cite specifically 3, here, because it is the most applicable to fact in the sense we are speaking of. But 1 and 2 work as well. IF something actually exists, one should be able to demonstrate hard support for it. Otherwise, how do we KNOW it exists?
If something is "known" to exist, how do we "know" unless we cite hard support for it.
Someone can say, "Aliens from mars exist and I know this as a fact," and it COULD BE THE CASE that aliens exist from Mars, but unless he can cite some hard data, that person making the claim does not, in fact, "know" this unless he has actual experience or observation. He is offering an opinion without experience or observation.
Opinion: 1, a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
Also from dictionary.com.
Or, from MW:
FACT: 3. The quality of being actual.
4. Something that has actual existence
5. A piece of information presented as having objective reality.
(the first two definitions were archaic)
OPINION: 1. a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2. belief stronger than an impression and less strong than positive knowledge
My same points remain. Marshall's (and your) opinions and interpretations are very much opinions. Now, it is entirely possible that somehow, Marshall or you might be right. God may, in fact, disagree with two guys marrying. (I don't believe it for a second, but it COULD be a fact), but you don't know it as a fact and can't claim it as a fact unless you are able to present some positive knowledge, some hard, observable data.
This is way too hard, fellas. I'm asking if you agree with reality and you all want me to provide dictionary definitions to some basic words. It appears to be the case that you all just have a difficult time understanding common words used in English and wish to use them in some other, non-standard way.
Now I've answered your ONE question to me. My ONE question to you:
Anyone able to help Marshall understand that his interpretation of an ancient text is not the same as definitive proof of what God thinks, or even if there is a god?
Or, put another way (if you wish to agree with Marshall)...
IF you think your opinions about interpretations on some passages in the Bible are facts, please demonstrate these "facts" with hard data.
That is, NO ONE is disputing that Leviticus contains a line that says what it says (approximating "men shall not lie with men. If they do, kill them.") Indeed, the text is there. THAT is a fact.
But beyond that fact, Marshall is saying that this verse (and presumably, a handful of others on a similar theme) mean that there is a factual God and that this God factually inspired people to pass on those literal words, to eventually be written down and to convey not only the notion that "men shall not lie with men" in the context of ancient Israel, but also to all people everywhere in all times.
Where is the hard data to support this as a fact about what this "God" believes, and not mere human opinion?
THAT is the question I'm asking you.
The fact is, you can't do it. Can you admit that?
~Dan
Marshall, to address your oft-whined complaint, "Why do you use THAT verse and not the other verse that doesn't say kill the gays?"
I use it because it helps point out the very problem you all have.
You gladly remove the second half of the verse and say, "THAT part of the verse is not a universal rule, in my opinion..." even though nothing in the text tells you that, but insist that the first half IS a universal rule from God for all people everywhere.
You use your human reasoning to take that text, along with others, and say, "You know, in thinking this through, I don't think that "kill them' part is universal. That was only for ancient Israel. In ancient Israel, yes, it was God-commanded to kill gay people. BUT, I don't think we should do this today..." or words to that effect. You use your human reason to reach this conclusion. There is objectively no texts that tell you to do this directly, it is a result of your human reasoning.
And good for you. You SHOULD use your human reasoning to think about what any text says.
The point is, it is a human opinion/interpretation, not a fact. We can't prove the fact because we can't ask God. Or, more literally, we can ask God but we can't objectively hear God's answer.
As a point of fact.
And the inability to prove (now) 3 simple claims continues.
As to your "question", the reality or factuality of something is unrelated to Art's interpretation or perception. In other words the text is either an accurate representation of what God wanted to communicate or it isn't. So to put this as simply a matter of opinion is the wrong question. Art's claim is (in essence) "The Bible is the most direct and accurate communication we have from God, and it's reasonable to take it at face value when it makes clear unambiguous statements.".
The problem you have, is that you aren't holding your claims up to the same standards of evidence you demand of others.
All you have to do to solve this problem is simple, proved proof that Art is wrong. But that's the problem, isn't it, you exempt yourself from what you demand from others.
Art's claim is (in essence) "The Bible is the most direct and accurate communication we have from God, and it's reasonable to take it at face value when it makes clear unambiguous statements.".
The problems with this, then...
1. Prove it. Who says that there even IS a God? Who says that this Bible is the most direct communication? Are you saying that it is the opinion of SOME HUMANS that this is the case? If so, okay, so what? Has God said that? Prove it.
2. Even IF that were provably the case (and so far as I've ever seen, no one has or can prove it), what does it mean to take it at face value? The Bible clearly contains text that says if men lay with men, we should kill them. Period. BUT, Marshall does not take that at face value. He uses his reason to compare it to other verses and reason his way into taking the first half of the two commands as literal and universal but the second half as literal THEN, but not universal. But that is Marshall's reasoning, not "face value."
This still comes down to the case that you all are appealing to human reason and opinion and trying to call it fact or God's Word.
No, when Marshall makes what I say is, so far as I can see, an unprovable claim, the onus is on Marshall to support the claim.
What you all are doing is like this:
Bob: It's the factual reality that purple unicorns with rainbow wings fart grape juice.
Dan: I see no evidence to accept any of that as reality.
Bob: Prove it!
Dan: No, the burden is on you to prove your claim, not on me to disprove what is not proven that you claim to be a fact.
Prove it, Craig. Or better yet, admit it is an unprovable human opinion. That's fine, there's no harm in admitting reality for what it is.
In other words the text is either an accurate representation of what God wanted to communicate or it isn't.
That is true. The problem you all have is that we, none of us, can prove one way or the other that it is or isn't accurate, OR that our interpretations are or aren't accurate.
It's like saying, "There either exists or doesn't exist a purple unicorn and if he does, he can either fart grape juice or he can't..." Yes, that's true. But if you are claiming as a fact that the purple unicorn exists, the burden is on you to prove it.
~Dan
Ok, that's a long wordy response to simply reiterate that you won't live up to the standard you demand of others.
Prove Art is wrong. It should be easy, but you won't or can't.
My claim is that if Marshall is going to claim his interpretation of God's idea about gay folk is a fact, that he should support it or clarify that it's an opinion, not a fact.
What exactly do you think I need to prove?
Dan
Dan, I appreciate the sources, but I notice none of them actually state that a fact must be proven or even simply provable -- not even the dictionary entry you emphasize:
"a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true."
You assert, "IF something actually exists, one should be able to demonstrate hard support for it. Otherwise, how do we KNOW it exists?"
Look again at the entry you cite: one can know something exists "by actual experience or observation." One can experience that X is true without being able to prove it to others, one can observe that X is true without being able to prove it to others.
Indeed all provable claims are knowable claims, but not all knowable claims are provable claims: proof is *A* way to know something, but not the only way.
As I have mentioned several times before, the claim "cogito ergo sum," the law of non-contradiction, and discrete events such as the commission of a crime are ALL things that can be observed and therefore known even if they cannot be proven to some third party.
The dictionary definitions you cite **DO NOT** state that a fact must be proven or even just provable, so all you're doing is insisting on your OPINION about those definitions, based only on a interpretation of those entries that is so implausible that I don't hesitate to call it a misinterpretation.
You're welcome to prove me wrong.
IF you think your opinions about interpretations on some passages in [a dictionary] are facts, please demonstrate these "facts" with hard data.
You'll notice, the sentence above is EXACTLY what you wrote to Marshall, with only one noun phrase changed, as indicated in the brackets. I'm doing nothing more than expecting you to do what you demand of others.
not all knowable claims are provable claims
I'm not speaking of esoteric rational claims that can be reasoned away one way or another. I'm speaking of very specific fact claims:
"GOD DOES NOT WANT GAY GUYS TO GET MARRIED. A long time ago, in fact, God wanted people to kill gay people who had sex."
Neither you nor Marshall nor anyone else "know" this in some esoteric way that you can not, nonetheless, prove.
Look: If Ralph came up to me as he was dying and told me that he witnessed Bubba violating a puppy and then, Ralph died... in that situation, I know for a fact that Ralph told me that. However, since he's dead and presumably never told anyone else this, I can't prove it.
That is not like this.
God has not whispered in your ears and told you something God hasn't told everyone else. That has not happened and that is not what we're talking about, am I right?
Instead, we're talking about a text that we all can see. YOU all are reading the text and saying you "understand" and thus "know" that the texts taken together "prove" authoritatively that God agrees with your hunches on this matter.
But all you can cite is the text that we all can see and not everyone agrees with it.
Consider this: A Zoroastrian assures us that he has read the Avesta (their sacred text) and in this text, he finds lines that assures us - authoritatively as a fact! mind you - that Ahura Mazda first created seven abstract heavenly beings called Amesha Spentas, who support him and represent beneficent aspects, along with numerous yazads, lesser beings worthy of worship. He then created the universe itself in order to ensnare evil.
Now, this is a fact because he read it in his holy text. Do you accept this assurance as a fact (it IS in the holy text, after all!) or do you say that he can't prove it and there is no reason to believe it to be the case?
I say the latter and I say there is no difference in how you would treat the Zoroastrian than how reasonable people treat your claims of "knowing" something that is not provable and which, as a point of fact, is no more than your personal human interpretation of an ancient text.
Can you agree, at the least, that you and Marshall are, in fact, interpreting the text to reach your conclusions? That you are using your reason to reach these conclusions?
~Dan
1. Prove that your interpretation of Art's claim is accurate.
2. Prove that Art's actual claim is wrong.
3. Prove that "95% of blacks" vote democrat.
4. Prove that I am a "apologist" for racism.
5. Prove that you provided proof of your two claims in the other thread.
Now your up to 5. Yet no proof, looking like a trend.
1. Marshall is a big boy, he can tell me if I'm understanding him correctly. I think he has already clarified saying that he can NOT be mistaken, that this claim that God is opposed to gay guys marrying is a fact, not an opinion, but he can clarify all he wants. I'm saying as clearly as I know how, THIS is what I am hearing Marshall say and THIS is what I'm objecting to... the conflation of his opinion with God's word or fact.
2. So, if a fella comes up to you and says that purple unicorns fart ice cream, the onus is on YOU to prove it is wrong?
That isn't how reason or debate works.
And seriously, Craig, before you say anything else, answer question #2, please and clarify that you understand how reasonable disagreement works.
3-5. You can't count.
~Dan
Dan,
This is going to take no small amount of keystrokes and personal time, so consider that you you're going to continue with your petulance and delete this and what follows, you're only providing more to confirm my already low opinion of your character.
Preliminaries:
---Your objections by and large are such that I'm astounded you aren't embarrassed to express them in print for all to see. I'm embarrassed for you. Have you recently suffered some degree of blunt force trauma?
---It doesn't matter if God exists. The Nashville statement doesn't require that He does, either. It only states what Scripture teaches on the subject of human sexuality. That is, if the entire Bible is total and utter fiction, it still presents homosexual behavior as detestable. That is what the Nashville statement affirms and what you need to provide evidence to refute if indeed you believe they are "interpreting" Scripture improperly.
---Lev 20:13 is irrelevant except to reiterate that Scripture teaches that homosexual behavior is prohibited. It could have said, "But don't worry...we won't kill you for it" and that would have no bearing on the FACT that Scripture regards the behavior as detestable and thus no one should engage in it. If you want to deal with why the capital punishment for it no longer applies, I'm more than capable of explaining in print what you already know but ignore because it is inconvenient for your support of sexual immorality. But here's a hint: it involves Somebody's crucifixion. In the meantime, know this: you're conflating the Law with descriptions of sinful behaviors. We are not under the law, but what was sinful behavior is still sinful behavior.
"God may, in fact, disagree with two guys marrying. (I don't believe it for a second, but it COULD be a fact), but you don't know it as a fact and can't claim it as a fact unless you are able to present some positive knowledge, some hard, observable data."
God does IN FACT disagree with two guys marrying each other. We can know it is a fact based on all that Scripture says about human sexual behavior, with regards to which manifestations of human sexuality are moral and which are not. Said another way, all references to homosexual behavior clearly indicate it is sinful/prohibited/detestable...to an extent that for a time, God mandated death for those found to have engaged in it. That's a pretty significant indicator of God's position on homosexual behavior. He didn't order that punishment for all sins committed by the tribes of Israel, though Scripture teaches that that wages of sin is death. Once again, significant to say the least. So the two Levitical verses (Lev 18:20 & 20:13) by themselves are all we need to know with regard to God's position on the behavior.
If God views the behavior to be detestable/an abomination, one is hard pressed to make the case that He would or could regard any union of two men or two women to be worthy of blessings...or a moral union. You haven't made that case yet in all the years I've challenged you to do so. That is, you haven't done so without twisting definitions to make it easier. The thing is, even twisting definitions, as you do with "marriage", doesn't help you get passed the "abomination" aspect of the behavior in which two men who "marry" each other WILL do in order to consummate their unholy union. That's because in all of Scripture there is nothing that provides a loophole through which one can squeeze and still come out the other end not having committed an abomination.
So, at this point, I will simply remind you that I have provided Scriptural evidence for why this prohibition is universal and not relevant only to the tribes of Israel in the time of Moses. You have yet to offer counter evidence that refutes it.
Instead, you've gone on with this lame crap about whether or not God exists, about what Zoroastrians might believe, as if what they believe matters to what Scripture says and the affirmation of what it says by ministerial and scholarly signatories of the Nashville statement. Or you make this lame appeal to "reality", as if the reality is NOT that the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture is that homosexual behavior is sinful, forbidden and worthy of death.
So at some point, you need to demonstrate just how it is possible that God would bless a union of two men when all that Scripture says about sexual behavior, marriage, family, etc. makes that likelihood so incredibly out of the question. You need to do it by appealing to Scripture, because it is only through Scripture that we learn ANYTHING about what God might possibly expect of us at all. And I do NOT expect you to first prove that God exists, because I'm working on the proposition that you're not just bullshitting when you claim you believe in God.
You cannot appeal to the heavens, because the notion that the heavens proclaim His Glory is only something you learned in Scripture. No Scripture and you have no possibility of coming to believe in God simply because you turned your gaze skyward. That's because you'd have no way to prove that it could even be possible to come to believe in that manner if NOT for Scripture saying such a thing.
Interpreting is only required for that which is not clear. Think foreign language. We need interpreters when someone from Japan is speaking to us. We don't need and interpreter when someone down the street is speaking to us. As such, I don't "interpret" what God has revealed about human sexuality because it's already quite clear. There's no mystery involved in the teachings. There is no vagueness about it. The lesson isn't convoluted. Your argument that SSM is OK is convoluted, but clearly is based on nothing but your personal desire that it be OK.
So I'm not using "reason" to reach my conclusions because it's all there plainly for all to see. There's nothing to reason out except for how you think you're fooling anyone with regard to this issue.
God opposes SSM. This is a fact and this fact is based on all we KNOW about His Will regarding human sexuality as revealed to us clearly, unambiguously and without question in Scripture.
Craig, I asked you to answer the question: So, if a fella comes up to you and says that purple unicorns fart ice cream, the onus is on YOU to prove it is wrong?
You haven't yet. When you answer that question directly and clearly, then you can post. Not until.
You all don't see it and I don't know how to help you understand.
You, as a point of reality, DO use your reasoning to interpret, "kill them" is not a literal and universal command for all people, but "men shall not lay with men" IS a universal prohibition against all gay behavior, including marriage.
You're assigning meaning to those words that aren't there literally in the text. It is, therefore, YOUR OPINION and not a fact that God hates all gay behavior.
By your measure, the Muslim extremists/fundamentalists (with whom you share a great deal of commonality) who say, "Allah wishes for us to kill gay people. We know this to be a fact because it is found in our holy texts..." are correct, because they find lines in their texts which THEY INTERPRET to mean that there IS an Allah and that this Allah wishes it, so it's a fact.
How is what you're suggesting different than the Muslim fundamentalists? Why is YOUR hunch a "fact" and their hunches are wrong?
No doubt, you'll say, because the Bible really should be taken literally (except for the parts I dismiss) whereas the Qu'ran should not be, but on what basis would you say that?
You have no consistent reasoning that makes what you say rational.
So, tell me this, Marshall:
The Bible is clear in its warnings against wealth accumulation. Jesus clearly and literally said "DO NOT STORE UP FOR YOURSELF TREASURES here on earth." That's in context, it's not in doubt what he meant. It's straightforward and it's the very words of Jesus.
Add that on to all the many things he actually says warning about wealth ("it's hard for a rich man to enter the realm of God..." for instance, or James' "Is it not the rich who oppress you?" and as you know, I could go on for pages - that opposed to the entirely ZERO condemnations of gay marriage from Jesus) and it's pretty straightforward.
So, given the clarity of the text, then are you saying we can KNOW as a fact that God is opposed to storing up monetary wealth on Earth?
Or is that an opinion?
And HOW is it possibly a fact, when we can't establish exactly what God meant by that when God has not told us directly and provably an entire SHIT about wealth management?
We have a text that some assume is from God with varying degrees of literality (with no one ever having a perfect rubric for saying what is and isn't literal or factual), but that some people take it as "God's Word" does not mean that we have proven it's God's Word and even if it were proven - and it's not - we have no fail proof, authoritative rubric as to what should be taken literally.
Again, NO ONE takes the Bible literally, we ALL interpret it and assign meanings. HOW is that not opinion, then?
Please answer at least the bold questions.
In thinking this through, I think I can point to the root cause of y'all's rational problems.
The Bible is literally a collection of stories written literally by a variety of humans. That is according to the text.
Now there is one entire line in the Bible that says, "all scripture is god-breathed," and you all use your reasoning to say that what this verse means, to you, is that this is the same as if God wrote the entire 66 book Bible.
You further use your reasoning to say that if God,in effect, wrote this book, then it would be perfect and without error.
But that is using your reasoning and it is not a factual given.
You reason to say...
1. There is a God
2. This God inspired the 66 books
3. This God inspired it to be without error
4. This God inspired it to be so clear, that some humans can read some parts of it and understand perfectly what those parts were intended to mean, making the understanding of those humans to be the same as God's word.
4a. You do this without giving any consistent rubric as to which humans can interpret which verses with perfect understanding.
These are all unproven and problematic points in your eisogesis and reasoning. Until you repair these holes in your arguments, you have faulty human guesses and opinions, not fact.
Not that you'll understand it this time, either.
Dan
Dan, I would hardly describe my counter-examples as "esoteric," not least the example of witnessing events like the commission of a crime, since eyewitness testimony is so important to human courts of law and absolutely essential to the divine gospel of the faith to which you so implausibly claim allegiance.
But never mind.
- If your position only addresses "very specific fact claims," you shouldn't make universal claims like this...
"And just to clarify: Dan's position is, IF an idea is not provable - if it is disputable - then it is not a fact, but an opinion."
...and you certainly shouldn't invoke a dictionary definition that applies universally and not just to a select subset. It seems you've changed your position, and you're no longer attempting to defend a universal claim I've rejected as obviously untrue.
- If your position is that the meaning of a text cannot be known with certainty, you shouldn't try to support your claim by appealing to the meaning of a text, specifically an entry in the dictionary.
- If you're going to rail against the supposed arrogance of speaking for God or the author of a text, you should CERTAINLY not presume to speak for the rest of the world and even reality itself.
- And if you're going to object to negative conclusions being drawn about you, you should refrain from stating such conclusions about others -- or, if you're going to call people delusional for disagreeing with you, you should not be surprised that people call you dishonest.
---
There are different standards of evidence for different subjects -- "proof" means different things in fields like calculus, chemistry, and archaeology -- and so it's a category error to expect a mathematical proof for a linguistic question on the meaning of a text. Demands for "hard data" make you look like a doofus.
One CERTAINLY should be humble in studying a text and its wider context, but eventually a reader may be sufficiently knowledgeable about to text to conclude that its meaning is clear beyond any reasonable, good-faith disagreement.
The Bible clearly teaches theism: it is CLEAR in claiming that God exists even if it is not CORRECT in making that claim.
The Bible isn't clear on everything -- there IS room to disagree, just not INFINITE room -- but that disagreement is hashed out by a careful study of the text, for which you seem to have no interest.
And since you cannot even affirm that the Bible is clear on the existence of God and the historicity of Jesus, I see no point tackling other teachings.
I did answer your absurd question.
If someone makes an absurd claim, they should be able to support that claim. Although you seem to not hold yourself to that standard.
The problem you have is twofold.
1. You pretend that Art hasn't provided ample support for his claims. Support that you haven't conclusively refuted.
2. You've made a counter claim. You've claimed that Art is wrong.
Therefore, you are under the obligation to provide proof of your counter claim.
The point, as always, is your inability to accept the innate hypocrisy in your unwillingness to do what you demand of others.
So, I've answered you twice, I guess we'll see if you can live up to what you've said.
Speaking of unproven claims, in addition to the 5 on the table, how about providing proof that your statement really does speak for the "rest of the world".
If someone makes an absurd claim, they should be able to support that claim. Although you seem to not hold yourself to that standard.
Thank you for answering and yes, of course, this is correct.
Marshall has NOT done this. He has pointed, again, to his opinions, his interpretations about several passages in the Bible... how he, Marshall, thinks they are best interpreted.
This does not validate a fact claim that God is opposed to gay marriages. It's all unproven opinion about a text he can't validate independently about the opinion of an entity (God) he can't validate. This does not equate to facts. These are, in fact, opinion.
Do you understand this reality?
Please answer this before making any other commentary.
As to this...
You've made a counter claim. You've claimed that Art is wrong.
What I've said quite clearly is that Marshall has not validated the fact claim. I've said that I have no reason to believe his unvalidated fact claim, any more than I am the fact claim about Martians or Purple Unicorns.
Do you understand the difference between "claiming that Art is wrong" and saying, "I have no reason to believe he is right"?
Please answer this, too.
As to the "rest of the world," I was being hyperbolic. It is quite obviously the case that I am not speaking for the whole rest of the world. There are many Muslim and Christian fundamentalists who still disagree with me.
Clearly, though - and this is my point, sorry if it wasn't clear and that you did not understand my hyperbole - the fundamentalist types have lost the argument in the US. In the US, the younger half of the population clearly sees the rational and moral argument that says "it's not a bit of my damned business if two gay guys/gals marry... and beyond that, why isn't it a good thing, because it sure seems to be good on the face of it!?" You all have lost the argument here and over an increasing part of the world where fundamentalism doesn't have a stranglehold on reasoning.
Do you disagree with my actual point? It appears that Stan and Marshall got it (even if they disagree about whether it's a good thing. Indeed, my post made it quite clear that the decreasing fundamentalist will no doubt whine that they are the "good and faithful minority" who are being oppressed by the mean majority...)
I understand the reality that you have chosen to dismiss (not refute or offer counters(, the support Art has offered. I also understand that you believe what Art has offered to be "opinion", yet you have not offered conclusive proof that what is offered is "in fact" opinion. For your claim to be a fact, you would have to offer proof something which you are good at demanding, but not at providing).
I understand that there is a semantic difference, not a substantive difference. The primary difference seems to be that one would require that you actually prove your point, while the other allows you to exempt yourself from what you demand of others. Which makes me wonder, why the semantic games. Because if you choose the "I have no reason to believe..." option, you are then admitting that there is a possibility that he is right. Further, that option says more about you and your unwillingness to examine the support offered in a reasonably unbiased manner, it also calls into question your ability to actually provide a reasonable counter.
So, you've "explained" one of 5 claims. You do realize that not only do you not speak for a majority of "the rest" that you likely don't even speak for a majority of Christians worldwide.
You must also see that making pronouncements about what "side" history will take is hubris.
I guess it's easier to hide over here where you can shape, control, and demand how people behave.
If this is how you see and express grace, then I want no part of it.
FYI, several sentences are phrased as questions with out proper punctuation. This is simply an acknowledgment of the minuscule chance that you'll actually answer, or that you'll add a bunch of new demands that I must fulfill before you'll do so.
Bubba,
Might have been another book. More specifically are you familiar with his upper/lower story illustration?
yet you have not offered conclusive proof that what is offered is "in fact" opinion.
Until he has offered something MORE than, "I once read a passage in the Bible that says... X, and I think it means Y and Z..." he hasn't offered ANYTHING to refute. He has literally offered only an opinion about what God thinks.
So, I ask again:
This does not validate a fact claim that God is opposed to gay marriages. It's all unproven opinion about a text he can't validate independently about the opinion of an entity (God) he can't validate. This does not equate to facts. These are, in fact, opinion.
Do you understand this reality?
Well, do you? It's a simple yes or no question.
IF you think that Marshall has said, in effect, "Look at these five verses found in the Bible. I THINK that they are best interpreted to mean that there is a God and that God always opposes all gay behavior, including marriage..." and that this is somehow hard data that there IS a God and that God DOES hate gay guys getting married, say so.
It isn't, but if you say "Yes, Marshall HAS offered hard data to support his claim," then that tells me that the answer to my question is, No, I don't understand reality.
Conversely, if you think Marshall's opinions are, in fact, opinions, not facts validated with hard data, then say that. That is what I'm wanting from you.
~Dan
I understand that it is your perception of reality. Of course I your perception hinges on multiple preconceptions regarding the nature and authority of scripture as well as the accumulated wisdom of over 2000 years of Christian and Jewish scholarship. But, if one ageees with all of your preconceptions and biases, then yes. Of course it also depends on how you define "hard data" in the context of scripture.
For example you can't/haven't offered "hard data" to prove your contention that "God blesses" gay marriage. Of course you haven't offered hard data to support many of your claims. I suspect that this whole line of questions is designed to draw attention away from the claims you've made that you won't offer "hard data" to support.
But, to the point l, Art has offered plenty of support for his position. You may not like the support he's offered. But, the fact that you need to undermine the historic Jewish and Christian position on the role of scripture in order for you to push your hunch about gay marriage, says much about your "love" for the Bible.
I'm sure you don't realize that by eliminating scripture from any authoritative role, you've lelegated your pet issues to the same status.
But, be honest, you've already left the Bible behind as anything but window dressing for the issues you cherry pick.
Not that it matters at all to you, but what "I'm wanting from you" is that you live up to what you demand of others and offer hard data to prove your claims.
What I'll get is more demands that I answer questions about Art. As if we're somehow interchangeable.
Craig:
I haven't read any of his books, but I'm *very* casually familiar with the illustration. Why do you ask?
If it would make more sense to talk offline, we can certainly do so.
Bubba
Craig, it's not a matter of me "not liking" Marshall's opinions he's offered. I'm just noting that they ARE offered as opinions, not facts.
Do you think that Marshall's opinion that God disapproves of gay guys marrying is an established fact, or an unproven, unprovable opinion?
Answer please.
Dan
As to my opinion that God blesses marriage gay or straight (because, why wouldn't God bless something so obviously good and beautiful?), it is clearly MY opinion on an unprovable question.
I'm not conflating my opinion with fact or God's word. That's the point. Marshall is.
Dan
How do I define hard data as it relates to Scripture? I'm not talking about Scripture claims, I'm addressing Marshall's fact claims about God. According to Marshall, it is an established fact that God does not approve of gay guys marrying.
So, I measure hard data about claims of what an individual thinks by what is measurable, observable... You know, hard data.
If someone makes a claim about what Lincoln thought about slavery, we can look at Lincoln's words he wrote and assess those words. Marshall is not doing that with his claims about God. He's referring to some guys' words that Marshall believes but can't prove are equivalent to God's words. Then, Marshall is further extrapolating out those words to what he, Marshall, thinks they mean. Quite literally an opinion not based on hard facts.
Do you think I'm mistaken? Prove it.
Dan
I tend to agree with Art that it's reasonable and possible to reach a conclusion that God disapproves of homosexual sexual activity. I like how you just responded to something I didn't say, as a way to change the subject.
Personally, I think the marriage thing is a smoke screen to divert attention from what the Bible records regarding God's intention and design for human sexuality.
So, in your opinion God blesses all marriages. Interesting.
Yes, I'm my opinion, you are mistaken. But given your complete and total unwillingness or inability to prove the specific claims you've made, it is laughable that you'd make this demand.
But, if you prove the 4 claims I've already pointed out, and if you provide specific guidelines for what you'd accept as "proof", I might consider it.
I tend to agree with Art that it's reasonable and possible to reach a conclusion that God disapproves of homosexual sexual activity.
Then prove it. With observable, demonstrable facts.
Do you recognize that you can not do this?
No, it does not. I give up. You all don't understand the difference between fact and opinion and I can't help you figure it out.
Don't bother answering, you've told me all there is to tell. You all absolutely can not back up your hunches with hard data, observable facts, but nonetheless, you think these unsupported whimsies are somehow "factual."
Pfft.
This is why you flat out lost the argument. People are fine with you holding your opinions, it's when you conflate those opinions with facts or with God's Word that you come across as pharisaical asses, and no one likes that.
Dan
So instead of doing what you demand of others, proving your claims with "hard evidence" or coming up with some attempt to explain what evidence you won't reject before you see it, you choose to simply pronounce the matter settled.
You stack the "argument" in your favor and then announce who's lost because you've already rejected anything that might be offered.
i really am impress by your ability to ignore the fact that you can't prove your claims, and to try to divert attention from your failure by making more and more demands.
The fact that you think anyone could take your increasingly arbitrary and irrational demands for "proof" seriously f given your aversion to proof is either profoundly naive or delusional. I'm not sure which.
Do you understand the difference between "claiming that Art is wrong" and saying, "I have no reason to believe he is right"?
Yes, I "stack" the argument in my favor when I ask someone with no data to provide data for their fact claim. It's called reality and if you're kicking against reality, perhaps it's not fair that you lose the argument, but they don't call it reality for nothing.
If you want to keep embarrassing yourself, Craig, answer this: IF I have no rational reason to think that maybe Marshall's hunches have some validity when he can't prove them, then WHY would I not question them? On what basis should I accept the word of someone when he has zero hard data to support his fact claim?
Do you understand that this would be playing along with someone else's delusions?
Dan
Yes I completely understand trying to have a discussion with someone who is unable or unwilling to provide proof of their claims.
In Art's case, it's not that he hasn't provided ample support and evidence, it's that you've decided to exclude the evidence from your consideration.
I'm glad that you admit the fact that you allow your biases and preconceptions to stack ten deck against any evidence presented by those you disagree with.
it's not that he hasn't provided ample support and evidence, it's that you've decided to exclude the evidence from your consideration.
It's the simple case that he has not provided anything more than his damned opinion. It doesn't matter if he says "Here are 1,000,000 verses that I THINK say God doesn't like the gays," it would all be opinion, not established fact.
THAT is the point. You all do not appear to be able to distinguish opinion from fact. Nor a fact claim from an opinion claim. Nor the need to support a fact claim vs the reality of saying, "I have no reason to accept that fact claim that is clearly not a fact claim."
I know of no way to help you any more than I have.
Good luck managing the world out there with this disability.
~Dan
Thank you so much for your opinion on the support Art offered.
Thank you also for the master class on how to avoid providing proof for your claims.
Finally, thank you for your dispassionate and professional diagnosis of my disability. I would have thought that not accepting you at your word would be a positive. But you've cleared that up.
Let me put it this way... the problem you're having is that when I say the Bible is clear that savings and investment are literally wrong in the Bible and to be avoided... You all take that as an opinion given the whole of the many texts on the topic (and you probably view it as a wrong opinion).
When Marshall offers the opinion that given the handful of texts that touch on gay Behavior that it is a "fact" that God opposes gay guys marrying and y'all treat that opinion as a fact even though the only difference between the two is that I have a whole lot more scripture to support my opinion claim and the scripture I have is more clear and more direct then Marshall's interpretations.
But in spite of the biblical clarity on the topic, it IS an opinion I hold and I can't say it is factually God's opinion because there is not clear data to make that claim. You recognize that reality with my opinion but not with Marshall's.
It is a blind spot in your thinking. Ask for help from someone you trusts who does understand the difference between fact and opinion.
Dan
Which is to say, you have no criteria that explains why one theory is a known fact and the other is a human opinion. It's decided entirely based on which one sounds most reasonable to you, not hard data. Which is opinion, not fact.
Dan
What's most amazing in all of this, is your increasing comfort with the notion that you can demand that others do things that you are not willing to do yourself. You demand that questions be answered, or comments will be deleted. You demand that "hard data" be given, but give none yourself. You demand that others support your claim, but you don't. You demand that your contention that the only things that can be known are things that an be proven, yet you can't prove your premise.
You've invested so much time into avoiding providing proof of your claims, and dismissing what others say, as opposed to proving your claims and making a positive case for your position (including providing hard data), that it really makes me wonder why.
I just spent some time reading the last few weeks of tweets by a liberal Canadian Catholic (former Catholic?) at this page---
https://twitter.com/michaelcoren
I'll give him credit for being passionate about politics and religion. Any thoughts about his views from the regulars here?
~ Hiram
Hiram,
I'm hesitant to comment due to Dan's arbitrary new "off topic" rule enforcement.
We'll see how flexible Dan is. :-]
~ Hiram
I doubt he'll be on this.
I don't know anything about this fella to comment upon.
And I don't mind someone bringing up off topic stuff, I just don't want to stay on off topic stuff.
~Dan
Hiram,
The short answer is that Coren is a heretic. I can elaborate if allowed to do so. Or I can do a post on this at my own blog if you wish to get into a discussion on this guy.
Falling behind again due to my work schedule, but I do wish to comment on this gem:
"When Marshall offers the opinion that given the handful of texts that touch on gay Behavior that it is a "fact" that God opposes gay guys marrying and y'all treat that opinion as a fact even though the only difference between the two is that I have a whole lot more scripture to support my opinion claim and the scripture I have is more clear and more direct then Marshall's interpretations"
I do not rely on merely a "handful" of texts with regard to the FACT that God couldn't possibly bless, tolerate, celebrate or in any way favor SSMs. I rely on the totality of all that Scripture says about human sexuality, what is moral and what isn't, all references to marriage and family and the complete lack of evidence that suggests there is any context or scenario in which engaging in homosexual behavior would NOT be an abomination and thus, prohibited.
In the meantime, to suggest that Scripture carries warnings about the temptations unique to wealth is not, nor has it ever been an issue with which I've taken an opposing stance. But there is no teaching among any of these warnings against being wealthy or aspiring to be so. There simply isn't. There is no "simple living" teaching. Your "interpretation" is not simply misguided...it is foolish and simple-minded. And there is nothing that has the strength of "thou shalt not" that we see in Lev 18:22...nothing so clear and unambiguous.
More later
The wealth comparison is a red herring, the reason the Bible speaks about wealth the way it does is that wealth can become an idol. It can supplant God. Nowhere does the Bible say that "wealth is an abomination" , the passages on wealth are warnings not prohibitions.
Or, I could use the "pro-gay" logic and say; "I know people who are wealthy and.are good people and good Christians. They donate lavishly of both time and money for worthy endeavors. They own and start businesses which employ people. They build new buildings for their business because it allows them to serve more people, as well as employing people. They support their church and other ministries. You just can't tell me that these people aren't good Christian folk. My own personal experience tells me this and if I experience it, it must be right."
As far as the twitter gut, he appears to be jumping from denomination to denomination as a way to court popularity based on what people want to hear. It's hard to be sure based on tweets, t but the fact that he's being so public about it suggests something.
The Bible says (IE, Jesus is quoted as saying) quite literally, do NOT store up treasures, point blank, as a general teaching to all who were listening to him.
On the other hand, the Bible nowhere condemns gay guys marrying. Married gay guys are NOT called an abomination (unlike shrimp and other items conservatives are cool with).
The great unanswered questions are...
On what rational, consistent basis is the claim that savings are wrong an opinion, but the claim that God opposes gay guys marrying is a fact?
Y'all got nothing, just the non- compelling and subjective claim of "'cause I think so!"
Dan
If you think that basing your entire theology of wealth on one saying of Jesus (which you can't prove He said or that it means what you think), is a good theology who am I to stop you. But if one looks at the entire scope of scripture and how wealth is treated, then perhaps a more fully realized and multifaceted theology might be developed.
Of course the "shellfish argument" has been debunked so often I'm surprised you even bother to trot it out.
Of course your "scriptural" argument for "gay marriage" is an argument from silence. It also fails your own test of being provable.
Clearly the early Church (those who most directly heard Jesus teach), did not have a problem with wealth per se.
Ultimately your problem is the inability to hold your beliefs to the same standards you have for everyone else. Nowhere in scripture is anything that even remotely speaks positively of "gay marriage". You can't point to one place where God says "I love it when two dudes get hitched.". You can't even find places where it's even tolerated.
But you know all of this, and you choose to act as if it isn't there, or perhaps as if you just know better.
Your response to this wil be, "But it's just my opinion.". If that's the case, then how about stopping with all the crap you dish out for people who have a different opinion? How about some humility in acknowledging that your opinion could be wrong? Or better yet, just stop using the argument that "God blesses "gay marriage". Why not just adopt the standard secular arguments and abandon trying to use scripture to justify something it clearly doesn't justify?
You just don't seem to get what we're arguing about. It's not ultimately about what God approves or doesn't approve of. (For those of us who believe that God is sovereign, that's not the issue. We believe that His plan will happen in His way no matter what we think.). It's two things. One pointing out the fact that you are incredibly and obstinately insistent that you do not have to hold your claims and opinions to the standards you demand of others. Two (bigger picture) if we're right and homosexual behavior is a sin, then isn't it part of what Jesus said we should do to try to help people "sin no more". Or conversely, if you're mistaken and you're actually encouraging people to "sin more", shouldn't that be a concern.
In all honesty, your whole wealth schtick would be so much more compelling if you treated everyone Jesus said in such a wooden, literal, out of context fashion. But you don't, and you demand, and ultimately your lack of consistency undermines much of what you say.
The deal, Craig, is that by defaulting to "but I don't say more than that is my opinion", it allows him to live as though it IS a fact without having to actually support the opinion in any meaningful way, and at the same time denigrating those who hold an opposing point of view that is actually based on that which is undeniable (not simply because we say so, but because we can back it up with what Scripture actually does/doesn't say). In pretending that Christ mandates no saving or wealth creating, one must ignore other verses in the passage from which Dan takes his distorted message. Two in particular are (loosely presented, but accurately paraphrased):
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also"
This puts some perspective in play. If all I wish to do is to please God (putting my heart there above all else), anything else I do comes secondarily. The priority is God, not wealth, but wealth needn't be avoided.
"Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness"
This is like the punchline, the takeaway of the entire lesson that begins with not laying up treasures. Again, Christ lays out the list of priorities here: God first, everything else afterward.
As if that isn't enough to illuminate what the real lesson is that Dan purposely ignores in favor of his socialism, it must be kept in mind all those that God blessed with wealth and/or power: Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Job to name just a few. In the NT, Christ never tells anyone they are wrong for being wealth or seeking wealth, but only teaches them about the priorities: God first, all else second. He didn't criticize the rich young man for being rich, but only spoke on how he struggled with the "two masters" thing.
What Dan believes about wealth and wealth creation is not supported by Scripture. What I KNOW about human sexuality and sexual immorality is confirmed by Scripture.
Art, you are correct. By vouching his positions as opinion, he does exempt himself from the level of support he'd need otherwise. But at the same time he demands that of others. I also agree that if Dan was to approach this with humility, instead of venom for those with whom he disagrees it would go a long way.
But then he couldn't call people racists and engage in his expletive filled rants.
Marshall, thanks, I will check your blog every few days to see what you have to say on the Canadian. I see you are using your own page to elaborate further on your interactions with Dan.
~ Hiram
By vouching his positions as opinion, he does exempt himself from the level of support he'd need otherwise. But at the same time he demands that of others.
I note that my opinions ARE my opinions because that is what they are. What would you have me do?
I note that there are higher standards for claims of facts (observable, demonstrable, provable data) than for opinions because that is how it is. Are you suggesting that people should have to "prove" their opinions? Are you suggesting that people don't have to prove fact claims?
If the latter is the case, how about this: It is a FACT that God wants you to not store up treasures. Jesus said that literally. It's a fact claim, but I don't have to prove it any further than what I did because that is what Marshall did. Thus, by your measure, this is a fact, right?
Of course your "scriptural" argument for "gay marriage" is an argument from silence. It also fails your own test of being provable.
1. The argument for support for gay marriage is multi-dimensional and deep. It is fundamentally an appeal to human rights, the basic right to self-determination. It is further supported by the notion that marriage is a better solution than polyamory. It is further supported because it brings joy, happiness, contentment. It is further supported by the notion that families make for stronger communities than not. It is further supported by biblical notions that support the ideas of human rights, of self-determination, of passages like "whatsoever is good, true, pure, noble, loving, etc, think on these things..." It is not an argument from silence. On the other hand, since the Bible is completely silent on gay guys marrying, your argument is clearly an argument from silence (by your measurement).
The point is, I have a good many reasons that many people are think are quite rational and moral, it is not an argument from silence.
2. One does not need to "prove" opinion claims (especially on topics where it's not provable, like God's opinion on something). On the other hand, one does need to be prepared to provide data that support fact claims.
3. Do you not understand that there is a fundamental difference in opinion claims and fact claims? That there are different degrees of support needed for them?
Nowhere in scripture is anything that even remotely speaks positively of "gay marriage". You can't point to one place where God says "I love it when two dudes get hitched."
Nowhere in Scripture is anything remotely speaking positively of "investing and storing up great deals of money." You can't point to one place where God says, "I love it when you store up great deals of money."
On the other hand, you CAN point to a place where Jesus commands quite literally, "Do not store up treasures here on earth." Period.
And because you all are not even getting it (even though it's a point I've clarified before), it's NOT my claim that God hates for us to store up money, or to have savings account. It IS my opinion that it is something to be wary of for many reasons. For those of us who take Jesus' words seriously, given that Jesus says "Don't store up treasures," it's not an irrational position to take.
Beyond that, I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT IS AN AUTHORITATIVE FACT THAT GOD HATES SAVINGS. I'm saying it is my opinion that it is something to be wary of, for a variety of reasons that I've covered before.
On the other hand, Marshall IS saying it is a fact that God hates gay guys getting married.
Are you saying you want me to "prove" that storing up wealth is something to be wary of, in my opinion? IT'S AN OPINION! And a measured one, at that, not a specific claim. Do you understand the difference?
Do you understand the great difference between that and Marshall claiming it is a "fact" that God disapproves of gay marriage?
Do you understand the difference between fact claims and measured opinions?
Come on, this isn't that hard.
I understand that you've made 5 identified claims of fact that you haven't proven.
I understand that you've decided to base your entire philosophy on wealth on one out of context verse.
I understand that there is an incredible amount of scholarship on all of theses issues, that you've chosen to dismiss or ignore, and that nothing offered will be treated any differently.
1. That's all well and good. But it's not an argument from scripture. If you want to mak a secular argument that's great, just stop trying to use God to cover it with a veneer of religious sanction.
2.
A) We understand that couching your comments as opinion allows you to exempt yourself from proof. But, then you should probably stop referring to those who simply have a different opinion in such vile, nasty terms. Perhaps a more humble approach when asserting a mere opinion would be profitable.
B). Yet you still have 5 unproven fact claims yet to prove.
3. Yes, and you demand much of others while offering little yourself.
On the road for a few days, don't know how much time I'll have.
Do you understand the difference between fact claims and measured opinions?
Do you understand that we SHOULD say "This is my opinion" if it is an opinion and be clear it is not a fact claim?
Do you understand that there are different levels of support required for a fact claim than an opinion?
Do you recognize that it is only reasonable to expect different levels of support for fact claims vs opinions?
Please answer THESE questions or move on. No other comments unless you answer these, Craig.
I put these requirements in NOT to limit what you say but to get you to address the actual questions being asked. I do that because WHEN you answer the questions being asked, you hopefully will make more sense and perhaps even understand things better.
In the meantime, some helpful reading on understanding reason, opinions and facts...
"There is no need to argue against opinions when they are recognized as self-reports rather than as claims about the real world. It would be ridiculous to argue, "You are wrong--you really are not thirsty," or "In fact, the day actually is pleasant." We accept self-reports of emotion or attitude as unassailable because we have no basis for questioning them..."
Thus, the person who says "I believe God would bless gay marriage because they are good things..." is offering an opinion. They are not saying, "It is a fact that God blesses gay folk marrying..." it is an opinion and, as thus, unassailable.
"We need an enlarged view of fact as any statement about the real world that can be shown to be true, i.e., that is supported by converging evidence. In the enlarged view, there are at least four kinds of facts: empirical, analytical, evaluative, and metaphysical...
Empirical facts
Empirical facts are verified by observation, e.g., The Pacific is the largest ocean. Geographers have measured the oceans, and their convergent conclusion is that the Pacific Ocean is largest. When we think of facts, we think first of empirical facts, the conclusions of convergent scientific observation..."
The claim that "GOD EXISTS" or "God hates gay guys marrying" is an empirical claim and, as such, requires observable, measurable data. Not just some guy saying, "I think the Bible says it and I think the Bible is factual on this point..."
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/education/reading_genie/Fact-opinion.html
Hiram,
Now that I've backed myself into a corner, allow me a bit of time to formulate a cogent commentary on the Canadian. I feel more compelled to do this due to a previous request for such which I eventually lost track of, and failed to find (I actually wanted to take up the challenge...too bad. If you recall what it was, you can bring it up again at my blog). Stay tuned.
"If the latter is the case, how about this: It is a FACT that God wants you to not store up treasures. Jesus said that literally. It's a fact claim, but I don't have to prove it any further than what I did because that is what Marshall did. Thus, by your measure, this is a fact, right?"
OK, this is an abject lie, and for two reasons:
1. I showed why your conclusion about "laying up treasures" is false due to the intentional dismissal of the context in which it is said by Christ.
2a. I have been scrupulous in supporting the fact claims I present by a constant citation of context.
2b. I have an as yet unanswered challenge that you support your claim that Lev 18:22 is NOT universal (after I've demonstrated why it is).
With regard to your comment of September 13, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Craig had similar responses as that which now follows.
1. "The argument for support for gay marriage is multi-dimensional and deep"
Not at all deep, and only "multi-dimensional" in a "any cheap rationalization will do" kinda way. But as Craig said, nothing from Scripture is available to grow that heap.
"It is fundamentally an appeal to human rights, the basic right to self-determination"
No it is not, nor has it ever been. It's been a demand that the state (that is, the people) to treat SSM in law as if it is the same as actual, legitimate marriage benefiting the state in the same way. It isn't and this has never been proven to be the case...only asserted. We're to take the assertion as fact.
"It is further supported by the notion that marriage is a better solution than polyamory."
While it is enough that the polyamorous would disagree, "marriage" as a better solution refers to one man/one woman. It doesn't matter in the case of homosexual/lesbian relationships as it impacts the state (the people).
"It is further supported because it brings joy, happiness, contentment."
The same claim is made by the incestuous, bestial, polyamorous and those who like the young, like the homosexual NAMBLA people.
"It is further supported by biblical notions that support the ideas of human rights, of self-determination, of passages like "whatsoever is good, true, pure, noble, loving, etc, think on these things...""
Two problems here:
a) Rights, and self-determination is not supported anywhere in Scripture for the indulgence in detestable acts, which homosexual practices are. The use of liberty to do evil is not supported by any Biblical notion of human rights.
b) As such, when Scripture speaks of "whatsoever is good, true, pure, noble, loving, etc,", it is not referring to what is "good" based on Dan's opinion of what is good OR true OR pure OR noble OR loving OR EVEN etc. It is based on God's Will regarding what constitutes those things. That Will is clearly revealed in Scripture and homosexual practice and thus relationships based on it does not fall under what God expects of His followers.
"It is not an argument from silence."
It's an argument based on blatant lies.
"On the other hand, since the Bible is completely silent on gay guys marrying, your argument is clearly an argument from silence (by your measurement)."
World class BS here. My argument is clearly a consideration of all Scripture says about homosexual behavior, sexual immorality/morality, marriage, family and why God created us male and female (to say the least). Based on all of it, there is only one conclusion and the evidence from Scripture is so strong that said conclusion can but be taken as abject fact. God opposes SSM.
2. Just the prohibition and the reason for it in Lev 18:22 is enough to support my contention that it is absolute FACT that God opposes SSM. But the claim doesn't rely on Lev 18:22 alone. As stated above for the billionth time, nothing in Scripture serves to overcome the prohibition, providing no hint of a context or scenario (including lifelong, monogamous---by normal people standards---loving union) makes homosexual behavior any less the abomination it is. All references to marriage and family clearly indicate a male/female, father/mother union. All metaphorical references to the "marriage" of God and Israel, or Christ and His Church parallel normal marriages as a union of opposites (male/female, Creator/creation, Savior/saved). Nothing....absolutely nothing in Scripture gives even the slightest hint that SSMs are possible and certainly not praiseworthy by God.
3. You again seek to hide behind "opinion" while doing next to nothing to support holding the opinion. You act on your opinion as if it is fact, never giving any hint that you'd ever be changing your mind, as if it was actually open. The support I've provided for my "opinion" is far more grounded in known facts from Scripture that to pretend my conclusion cannot be regarded as fact requires equal vigor on your part to refute it, and demonstrates a great lack of honor and integrity because you choose not to do so. I understand the choice given the unavoidable and unequivocal failure you face in the attempt. But frankly your position does even rise to the level of "opinion"...it's only preference dismissive of the reality...so chiding me for offering "opinion" as fact is fallacious. When you can actually begin to rebut my position and the Scriptural facts I've provided, you then might have standing to dismiss my FACT as mere opinion.
Marshal, I don't recall what the previous request may have been.
Anyway, take your time getting around to the Canadian.
(Sorry for putting that extra "L" in your name above.)
~ Hiram
"Nowhere in Scripture is anything remotely speaking positively of "investing and storing up great deals of money." You can't point to one place where God says, "I love it when you store up great deals of money.""
But I DID point to several examples whereby God blessed people with incredible wealth and power (I forgot Joseph---he was second in power and wealth and authority only to Pharoah). So I guess God just hated doing that, while doing it so routinely. You haven't a leg on which to stand here, Dan. You conflate and/or confuse having wealth with worshiping wealth. God, the Father or the Son, doesn't.
"On the other hand, you CAN point to a place where Jesus commands quite literally, "Do not store up treasures here on earth." Period."
The irony here is incredible! The homosexual-enabling United Church of Christ, in a pro-homosexual campaign of theirs utilized this quote attributed to Gracie Allen (of Burns and Allen), “Don’t put a period where God put a comma.” Yet, here Dan insists on doing just that, when as I've explained above, there is so much more context that clarifies Christ's teaching in a way that corrupts what Dan prefers it should be. So while according to Scripture Christ did indeed say that, it was followed by "qualifiers" that Lev 18:22 never does at any place in the whole of the Bible.
"...it's NOT my claim that God hates for us to store up money, or to have savings account."
Yet you live your life as those it is, and you denigrate those who strive to enrich themselves and whine about "over consuming". But then you couch your position by saying Jesus is warning us against enriching ourselves, when no one here pretends wealth comes with unique temptations. We call that "talking out both sides of your mouth". In the meantime, the lesson isn't simply, "don't store up treasures". Stating it as a mandate, then, is a lie. Pretending I've disputed this verse is also a lie because I've consistently referenced the context you purposely neglect when using it against me.
"On the other hand, Marshall IS saying it is a fact that God hates gay guys getting married."
You can't even muster the honesty to be more accurate in referring to my position? God hates homosexual behavior. Therefore, God opposes SSM. What's so freakin' hard about that, Dan?
"Are you saying you want me to "prove" that storing up wealth is something to be wary of, in my opinion?"
What I'm saying is that you never speak of "being wary" of storing up wealth. You constantly claim that Jesus says not to do it and that we disagree. The first part is purposely incomplete and the second part is fabrication.
"Thus, the person who says "I believe God would bless gay marriage because they are good things..." is offering an opinion. They are not saying, "It is a fact that God blesses gay folk marrying..." it is an opinion and, as thus, unassailable."
It is NOT unassailable because the opinion is based on nothing...except your personal desire that it be true. By Scriptural teaching, SSM CANNOT be "good things". That which is detestable to God, sin, is NEVER a "good thing". God would not bless something that is based on sin. Therefore, what you profess doesn't even rise to the level of "opinion".
Your quotes regarding "empirical facts" are irrelevant. This whole discussion, as it always has been, is based on Christian teaching. When we speak of facts in reference to Christian teaching, citing Scripture is a legitimate source for what are put forth as facts. There is an understanding that those participating here in the discussion are presumably Christian...at least in your case, nominally...but Christian to some extent. As such, to dismiss fact claims is disingenuous, if not outright lying.
Appears to me that even answering Dans questions again gets you deleted.
I guess that inability to prove your claims is more and more of a problem.
Oh, the answers are still yes.
Marshall, I don't know that it's worth it to respond to you. You just seem so unable to understand basic things like Opinion Vs Fact. To the degree I am responding, it's more for the sake of others who might be reading to make clear my position and where you're just factually off.
For instance, where you said my opinion is "based on nothing..."
Clearly, I believe that people should have the right to self-determination (so long as they're not causing harm to others).
Clearly then, the right to choose who to marry or not IS a matter of self-determination.
Clearly then, it is not based on nothing, but on the right to self-determination, which is a pretty damned big deal.
Now ultimately, you may choose to disagree with that right to self-determination, but you can't rationally say it's "nothing."
Similarly, where you say "Rights, and self-determination is not supported anywhere in Scripture for the indulgence in detestable acts," this, too, comes back to a matter of opinion. WHO gets to determine what are "detestable acts..."? Does Marshall and those who agree with him get to tell others who disagree? Does Dan get to tell Marshall? OR, as I think a reasonable take on Scripture AND just plain common sense will tell us, WE ARE SELF-DETERMINING. WE figure out on our own (and with assistance, where wanted) what we think is right and wrong, as best we can. Marshall does not get to determine that for us, Thank God!
Clearly, the Bible says that we are all born in God's image, we are, none of us, better than the other, that there is no Greek, no Jew, no Gentile, no Man, no Woman in God's eyes, we are all equal in that regards.
So, that I believe the Bible teaches us that we have the right to self-determination PERIOD, that is not "nothing." Clearly, I DO have reasonable and biblical reasons for holding my opinions, it's not "nothing." That you disagree with my opinions does not negate the reality of my reasoning.
So, there's that.
The problem here is that you right so much that is so wrong and that needs so much unpacking that it becomes difficult to cover it all. I think that notion that yes, we do have a right to self-determination and that IS a reason (and a damned good one and part of the reason you all lost that debate) to support people marrying who they wish is as good as any to address that deals with the whole of your "argument."
Your problem remains that you can't separate out fact from opinion and I just can't help you any further with that.
Good luck.
Okay, the answers are Yes. That is the correct answer.
GIVEN THAT, then, why do you keep insisting I need to support my opinion claims with more than I have offered and that Marshall doesn't need to support his "fact" claims with something more solid than his opinions of the meaning of biblical texts?
That is, for instance, I DO think it is entirely reasonable that the Bible teaches us about basic human rights being a good thing and that self-determination is a good thing.
And, beyond what the Bible teaches, I think that rationally speaking, human rights and self-determination are good things.
Given that, I think that it's reasonable to support gay guys marrying because human rights and self-determination. Do you disagree?
Given that self-determination and personal happiness is a Good, and given that the Bible teaches us that we should focus on the good, the lovely, the loving, etc, I hold the Opinion that a good God would support gay guys marrying. I can't prove it, but it seems reasonable to me. Do you understand how this seems reasonable? Do you understand that I can't and don't need to prove this opinion because it's not a fact claim?
But that Marshall DOES need to prove his fact claim AS a fact, not just by providing his personal human opinion about some lines in an ancient book?
You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth, Craig. Affirming the rational questions I ask correctly (when pushed on it) but then still insisting that I'm doing something wrong by holding opinions and not supporting them with a fact-level of "proof." On something that can't be proven.
Look, do you recognize the reality that we can not PROVE objectively God's opinion on matters of, say, morality?
Here, you almost certainly will answer wrongly and say YES, we can "prove" God's opinion on at least SOME questions... but then not provide any objective hard data to support the claim, reverting back to human opinion to "prove" a fact claim. That won't work, if you try it, but by all means, clarify.
And just to clarify, where you say, "I guess that inability to prove your claims is more and more of a problem." THAT is what I'm speaking of. I've been pretty clear where I've offered opinion as opposed to fact. I've been pretty clear that there are some thing we can't prove, like God's opinion on moral questions. So, why do you keep asking me to prove what is not provable and where I've been clear that it's an unprovable opinion, rather than a fact?
If you're speaking about any questions about actual claims that I've already answered (like the ridiculously stupid "95%" misunderstanding on your part), I'm done addressing them.
"I've been pretty clear that there are some thing we can't prove, like God's opinion on moral questions."
The problem is not a question of providing proof. The problem is your ridiculously narrow standard for what constitutes proof of facts you don't like. As to the issue addressed in this post, Scripture is crystal clear regarding God's "opinion" on the moral question of homosexual behavior. There are no mitigating factors anywhere in Scripture, and certainly none that YOU'VE ever been able to bring to bear...not without corrupting common words and phrases to provide yourself a chance to pretend you're doing so. With all that is known and understood regarding Biblical teaching on human sexuality and what is sexually moral or immoral, the conclusion that God opposes SSM is one that is incredibly foregone. One man married to one woman...that is, marriage...is the only context in which any sexual behavior is NOT immoral. From the context of Christian teaching based on Scripture, this fact is beyond debate. When you can actually provide some Scriptural basis for a contrary position, then your pretending "we can't know" might be rational. Until then, you're a heretic.
You made 5 specific claims of fact that I've pointed out.
You've tried to retroactively shift to opinion, you claimed that you've addressed others in the other post, which you demonstrably haven't, now you've just decided you aren't going to.
Very mature. I guess this is why you are so reluctant to involve yourself anymore but here.
As to your self-determination, that's fine make that argument. Just stop trying to pretend that it's a biblical argument.
No Craig, I made one generalization that YOU TOOK to mean a fact claim and you were mistaken in how you read it and I've clarified it, now, multiple times. Yet you still call it a fact claim.
What does one do with that sort of deliberate obtusity?
I asked another question which YOU took to be a fact claim, but I've clarified that, now (even though I was hoping to not have to clarify that a question does not equal a fact claim, because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt). As to the others, well, at this point I don't even know what they are, but don't really care at least until you can acknowledge that at least two of your five "fact claims" were not fact claims at all.
So, by all means, clarify that you understand now that two of those were clearly not fact claims, then we can talk others, but then, is there really any point?
Marshall...
The problem is not a question of providing proof. The problem is your ridiculously narrow standard for what constitutes proof of facts you don't like.
Yes, I DO expect you to provide hard data to support an empirical fact claim, just as you would. Again and for the final time:
Explain, Marshall, based on what consistent, rational criteria a claim that Jesus literally meant "DO NOT STORE UP FOR YOURSELVES TREASURES" is not to be taken literally (even if someone claims it to be a fact that this is what God wants because, the bible) BUT your hunch that a handful of verses means God opposes gay guys marrying must be taken as "fact..."
Do you understand what a rubric is? Give me a rubric so that, when it is followed every time, we will be able to establish a given fact.
Also, because your entire argument is based upon the human opinion (NOT the Bible, NOT God) that "the Bible" is the "sole authority" for matters of morality and is "written by God, at least in effect..." then you will have to begin by providing hard data that the Bible is written by God and that you are understanding it correctly.
Hard data, not, "I REALLLLLLY think so..."
If you can't support fact claims and THIS fact claim, then don't bother commenting here any more. You clearly do not understand the difference between fact and opinion and I can't help you with that.
"95% of blacks" is an incredibly specific (and factually wrong) generalization. But if that's the answer you finally think gets you off the hook, ok.
But only 3 more claims for you to try to deal with.
It's interesting that you could have quickly and efficiently dealt with this ages ago, but you decided to go this route instead.
"Yes, I DO expect you to provide hard data to support an empirical fact claim, just as you would."
Yet, as I highlighted, you reject hard data provided when it successfully exposes your position as false/unBiblical/nonChristian. And now you validate my pointing out your demand for a strictly and narrowly defined example of data:
"Explain, Marshall, based on what consistent, rational criteria a claim that Jesus literally meant "DO NOT STORE UP FOR YOURSELVES TREASURES" is not to be taken literally (even if someone claims it to be a fact that this is what God wants because, the bible) BUT your hunch that a handful of verses means God opposes gay guys marrying must be taken as "fact...""
But I'm more than willing to explain reality as often as you demand I do so. But just as a helpful hint, reality will always come out the same way, so I hope you're not expecting a different answer more pleasing to your support for sexual immorality.
First, I must reiterate that my position is NOT, nor has it ever been, that Jesus' encouragement that we not store up for ourselves treasures should not be taken literally. My position is that YOU do not provide the complete teaching in which that statement was made, as if the statement alone is the alpha and omega of the teaching He meant to put forth. As such, Christ's teaching was NOT "do not store up treasure". This statement leads to the lesson that you fail to grasp in your self-satisfying promotion of socialism.
So this exposes your failure to truly consider context, in either the "teachings" you support, as well as the teachings you reject. Here's an analogy, which will also serve as another lesson in how to create an appropriate analogy: Your "storing treasure" understanding is like one who believes he should never light a fire, when the entire teaching was "never light a fire near the gasoline tanks".
With this in mind, it should be easy to see that I'm not criticizing anything more than your very poor representation of Christ's teaching about first laying up treasures in heaven, and not rejecting any teaching about not laying up treasures on earth. So your example that I'm not being consistent is woefully flawed, and not a little laughable.
In the meantime, I've offered up quite a bit of evidence regarding what Scripture says about sexual immorality, and homosexual behavior specifically. The entirety of the teachings about human sexuality results in only one legitimate conclusion that can be stated as an absolute and crystal clear fact: Only sexual behavior between a man and woman married to each other is sexual behavior that is not immoral. There is no hint in Scripture as to any other conclusion that can be inferred honestly. It isn't even mysterious, ambiguous or difficult in any way to understand. I invite any tracts, verses or passages that so much as hints as an alternative possibility.
I can legitimately say that with the entirety of the Bible as context, I have been faithful to it in coming to my factual conclusions, while you have been far less so in coming to your unChristian conclusions. Context is the rubric I use here, and context is merely a word to you rather than something you take seriously. Were this not true, I could not defend my positions as well as I do, nor show yours for the total comedy it is BECAUSE you ignore context.
As to the Bible as sole authority for matters of morality, why any Christian would suppose it isn't is beyond my ability to understand. Christian teaching prohibits my consideration of bullshit arguments put forth because Scripture is inconvenient. I wouldn't be much of a Christian if I ignored its teachings in favor of worldly (but flawed) arguments that are really no more than cheap rationalizations. And again, without the Bible, we have no way to know ANYTHING regarding morality. All we'd have is consensus opinion that changes with each generation or is based upon who is in power and able to enforce the opinion of the day.
You see what you want to see in Scripture through the lens of your own preferences. I form my preferences through the teachings of Scripture. You reject the notion of the Bible as rule book because you reject the rules in favor of your own preferences. But whatever cherry-picked teachings from Scripture lights your fire, those are the rules you favor. So the Bible IS a rule book for how Christians are supposed to live in order to demonstrate one's faith and obedience to God. (Indeed, how are we to be obedient when we don't have rules/teachings to follow?) You simply hate some of the rules, and make up others you think are better even though no Biblical teaching exists to support them.
What you need to believe is only my opinion is actually a belief that is supported by Scripture itself, without any personal, preconceived notions.
Yes Art, please explain why we shouldn't construct our theology regarding wealth on one verse taken out of context, as opposed to using multiple verses throughout the new and old testaments to inform our theology of sexuality and marriage. Don't you realize how foolish it is to use multiple verses when only one is necessary.
...except, Craig, that wealth and poverty is NOT a "single verse taken out of context." Wealth and poverty is among the MOST discussed topics in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, with a consistent "bias towards the poor," as some call it.
But then, surely you know this?
Marshall...
As to the Bible as sole authority for matters of morality, why any Christian would suppose it isn't is beyond my ability to understand.
Because it is a self-defeating argument.
IF the Bible is our "sole authoritative source" for moral reasoning and
IF the Bible never CLAIMS to be our sole authoritative source (and very quite exactly literally, it never does),
THEN one can not reach that conclusion. It is self-defeating.
Understand?
No, of course not.
Dan
It is not the least bit self-defeating until you can provide the means by which you can discover what morality is without it. You cannot. A Christian gets all of his knowledge about God/Christ from the Bible. If you think there's disagreement with the Bible existing, just try to pretend that there's be no less if the Bible didn't exist. With the Bible now we have those who try to assert that it hasn't been faithfully handed down from generation to generation for the last 2-4000 years. You think the argument would be stronger with only word of mouth for all that time? That it would even exist with only word of mouth to support Its truth claims? Don't be absurd.
It is our sole authority by virtue of the fact that it is the only source for information about what Christianity is. It doesn't need to make a claim just so fakers like you can't pretend otherwise.
What's more, there is no morality without it. There is only consensus or oppressor force to determine what is or isn't morality, and as such morality is never fixed...which certainly suits those for whom morality is inconvenient.
Understand?
Of course you do. You simply reject it because you can't hold your immoral positions otherwise.
It is not the least bit self-defeating until you can provide the means by which you can discover what morality is without it.
Says who?
On what rational, objective data basis is there a need to provide this means before saying that the Bible does not demand its own sole authority? That's an irrational and unsupported argument.
What if, as I contend, there IS no authoritative way (beyond appeals to natural liberties, which can be called not authoritative) to demonstrate "what morality is..."? On what reasonable basis do we need to insist that there IS one to discover?
A Christian gets all of his knowledge about God/Christ from the Bible.
That is an opinion that is contradicted by biblical teachings, making it an invalid opinion by your measurements, since "the bible..." tells us otherwise.
just try to pretend that there's be no less if the Bible didn't exist.
I think a very strong case can be made for the commonality of basic morality amongst nearly all cultures, writ broadly. There are rational people who think it is do-able. Indeed, there are some who argue (because of fundamentalist type eisogesis) that the Bible gets in the way of recognizing morality. Are you unfamiliar with these arguments? Google them.
It is our sole authority by virtue of the fact that it is the only source for information about what Christianity is.
Moving the goal posts. We are certainly helped in knowing about the beginnings of Christianity by the Bible... but we were talking about more broadly Morality and Theology, which is what SS argues (faith and practice).
But beyond that, we certainly can look to tradition sources that are outside the Bible. We have early christian voices not found in the Bible that speaks to "information about what Christianity is...," you know that, right?
So, your claim here is mistaken on at least a couple of fronts.
What's more, there is no morality without it.
You can't support this claim at all and it's demonstrably non-factual. People who have never heard of the Bible have successfully been "moral" in varying degrees, by reasonable measures.
" We are a highly social species, using social structures like monogamy, family, clan, and tribe. Our ancestors were using these structures at least 500,000 years ago. If you were suddenly plucked from your life and sent back in time to live with people in Indonesia about 15,000 years ago (or even Ethiopia 150,000 years ago), you would be able to figure out what is going on. The basic social roles, responsibilities, and civil rules would seem somewhat familiar to you, and you'd fit in pretty fast. How is that possible?
Cultural anthropologists have long recognized how all human societies have similar basic norms of moral conduct."
https://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/morality_evolved_first_long_before_religion
Or, if you prefer the Bible...
"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."
~Romans 2
This is a mistaken claim. Says the data. Says the Bible. So, it's a fact, by your measurement.
~Dan
"On what rational, objective data basis is there a need to provide this means before saying that the Bible does not demand its own sole authority?"
On what rational, objective data basis is there a need for the Bible to claim it's our sole authority in order for it to be so? Especially for anyone claiming to be Christian?? Your demand is just a device to protect the liberty you assume to believe what you want regardless and in spite of what the Bible teaches. You aren't fooling anyone.
"What if, as I contend, there IS no authoritative way (beyond appeals to natural liberties, which can be called not authoritative) to demonstrate "what morality is..."? On what reasonable basis do we need to insist that there IS one to discover?"
Then it is as I've said...without Scripture there is no morality, but only those behaviors we favor to which we choose to apply the term. A given behavior might be stupid, harmful, impractical...but never "immoral". Likewise, no pleasing or beneficial behavior is moral...it is only pleasing or beneficial. Either way, it is all subjective and subject to change for any reason by any means for the benefit of anyone.
"That is an opinion that is contradicted by biblical teachings..."
If you're referring to Paul's teaching that the heavens proclaim His glory, how would you know that without Paul telling you in Scripture? How can you assert that when you gaze up into the heaven's that what you're seeing is God's glory without Scripture telling you this? What makes you think that you'd ever even suppose there's even such a thing as any god, much less God, without Scripture? You're making a lot of baseless assumptions you can't even make without Scripture first existing.
"I think a very strong case can be made for the commonality of basic morality amongst nearly all cultures, writ broadly."
Nonsense. What you're referencing is what I addressed above. It's nothing more than consensus opinion regarding subjective critiques of various behaviors. There's nothing that proves something is or isn't moral except Scripture. (I don't need to google the issue as I've seen these arguments already)
"Moving the goal posts. We are certainly helped in knowing about the beginnings of Christianity by the Bible... but we were talking about more broadly Morality and Theology, which is what SS argues (faith and practice)."
No. We're talking about what Scripture teaches with regard to human sexuality. YOU'RE the one moving the goal posts in considering non-Christian teachings about behaviors and their morality. I've never stopped considering the Nashville statement and your fallacious alternative, which is the topic of this post.
"We have early christian voices not found in the Bible that speaks to "information about what Christianity is...," you know that, right?"
This also assumes much that cannot be taken for granted were the Bible not a large part of that tradition not set down in Scripture, be it what we have today or what the early church had at the time.
"You can't support this claim at all and it's demonstrably non-factual. People who have never heard of the Bible have successfully been "moral" in varying degrees, by reasonable measures"
Yeah. Paul speaks of those who haven't formally heard of Christ living a largely Christian life nonetheless. But to what is he comparing their behavior? The Christian teachings, or what constituted it at the time (the OT, plus Christ's ministry). You're doing that as well just in bringing it up. It can't be helped, really.
Your link again tries to make the case that what is discussed is naturally moral simply because some of what is morality to us because of Christian teaching is also regarded as beneficial to other non-Christian cultures. It's subjective labeling, not proving that the behaviors are inherently moral. Without God, they're not.
Even the same is true of the Romans quote. Is he speaking in general terms, or that these other cultures trim their hair the same and not mix fabrics and adhere to purity laws...or by golly did they understand that the moral laws of Leviticus are universal???? How dare they!!!
"This is a mistaken claim. Says the data. Says the Bible."
The Bible doesn't speak, right? We don't know these things just because the Bible says so, right? Which is it? The claim is solid. Your attempt to refute it is not. Try again.
On what rational, objective data basis is there a need for the Bible to claim it's our sole authority in order for it to be so?
SOLE AUTHORITY. How do we KNOW if a theological or moral idea is authoritatively correct? If the Bible says it.
IF the Bible says it (especially about something so vital as IF there is a "sole authority" and what that might be), then we know it's true. IF it doesn't say it, how do you know it to be true? Human reasoning and interpretations about the bible and only the bible? Well, why would we insist on starting there if we didn't already have an existing belief if sola scriptura? It's a circular argument that is not directly endorsed by "the sole authority."
It's self-defeating.
Beyond that, on what rational, objective basis would we assume it? There is no rational demand for it. Indeed, the bible itself mentions several ways of knowing about God and godliness, with no mention whatsoever of itself as a "sole authority" amongst the many ways cited in the Bible.
It's not rationally or biblically necessary, so why would we assume it? There simply is no objective data outside of the bible or inside of the Bible to insist upon it.
Bug go ahead, tell me... what rational, objective basis is there for insisting upon it? Because it's a collection of books that talk about God? There are many books that do this. Why THIS one collection?
Remember, I used to believe this until it finally sunk in how thoroughly irrational and unbiblical and logically unnecessary it was to insist upon SS. There's simply no There, there.
So, "On what rational, objective data basis is there a need for the Bible to claim it's our sole authority in order for it to be so? Especially for anyone claiming to be Christian?"
Because a Christian, or any rational thinker, doesn't want to operate simply on blind allegiance to some human tradition, right? We want to have objective, rational reasons for what we do. At least, I do.
Don't you?
Your demand is just a device to protect the liberty
My demand is a device to protect the faith from humans who'd try to claim it as their own, and not something of God or reason. You know, like the Pharisees did. That is a reasonable demand. You'd think this if we're talking about the Muslims or Zoroastrians were the ones proclaiming that they held the Sole Truth and Authority, right? Why not if it's one segment of Christianity?
without Scripture there is no morality, but only those behaviors we favor to which we choose to apply the term. A given behavior might be stupid, harmful, impractical...but never "immoral".
That is certainly an opinion you are welcome to hold, but it's nothing like a "fact" or rational or biblical necessity. Indeed, as we've seen, the Bible argues against it.
If you're referring to Paul's teaching that the heavens proclaim His glory, how would you know that without Paul telling you in Scripture?
Dammit, by opening my eyes and looking at the ever-loving heavens, man!
Or, in the words of Everett McGill, "Consider the lilies of the God-damned field!"
And I've already cited yet another passage that says, well, hopefully you read it. It's right there in my previous comment. Romans 2.
What makes you think that you'd ever even suppose there's even such a thing as any god, much less God, without Scripture? You're making a lot of baseless assumptions you can't even make without Scripture first existing.
Nonsense. You're making a lot of baseless assumptions you can't make without ignoring Scripture or reason.
You've never heard of great thinkers reasoning themselves to the needful existence of God, and from there, finding Jesus? Baseless assumptions, indeed.
More...
Dan
What you're referencing is what I addressed above. It's nothing more than consensus opinion regarding subjective critiques of various behaviors. There's nothing that proves something is or isn't moral except Scripture.
And what YOU are citing is nothing more than consensus opinion amongst SOME who cite SS, without an insistence upon it in spite of a biblical or rational demand.
Look, you all consider gay behavior "immoral" because of a consensus amongst certain evangelicals (most, to be sure) that this is what the Bible teaches. BUT IT IS STILL A CONSENSUS OF OPINION. You all disagree with killing gay folk AGAIN because of a consensus of opinion. You all agree that the second half of that verse is not a universal good, but you all agree that the first half of that verse (along with other verses) add up to mean that all gay behavior in any context is bad. It is still a consensus opinion... it's just a consensus of HUMAN opinion of the meaning of various biblical texts.
Go ahead, prove that your opinions on the matter are rationally necessary... that it is anything more than opinion.
You haven't because you can't.
I'm fine with you holding that backwards opinion if you want. What I'm objecting to is you conflating that human opinion with anything like a fact or anything other than an outdated consensus of outdated human opinions.
No. We're talking about what Scripture teaches with regard to human sexuality.
No. YOU have made a fact claim: That God opposes gay guys marrying and this is a fact. Given your fact claim, you have to support it. The ONLY way you can do that (or TRY to do that) is by citing human opinion about the Biblical source... that we can "know" that all gay behavior is bad because there are lines in the bible that tell us so (you say) and the Bible is our "sole authority" for moral matters, you say.
You can't get to your human moral reasoning about sexuality without insisting upon an adherence to human moral reasoning about the Authoritative Source for moral ideas. So, to defend the former, you first must prove the latter.
Rationally speaking.
Understand?
...more
~Dan
It's like a lawyer who says that his client (in jail for murder) should be set free because there is a law on the books that exonerates him... he must first prove that such a law exists and that, additionally, he understands the law aright.
You have to do this and you have not. Rationally speaking.
Your link again tries to make the case that what is discussed is naturally moral simply because some of what is morality to us because of Christian teaching is also regarded as beneficial to other non-Christian cultures.
That's the point... we are all operating out of a consensus of opinion about morality and we find, not surprisingly to many, that consensus of opinion about morality is remarkably consistent across time and culture. Not entirely, of course. Biblical and ancient culture was largely accepting of polygamy and slavery and an insisted upon patriarchy (and denial of rights to women and children). But that just supports the notion that to some degree, morality adjusts with times. It happens in the bible, even you have insisted upon that, I believe.
...that given the time and place and culture, forced marriage of captive women was the more humane thing to do (was that you who made that argument), even though today we'd call that rape and recognize how wrong it is. In spite of biblical teaching, not because of it (at least, some would say).
The Bible doesn't speak, right? We don't know these things just because the Bible says so, right? Which is it?
I'm using your reasoning. IF the Bible doesn't support it, you say, then it's not true. I'm just citing the Bible for your sake because YOU believe SS, not because I do. IF you're going to cite the Bible as "proof" because of SS, then YOU are beholden to its teachings and so, I cite the Bible in addition to other, more measurable, more rational* data.
*I say "more rational" in contrast not to the Bible, but to the interpretation of some humans who are taking the bible in irrational directions. FYI.
~Dan
The bottom line is that YOU have made a claim of fact and insisted upon your understanding of God's opinion is a fact and that you can't be mistaken. You're "just saying what God says" is the essence of your "fact" claim.
BUT, you rely as a "proof" for that "fact," on the notion that the Bible is THE Sole Authority for morality. That, too, is a fact claim and as such, one that must be supported rationally before you insist upon your other fact claim(s).
From there, even if you could establish SS as a fact (and you simply can't... but by all means, give it a try if you think you can, I just have seen no evidence of it, which is why I abandoned it as a human theory not demanded upon by the Bible or by reason), you have to then demonstrate why YOUR UNDERSTANDING and interpretation of some passages within the "SS" are the demonstrably "right" ones.
Another thing you can't do.
At least as far as I've seen. Again, I came from that position and had to abandon it because I found it lacking in biblical or rational strength.
The ball's in your park, if you want to play ball. Just begin by objectively supporting the human opinion that SS is a fact.
~Dan
It's "The ball is in your court." FYI
Art,
Before you start to fulfill Dan's request, I'd suggest to you try to establish what the type and standard of "proof" are going to be expected. I'd also suggest that you refer Dan to the hundreds of resources that already exist, rather than to try to tackle the task alone.
Yes, by all means, let's establish that. What proof, for instance, would you want a Zoroastrian to provide to support his claim that his sacred text has imparted "facts" to him?
I would think I'd be consistent, regardless of the faith tradition (including mine). I'd ask something like...
1. What data do you have that demonstrates beyond all doubt that this text is from God?
2. Do you have a signed message from God? An affidavit from a close personal friend of God attesting to its authenticity?
3. How about the text itself? Does it claim to be written by God (for instance, the Bible makes no such claim)? What within the text purports to the authenticity of the God-claim?
4. If the text was literally NOT written by a god, but you think it was "inspired" in such a way as that it was essentially written by God, what proof of that is there?
5. What objective, measurable supports for the claim exist?
...like that.
And that's the thing. Proving that a text is "from God" and authoritatively so is a difficult thing to do. Short of a proclamation from God's Self, I don't know how you'd do it. Which is why I think it's not provable. Which is not to say that a given text ISN'T from God, just that it's not provable, as a point of fact.
Again, consider other sacred texts. IF the entirety of the Zoroastrian's claim for their holy text being factually "from God" is they really think it is, and thus, that is enough to say their conclusions from their texts are the same as facts, you would not accept that claim. Do you have any criteria for your text that wouldn't also demand that you accept the Zoroastrian's claim for their text?
~Dan
"SOLE AUTHORITY. How do we KNOW if a theological or moral idea is authoritatively correct?"
At what point do you take anything Scripture says seriously and as truth, Dan? Answer: when it aligns with your personal preferences for how things should be and what God should be like. For actual Christians, there is faith supported by a very long history, unbroken since the times described therein, the validity of which is backed up by archaeological findings.
But what matters most for the purposes of this discussion is not that we have direct access to God Himself...that we can invite him over for beer and brats and get the low-down straight from His own lips. What matters is what does Scripture say and can we support what we proclaim it does say. The answer is yes for the vast majority of it. Conclusions drawn regarding a lesson from a verse or passage or chapter can be proven by looking at the context, researching original languages if need be, and the best understanding by the best available scholars. With regard to the subject at hand, that being the Nashville statement and the teachings it affirms, those teachings are beyond doubt by rational, reasonable and honest people. They've been affirmed not only by conservative Christians such as the signatories of the statement, but by pro-homosexual, pro-SSM scholars as well, as I've listed for you on more than one occasion.
But you want to question the heat of fire. How do we know it's hot? Who's to say what "hot" is? On what basis can we know that what you feel is actually heat and not something else? It's absurd the games you play and a lie that you expect us to take it all as serious and legitimate critiques put forth in good faith.
It doesn't matter what the quran says or what muslims say about it. I'm working on the assumption that I'm not dealing with a muslim in this discussion. It doesn't matter what zoroastrianism says. I'm was assured I'm debating a Christian. The discussion has nothing to do with a debate about which religion is true. I would have actually bet money that even the likes of you believe that Christianity's truth claims are indeed the truth.
So the issue is whether or not what the Nashville statement affirms is actually what Scripture teaches. It is and that fact is supported by even a cursory reading of Scripture. If you insist on saying it doesn't teach that, then bring your evidence from Scripture. "Hard data" for such a debate IS Scripture. What does it say and how can one support the premise one defends? Everything else you've been doing here is cheap tap-dancing. It is the epitome of bad faith debate.
sigh. So you can't provide hard data for your empirical fact claim and you can't admit it's not a fact, but an opinion.
While I'm trying to think of where to go from here, here are some notes on facts, truths, opinions and support that might be helpful...
A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. If I say "fire is hot," I don't care how great your reasoning skills are, if you touch fire your skin will burn (and don't give me that "but people can walk on hot coals!" bull. There's a difference between the transfer of heat through conduction and training one's body to deal with the agonizing pain of said conduction). Now when I say this, I am not speaking a truth, I am speaking a fact. If you say "fire is not hot," you are not lying, you are incorrect. Facts are concrete realities that no amount of reasoning will change. When one acknowledges a fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not discovered, facts are not created, facts are simply acknowledged.
A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Truths are those things that are not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered, or created. If I say "God exists," and I possess strong reasoning for the affirmative of that statement, then God really does exist, that is a reality. However, if another individual possesses strong reasoning for the negative, and because of this reasoning they believe that God does not exist, then that is also a reality. If we were to debate our ideologies, and my reasoning appeared stronger than theirs, they may choose to adopt my belief that God does exist. If they do, then the existence of God is just as true as the nonexistence of God which they believed a week ago. Truths, as opposed to fact, are much more fluid and malleable than their empirical counterparts.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8053/what-is-the-difference-between-fact-and-truth
...Okay, how about this...
You are saying - correct me if I'm wrong - that IF ONE BEGINS with the assumption that the Bible is authoritatively "God's Word" and as such "can be perfectly understood - in parts, at least - as it relates to God's opinion," THEN one can insist that "the Bible" teaches against gay guys getting married, and one can insist upon it as a "fact" that this is what "the Bible" is teaching...
Is that an apt way of saying what you're trying to say?
~Dan
You all may find this article interesting...
https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/26-the-fact-opinion-distinction
~Dan
I feel like we're on the cusp of reaching some understanding here. I'm posting here my comment that I put on Craig's post, as it's apt here... it's all part of the same greater discussion...
I need to "prove" that "facts" are those things which can be proven beyond all doubt?
I have not made that claim, not exactly.
I. It MAY be a fact, that intelligent aliens exist in space and it MAY be a fact that these aliens have visited the earth, for instance. But, if you have not seen them, if you have no hard data that they exist (a space ship, a reliably identifiable artifact, a dead or living alien body, etc), then one can not correctly say they "know" it as a "fact." It's an opinion based on some assumptions and non-conclusive evidence.
II. But, for instance, IF I personally saw the aliens, was taken aboard their space ship and experienced them first hand... but then they left me on earth and departed, leaving NO evidence that they were here... in that case, I KNOW as a fact that they exist, but can't prove it. Nonetheless, it is a fact (assuming I wasn't delusional), just one that can't be proven.
So, empirical facts exist that can't be proven empirically. So, I'm not saying that facts must always be provable, especially/specifically empirical facts about events and the opinions held by entities.
But, what I'm saying is that Marshall's (and yours? You won't step up and be clear, so it's hard to say) claim that it is a FACT that God exists, that God "wrote" the Bible and that we can, therefore, "know" as a "fact" that God opposes gay guys marrying... that claim is much more in the category I. I list above... that is, you all have not heard personally from God that this is what God thinks. You all have not heard from God that you are understanding the Bible correctly. It is an opinion based on some PRESUMPTIONS held by you about the Bible, not a fact... at least not in the empirical sense.
So, my "proof" is just the meanings of words. That is, in the English language, when people are speaking about "facts" about someone's opinion, they are making an empirical claim of known data and should be able to support it, or explain why they aren't able to support it.
For instance, if Marshall said, "God came to me in the form of a Holy Donkey and said to me, Marshall, you are correct! Then the Holy Donkey flew away to heaven, leaving the room smelling of lavender and vanilla!!" then he "knows" he's correct about his "fact" because of first hand experience - even though he can't prove it. But Marshall is not saying that. It appears he's saying that IF you hold the unprovable assumptions that he holds, THEN it seems quite reasonable to him to reach his conclusion.
But not everyone holds those assumptions, so it's just not quite the same thing as a "fact," not in the sense that it is used in the English language.
Does that make sense?
~Dan
I almost always find it amusing when you post something without realizing that you've been making the opposite argument.
1. Your quote is quite clear that facts can be proven using "logical" arguments, they do not require "empirical" proof, or "hard data", or "scientific" proof to validate.
2. Bubba offered the "eyewitness" test months ago and you've never agreed with it when he offered it, but now you do.
3. I've also been saying that facts and a Truth exist regardless of our ability to prove them to your satisfaction.
Either God exists or He doesn't. The ability for someone to offer enough "empirical" proof to satisfy you doesn't change that. It also doesn't devalue the claim to mere "opinion" either.
That's really what this comes down to, there are plenty of excellent resources that make a compelling logical case for the existence of God, but because they don't meet your "empirical" proof standard they're not worth considering.
Your quote is quite clear that facts can be proven using "logical" arguments, they do not require "empirical" proof, or "hard data", or "scientific" proof to validate.
I've been quite clear that some things CAN be done using logical arguments. But not empirical claims. To claim, "GOD EXISTS, inspired the Bible and thinks that gay guys should not marry is an empirical, specific claim that can't be "reasoned" your way to objectively. IT IS AN OPINION, not a demonstrated, "known" "fact."
Not in the English language, as we use facts.
I've also been saying that facts and a Truth exist regardless of our ability to prove them to your satisfaction.
And I've tried to be quite clear that I'm not saying that there may BE facts that can't be proven. The point I'm making is that, short of a direct encounter with God (or space people) or something akin to it - where there is no evidence of it after the fact, when people say they "know" as a "fact" that God exists, and that God is opposed to gay guys marrying, as a point of "fact," they are not speaking of this empirical event that they just can't prove... they're speaking of a belief or feeling or opinion that is not an established fact, but an opinion.
Look, you could resolve this, it seems, if you could just say in what SENSE Marshall "knows" that "God" does not agree with gay guys marrying as a point of "fact..."
Because it appears that you are using these words in a non-standard manner.
Either God exists or He doesn't. The ability for someone to offer enough "empirical" proof to satisfy you doesn't change that.
That is absolutely correct, as I've been saying for years.
It also doesn't devalue the claim to mere "opinion" either.
THIS is where you are off, as I understand the words we're speaking of. IF you can't prove it and there IS no objective hard data available, then you are offering an opinion, not a fact.
Again, I'd ask you: IF there really are aliens existing out there and someone claims, "YES, I know as a fact that there are aliens..." but he has never seen them, has never seen any hard data for their existence, does he know that as a fact? Or is it something he is merely convinced of for non-factual reasons - or let's say he has hints and vague possible clues, but no hard data - and it just happens that he's right, but it's not truly something he knows as a fact?
It's the case that he doesn't truly know it as a fact, are we agreed upon that?
Yes, the guy may say, "Well, there are all these stories of sightings!" that IS data, right? And he may say, "There are these ancient stories like the one in Ezekiel that sound like actual sightings!" that IS data, right? "There IS the potential for life in the universe!" that IS data, right?
So it's not like he's basing his hunches on nothing... he has some clues that hint at aliens existing. BUT, it's not the same as an established fact.
Can we agree on that analogy and my conclusion that it is not a "fact" that he "knows..."?
~Dan
At the very least, can you clarify, when you are speaking of "knowing" God exists as a fact and that God is opposed to gay guys marrying as a fact, are you talking about a "fact" in the same sense of an Intelligent Alien believer?
That is, again, that believers in ETs hold that belief because there IS some data that hints at it. They've looked at the reported sightings, the reported abductions, the ancient stories, the Area 51 stories, maybe some physical evidence like crop circles or other artifacts... that they've considered the existing data and REASONED their way to, "The only explanation possible for all of this is that aliens exist as an objective fact..." They're not basing it on nothing. They've looked at the evidence and believe there is only one possible answer and that is, aliens exist as a fact!
Are you speaking of "knowing" God exists and God's opinion as a fact in this same way (albeit, you may think that the hints and clues are more conclusive than the ET believer)? That the existing known data can only cause you to reach one conclusion and that it is, therefore, an established fact?
If you could answer that, please.
Thanks.
~Dan
I would agree that there are ample logical arguments to indicate that it's reasonable to conclude that the existence of God is a fact.
As to the ridiculous comparisons to aliens or farting unicorns, there is no real comparison. The difference is that I'm reasonably confident that we can call the non existence of unicorns a fact. Aliens, on the other hand, we have little or no basis that supports a fact claim one way or another.
God's existence, on the other hand has all sorts of data to support it being a fact. Both logical and empirical. It's all out there and available for you to find, without me accessing to your demands.
The fact that you reject that evidence, isn't my problem. The fact that you claim to follow a God who you don't apparently believes exists, also isn't my problem.
The fact that you cherry pick a few verses to try to bolster your secular arguments from a Book that you believe to isn't reliable, doesn't really help you.
If you'd just stick with your "self determination" argument and continue to focus on the self part, at least you'd be consistent.
But I don't reject the evidence. I believe in God, after all.
I just don't think the evidence is such that we can call it a fact claim, not as "fact" is understood in the English language.
The problem with calling it a fact claim is that we end up destroying the meaning of the word, "Fact" and arguments against all who'd say that their pet belief is a "fact."
What is the evidence for God? Say there's 1,000 bits of evidence, from design found in nature, to ancient witness testimony, to logical arguments like "How can something come from nothing...?" What is the criteria that is met that differentiates that "fact" claim, then, from the Muslims or the Mormon or the alien believer?
If there are 1,000 bits of evidence or clues that make the "God" case a "fact," does that mean that if the Muslim finds their 1,000 bits of evidence, that their claim is also a fact? And if the alienist finds that much evidence, their claim is a fact?
The problem is that you are presenting no objective rubric or decision mechanism that can be consistently applied to verify that the God claim is a "fact," while the Allah claim is an opinion.
Further, while you may have 1,000 bits of evidence for the God Exists claim, then it's even more steps required and more data required to establish "the Bible is the sole source" and from there, "God opposes gay marriage..."
You have no consistent rational rubric that would allow you to make that claim... not that I see.
Do you agree that there is no rubric that sets your "fact" claims apart from the alienist? Do you recognize the problem that establishes?
You are making the notion of "facts" meaningless, it appears.
The fact that you cherry pick a few verses to try to bolster your secular arguments from a Book that you believe to isn't reliable, doesn't really help you.
Again, as always, I think the Book is reliable. It's human interpretations that are not reliable. A point you agree with, since you don't think my interpretations are reliable. Right?
~Dan
I get it, you've just dismissed the entire logical case for the existence of God. Because "You don't think" there's enough evidence.
Yet you think there's enough evidence to believe God "blesses" gay marriage.
Well, I guess that settles it. Dan doesn't think any of the logical arguments quite measure up to his demanding standards.
Oh, he believes in a god of some sort. Not one that we can really know much about. We can't even know if he exists, much less what he might think or how he might want us to act. He's probably all about love and grace, but he also likes expletive fills rants and referring to people as "stupid" or "racist" without any actual evidence.
He's a god with no rules, he really just wants to let society randomly decide about morality because it's all about self determination.
Well, it's definitely all about focusing on self.
you've just dismissed the entire logical case for the existence of God. Because "You don't think" there's enough evidence.
Yet you think there's enough evidence to believe God "blesses" gay marriage.
Are you even reading my words?
I BELIEVE IN GOD. I find the evidence compelling enough to believe in the existence of God. That being the case, I have NOT "dismissed the entire logical case for the existence of God."
I said, on the other hand, that it's not a provable notion, not a demonstrable fact in that sense. And it's not just me that doesn't think there is enough evidence to prove it as a irrefutable fact, so it's not like this is a wild and unbelievable position to hold.
So, it is my opinion that God exists and it is my opinion that God would bless marriages, because why they hell wouldn't a Good God do that? It's just not rational on the face of it.
Seriously, Craig, you misunderstand so much of what I've said, what makes you think you can understand an infinite God, written about in a series of books by a variety of authors 2,000+ years ago?
Again, The problem is that you are presenting no objective rubric or decision mechanism that can be consistently applied to verify that the God claim is a "fact," while the Allah claim is an opinion.
What is the criteria that is met that differentiates that "fact" claim, then, from the Muslims or the Mormon or the alien believer?
Do you agree that there is no rubric that sets your "fact" claims apart from the alienist?
Do you recognize the problem that establishes?
~Dan
Dan,
You may believe "a" god exists, but you clearly aren't speaking of the God of Scripture. To you, a "good" God affirms SSM. You just can't imagine how a "good" God could not. God must act in a manner that makes sense to YOU, that aligns with YOUR notions of "good". You've simply invented your own god and pretend he's the same God of Scripture.
It's amazing how routinely your words lead to this conclusion.
Dan,
Your own definition establishes that facts are discoverable using logical proof. They do not (as you seem to) require empirical proof.
Given that fact, my "rubric", is to simply subject the Koran and the BOM to the same types of textural criticism that the Bible is routinely subject to.
To disqualify the BOM, I'd simply point out the @3000 changes made to the text of a book allegedly translated letter by letter with the help of 2 angels and two magical stones. Oh, and the fact that exactly zero of its historical claims match reality.
To you, a "good" God affirms SSM. You just can't imagine how a "good" God could not. God must act in a manner that makes sense to YOU
And to you, a "good" God does NOT affirm SSM. You just can't imagine how a "good" God could. God must act in a manner that makes sense to YOU...
What's the difference? We're BOTH using our reasoning to form our opinions about God and all other things. Why does your opinion become more valid than mine? Or why is your opinion and your interpretations "just the way God thinks, or just what God says..." but mine are only my own opinion?
Craig, so to the degree that the Bible, Koran, BoM, etc, are subject to textual criticism, then they are reliable and "factual..."? So, how much textual criticism?
It is true, I believe, that until lately, the Koran has not been subject to textual criticism much, but now it is. So, now that it is, are conclusions drawn from it factual? Or does it have to have a certain number of years until it becomes factual?
And is this textual criticism only valid from the supporters/defenders of the favored sacred text? Or to all critics? Many critics do not find the "prophecy claims" of the Bible to be especially compelling or fulfilled. Whose textual criticism counts?
And zero of its historical claims match reality... how many need to match reality? After all, much of the first part of Genesis does not match reality as we know it... does that disqualify the Bible? Does it all need to be factual and true, or only part of it.
I think we still need more details.
~Dan
"What's the difference? We're BOTH using our reasoning to form our opinions about God and all other things."
No. I'm using the text. I'm citing actual verses and passages that are not ambiguous and, unlike some people, actually presenting those verses and passages in my arguments. My "opinions" are more valid because they align with those actual verses which are plain. Few things are more plain in Scripture than "thou shalt not" and lacking any verse that overturns that "thou shalt not" there is no "good faith" argument that now "thou shalt if you feel like it". Thus, there is no "good faith" conclusion that one can or may.
But in the real world, I have presented passages in addition to my reasoning for abandoning the view I used to hold (anti-marriage equity) to the one I hold now (support of LGBTQ rights). Here are some of the many times I have done that...
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2011/08/marriage-equity-my-journey-i.html
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2011/08/marriage-equity-my-journey-ii.html
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2011/04/whatsoever-things-are-lovely.html
Amongst many, many other times I have talked about the negative biblical case against condemning gay folk and the positive biblical case for supporting marriage. There are the words where I "present those verses and passages in my arguments." In my opinion, MY align better with biblical teaching AND with good, moral reasoning, just as you think the same for yours, presumably.
I have made the biblical case, Marshall, so while you are free to disagree with my reasoning, you can't say that I have not made the case or explained what it was that caused me to abandon the position that you still hold.
One simple question, Marshall. Answer it or go away and comment no more:
DO you realize, recognize and acknowledge that, as a point of fact in the real world, Dan Trabue HAS presented the biblical argument for why he thinks supporting marriage equity is Godly and wise and Christian?
NOT "Do you agree with Dan's conclusions?" but "Has Dan presented his case, using biblical references and explaining why he thinks as he thinks about those biblical references?"
There is only one factually correct answer. Show me you are not delusional, at least on this point.
As to matching reality, I'd say that a zero match is a pretty safe bet.
As far as Genesis, the absolute best you could claim is that we don't know Both because we don't knew all of the details, but because "science" doesn't really know exactly.
Before I respond, let me get this straight...are you saying I can only answer in a manner that agrees with you, even though I can provide a detailed and thorough response that shows why disagreement is justified, rational and true? If so, that's called "bad faith".
I'd much prefer that you demonstrate courage and the all important grace to let the whole thing play out rather than acting like a despot and forcing me to vote for you. It's why I general respond at my own blog where freedom, openness and grace actually exists.
BTW, I will be studying all three of your links and the comments that followed to gather the evidence that you have not made your case in as solidly a manner as you tell yourself you have. It's why the questions persist from that time to this (as well as your avoidance of actually demonstrating the grace to face them).
What I had said/HAVE said...
We're BOTH using our reasoning to form our opinions about God and all other things."
What you've said in response...
No. I'm using the text. I'm citing actual verses and passages that are not ambiguous and, unlike some people, actually presenting those verses and passages in my arguments. My "opinions" are more valid because they align with those actual verses which are plain.
What I'm telling you with my actual quotes that I've given, in addition to the, no doubt, thousands of other words I've written on the topic...
I have cited actual verses and passages that do not seem ambiguous to me. It is abundantly clear that we should focus on GOOD THINGS. This is a no-brainer.
It is abundantly clear to me that marriage is a GOOD THING. This, too, is a no-brainer (with the obvious caveats of mutually agreed upon, non-abusive, in the context of healthy people, etc).
The point is, I HAVE provided texts that literally influenced my move away from your position (i.e., against marriage equity) to my current position.
I, like you, cite "actual verses and passages" that do not seem ambiguous and have done so in the context of making my case.
You, on the other hand, cite passages that seem ambiguous to your claim. At least to me and mine.
No one is saying that Leviticus doesn't say, "Men shouldn't lie with men. If they do, kill them." The text is there, as part of laws given literally and specifically to ancient Israel. But to make the leap, then, that it is a universal rule about all gay behavior, that text is ambiguous to the claim. To me.
The point being, again, I've cited the verses that make sense to me in the context of sexual morality. YOU have cited verses that make sense to you in the context of sexual morality. We've BOTH cited verses and explained why they support our arguments.
We BOTH use our reason to sort out the meaning of those passages, as opposed to taking them woodenly literal (otherwise, you'd be supporting killing men who lay with men) as universal rules.
I HAVE made my biblical case. By providing biblical passages that I've shown helped me move from where I was to where I am, that IS providing MY biblical case. Now, I get that you don't think it is a strong case, but it is a fucking case. I don't think YOUR argument is strong, either, but I'm not saying you're not making your case.
Now, that being reality (and it IS reality, I HAVE provided biblical passages in making/explaining my case), do you agree with reality?
You are welcome to disagree with reality, but I don't have much to say to a delusional person.
Now, by all means, illuminate me.
Art, the problem your going to have is that Dan has moved the target, he's not arguing about what scripture actually talks about, the appropriate expression of sexuality. He's arguing that it's about marriage. As if sinful activity within a marriage is somehow rendered not sinful.
As is so often the case you will be making a completely different argument from Dan's. I appreciate the effort you're making and am sure you'll be thorough. But between Dan stacking the deck in his favor, and the impossibility of providing enough proof for him, I fear you'll be headed for frustration.
While waiting, would it be fair to frame it this way:
You all are NOT saying that that Marshall's claim (God doesn't approve of gay guys marrying - what it has been about all in this post) a "fact" in the sense that you can prove it with hard data... that you are saying that IF one starts off with the presumptions that you all hold (SS, for instance, or that the Bible can be considered rightly a "rulings" book...) and that you can "know" what God "thinks" as a "fact" based on reading these texts IN THIS SENSE and with these presumptions?
Put another way, if one does not share your presumptions, do you recognize they have no reason to accept your opinions as "facts..."?
Do you recognize, as well, that you are not able to prove your presumptions authoritatively?
~Dan
Until you can provide another source, one that does not ultimately rely on Scripture but is totally independent of It, that can provide evidence for what God's Will regarding human sexuality
might or might not be, then Scripture is all we have and on THIS issue is indeed our sole authority for understanding what His Will is. Conclusions therefore drawn from Scripture can indeed be put forth as fact with extreme confidence until such time as a more logical, more reasonable alternative renders the current understanding worthless by comparison.
With this in mind, there is a drastic difference in the quality of cases out forth by each of us. Claiming you've put forth a case is not at issue. It's the quality that is. So many holes exist that you have left unfilled, thus your case is unfinished. You say the same of mine, but I stand ready to fill what holes you believe whenever you choose to actually identify one. I say there are no holes in my argument or you you would have pointed them out, instead of merely saying something lame, such as, "you're free to believe what you want", as if that isn't a given, then insulting me as being delusional for doing so. Why not be honest and say you surrender, my position IS fact, but you're going to continue believing what is now proven false? OR, at least admit you have no response, you'll need to think it over and get back to me when a response is formualted, and then damn well do it. It's the more honest and gracious course of action.
And here's another given: I know you disagree with me. You never have to say that again, and I prefer you don't in lieu of a evidence-based counter argument explaining why. It will save all sorts of time.
Until you can provide another source, one that does not ultimately rely on Scripture but is totally independent of It, that can provide evidence for what God's Will regarding human sexuality might or might not be, then Scripture is all we have and on THIS issue is indeed our sole authority for understanding what His Will is.
1. Says who? (The Bible doesn't, you know)
2. On whose authority? (Since it's not the Bible, you're appealing to some group of humans and their opinions... who got to choose them?)
3. Why can't "God's Word, writ upon our hearts" inform us? Why can't our reason inform us?
4. Again, says who?
5. Where is your objective proof that God exists, has the nature you think God has, inspired the bible the way you think God did???
6. Who says that there MUST be an "authority" on God's opinion on sexuality? Has God promised you personally to keep you fully informed on God's opinion on sex stuff? Where?
Or are you saying that it's NOT a fact, not in the sense that you can prove it without first agreeing to your presumptions?
It sounds very much like you're not even trying to prove it objectively, that you're saying that everyone should agree with your presumptions and IF ONLY we will take your word that you're right in your presumptions, then you will see your opinions are actually facts.
Is that the case?
~Dan
I prefer you don't in lieu of a evidence-based counter argument explaining why.
ANd I have DONE that, probably hundreds of times. I've just provided three links to pretty intense explanation of the evidence/bible verses/reason that ARE my counter argument explaining why. So you don't need to say that again, as if it has never happened.
Can you agree, here and now, that I HAVE DONE THIS and save yourself from making the false claim one more time?
And before you make excuses... I gave my reasoning why I hold my position (as an effort to support human rights which is a moral good and rational thing to do)... I gave the Bible verses I read and the reasoning that changed my mind... That IS evidence, it's my reasons for changing my positions. If that isn't evidence, then what makes YOUR citing of verses (mostly ripped from context) to support your argument?
Again, what is the rubric/criteria that, consistently applied, would show that your verse citations are "evidence" of "facts" but my verse citations and reasoning is NOT "evidence..."?
Begin answering questions, Marshall.
~Dan
Of course, this ignores the presuppositions and assumptions you are starting with, and misstates at least one of ours. But I guess that just fits your worldview.
Sigh. What ignores what presumptions that I start with? And what have misstated?
Be clear, please, or go away.
Would you like to bet that you are operating on a misunderstanding of what I've said?
Dan
Your comments suggesting that somehow the presumptions that Art is starting with are somehow inherently detrimental to his case, while you pretend or fail to mention how your presumptions either don't exist or are somehow neutral.
This gets back to my repeated point, you demand that others prove that their underlying presumptions must be proven, while failing to do the same for yours.
Last time, WHAT presumptions are you citing?
And once again, as I think you eventually agreed to... Fact claims have a higher/different level of support to be given than opinions.
Dan
Just a quick note to Marshal. In the past I could jump to your blog by clicking on your name above on this comments page. Starting yesterday, when I try to do that, I am taken to
https://plus.google.com/101552619546888957658
which on my browser is a page with some colorful abstract patterns but with no information other than your name.
So for the time being I will not be able to keep up with your blog.
~ Hiram
Are you suggesting that you don't have preconceptions and presumptions that underlie your beliefs.
You said that I ignore my presumptions or pretend they're neutral. Which presumptions are you claiming I ignore? Or was that a vague and empty charge, not based on anything I've actually done?
Dan
Yes, I have presumptions. I don't, however, make fact claims dependent on them. Marshall (and you??) is.
Dan
http://marshallart.blogspot.com/
With limited time before I'm off to my last twelve hour shift of the week, I affirm that I've begun perusing the three links to your testimony regarding your "journey". Less than half way through the comments section of the first, it's not looking good for you. It confirms what I've been saying about your "case" and how incomplete and hole-filled it really is.
In the meantime, with regard to your comment of September 18, 2017 at 8:00 PM...
1. The Bible in no way needs to refer to itself as our sole source or sole authority in order to be so. Lack of other sources is good enough. The Bible becomes the sole source by default, if nothing else.
2. On the authority of reality. It is the Christian's sole source of knowledge about God, particularly the God of the Bible. That sounds redundant or circular perhaps, but only when ignoring the fact that this discussion is based on the question of what Scripture says about God's Will on sexual behavior and morality.
3. This is an appeal to the Scripture you dismiss as not the sole source of knowledge about God and His Will. How can you come to believe His Law is written on our hearts without Scripture having told you? What would even compel such a concept? What's more, to appeal to Scripture in order to make that argument to support your disregard for Scripture as sole authority, you must dismiss Scriptural references to the heart as being "deceitful above all things and beyond cure." (Jeremiah 17:9) Then there is also Ecclesiastes 9:3, Matthew 15:18. You cherry-pick one verse and ignore other teachings.
I would also expect you to explain just how, without Scripture, can we know what we believe is "written on our hearts" is actually in alignment with the Will of God?
4. A quote to understand to what this refers would have been helpful.
5. Three questions in one: a) I don't have to prove God exists to accurately explain what the God of Scripture expects of us, b) Scripture describes God's nature quite sufficiently for those who wish to know. That description includes facets you reject out of hand for conflicting with your own desire of what He should be, &c) It's enough to know that Christ relied upon Scripture as it was at the time, and that Paul says it is inspired by God. Any reason to suspect he's either a liar or insane?
6. a) No one, yet the Bible is it nonetheless. Who or what else could be in this day and age? b) He doesn't have to having already revealed His Will on the subject as it is recorded in Scripture. c) It begins in Lev 18 and is confirmed several times from that point on in various places. I thought you engaged in serious study.
I have to stop here and address something from an earlier comment of yours, where you demanded I answer in the way you insist I do or not comment. You actually ask two different questions and call it one.
1. "DO you realize, recognize and acknowledge that, as a point of fact in the real world, Dan Trabue HAS presented the biblical argument for why he thinks supporting marriage equity is Godly and wise and Christian?"
No. Dan Trabue has only presented that which he asserts is the biblical argument, but in fact is not. It is Dan Trabue's poor attempt to put forth a biblical argument. But it is not biblical simply because it mentions verses and/or passages from the Bible.
2. "NOT "Do you agree with Dan's conclusions?" but "Has Dan presented his case, using biblical references and explaining why he thinks as he thinks about those biblical references?""
This is my complaint, that you haven't presented a case to the extent you assert you have. As I said earlier, it is rife with holes which remain unfilled. I've begun reviewing your explanation and at this early juncture have already begun to list holes not filled.
Nothing in my response is delusional. I have already explained why my objections to your "case" falls so horribly short and until you choose to address those objections in full, a charge of delusion is a blatant lie based solely on your anger at being confronted.
In the meantime, more recent comments of yours are no more than you accusing me of that which you have done routinely in order to believe as you do. The charge that I have "ripped out of context" any verse or meaning is particular projection of what it is you do. I'll explain later as time allows.
Biblical: Of, relating to or contained in the Bible.
Dan
Thanks for validating me charge.
You're suggesting that your presumptions don't have any impact on the claims you make? Or are you suggesting that your presumptions are all factual? Or that only Art bases things in presumptions?
Craig, I'm letting this set of questions stand, but I AM asking you to answer my questions to you before you say anything else.
It's okay to say, "I misspoke when I said what I said... I have no specific presumptions of yours that I'm talking about..." or something along those lines.
My presumptions DO have impacts on the words I say, at the very least.
For instance, I presume that when you all use the word "Fact" about an empirical bit of data about someone's specific opinion that you mean it in the standard English sense of the word, because why wouldn't I? I presume you mean that you can support that claim with objective, observable data, not a subjective opinion of an interpretation of a passage.
That presumption has an impact on what I say, because what I'm saying is based on that presumption. IF you are not sharing the same standard meaning of a word, then it would behoove the non-standard word user to clarify what they mean. Like, "I don't MEAN a 'fact' that I can 'prove' with 'objective, observable data...' I mean it more in the sense of an opinion that I can't prove and that I don't 'know' as a 'fact' in the normal usage of the word..."
Or are you suggesting that your presumptions are all factual?
No.
Or that only Art bases things in presumptions?
He appears to be on his hunch about God's opinion on gay folk. That's why I'm ASKING him to clarify his claim to a "known" "fact..." on God's opinion. THAT is the presumption(s) we are speaking to here.
That is, I can see that IF one presumes that the Bible is SS and that there is a God that revealed the Bible as SS and sort of a rulings book, then one might see how one could begin to hold Marshall's opinion as a "fact," but there's a lot of presumption hoops you're skipping over and not jumping through to support that claim.
Now, answer the question asked of you or comment no more. Please.
Thanks for validating me charge.
Happy Talk Like a Pirate Day to you, too.
The Bible in no way needs to refer to itself as our sole source or sole authority in order to be so. Lack of other sources is good enough. The Bible becomes the sole source by default, if nothing else.
This is an insane and irrational and unbiblical human nutty-guess. Why? Says who?
What if a Muslim says, "lack of other sources is good enough. The Quran because the sole source by default..." It is a flimsily silly claim, Marshall. I would be willing to bet that even Craig would agree. There simply is nothing there to support the claim but bluster and fartwind.
You can't just speak facts into being, buddy. Wanna try again?
this discussion is based on the question of what Scripture says about God's Will on sexual behavior and morality.
This specific discussion is based upon a claim that YOU made: That God does not support gay guys marrying, not specifically "what Scripture says about sexual behavior and morality." I'm asking you to acknowledge that your "fact" claim is AN OPINION, not a fact, because that is what it is. Now, perhaps IF you begin with the presumptions "There is a God" and "God 'wrote' the Bible," and "God intended it as the SS" and probably a few other presumptions... THEN maybe that conclusion begins to be more rational, but not everyone is accepting your presumptions.
I'm asking you to support a fact claim or to backtrack a bit and admit it's more of an opinion that is necessarily reached IF one shares your presumptions.
I truly think that's what's happening here, but you can't bring yourself to backtrack. It's no problem to clarify a misunderstanding, just admit it's not a fact in the normal usage of the word... as I've cited the dictionary now several times.
This is my complaint, that you haven't presented a case to the extent you assert you have.
I have presented my case, including the very specific literal Bible passages that led me AWAY from your position to my position. That IS a biblical argument. An argument "of and/or relating to" the Bible's words. Again, I think here you are using a word "biblical" to mean something different than what I'm talking of, which is the normal English definition.
What I've presented is reality: The specific reasoning and Bible passages that I assert led me away from the opinion you hold on the topic... and I assert them because that is reality, as anyone can see. I USED to hold the opinion that you hold about gay guys marrying. Now, I don't, and it was the Bible study and reason and prayer that led me away from that position. That is "to the extent" that I've claimed because it is reality.
So, here again, you are simply factually mistaken... I HAVE made a "biblical case" for my position... I've explained and cited the Bible verses that helped me reach my current position. That you disagree with my reasoning or conclusions does not alter that this specific biblical case is what led me to my position.
Understand?
Marshal, thanks for the link to your blog. I now have it in my favorites bar.
~ Hiram
No it was not s vague and empty charge, it was a question based on your comment about Art's presumptions. It seems clear that you are not willing to admit that you have some set of presumptions that undergird your worldview. It seems that in this area you are also not prepared to treat yourself as you treat others.
What YOU said (not asked, but stated, flatly):
Your comments suggesting that somehow the presumptions that Art is starting with are somehow inherently detrimental to his case,
while you pretend or
fail to mention how your presumptions
either don't exist or are somehow neutral.
That is not a question, it is a specific charge. "YOU PRETEND... YOU FAIL TO MENTION... YOUR PRESUMPTIONS."
If you would just do as I ask and SUPPORT YOUR CHARGE as one with decency and intellectual honesty and moral courage, then I could address the specific instances of "presumptions" and clarify what is no doubt your mistake. But vague and empty (and that is what this charge is, literally, vague and empty) claims of me "pretending" or "failing to mention" SOME of my presumptions is just a stupid ad hom attack.
Don't be stupid. Don't be intellectually cowardly. Provide some specifics so you can learn where your mistake was (or, conversely, where you can support I actually DID ignore my presumptions and admit my mistake... but given your consistent lack of understanding of my words, the odds are against it, quite frankly) or, more likely, admit that you didn't mean to state this as a charge and that you have NO INSTANCES of me doing what you accused me of doing.
Don't be an empty accuser. Man up, brother. Don't embarrass yourself, further.
It seems clear that you are not willing to admit that you have some set of presumptions that undergird your worldview.
Here it is again. Another bullshit unsupported charge. WHAT presumptions? I've clearly stated the obvious, that of course I do have presumptions. But this isn't asking me if I have presumptions, it's saying that I'm denying them in some way.
Man up or go away. Last time.
~Dan
"Happy Talk Like a Pirate Day to you, too."
With these twelve hour shifts, it took a while to figure out why you responded with this line. :)
"This is an insane and irrational and unbiblical human nutty-guess."
It is none of those things, but instead exactly the opposite. What other sources can you name that are totally independent of Scripture, but provides a description of God, His will and His nature? If you can't provide any other sources, then Scripture is THE sole source. But here's something insane and irrational...
"What if a Muslim says, "lack of other sources is good enough. The Quran because the sole source by default...""
Are you muslim? Why the hell would you give a flying rat's ass about what a muslim says with regard the source of morality...unless he's a convert to Christianity, in which case he would cite the Christian Bible as the sole authority on such matters? (That is, assuming he wasn't converted through the efforts of a "progressive" Christian, in which case he would necessarily be an actual Christian.)
"There simply is nothing there to support the claim but bluster and fartwind."
There's that "embracing grace" again. This illustrates another major difference between us. When I refer to your opinions as crap, I actually explain why.
"You can't just speak facts into being, buddy."
The irony is strong in this one.
"Wanna try again?"
Sure.
The Bible in no way needs to refer to itself as our sole source or sole authority in order to be so. Lack of other sources is good enough. The Bible becomes the sole source by default, if nothing else.
"This specific discussion is based upon a claim that YOU made: That God does not support gay guys marrying, not specifically "what Scripture says about sexual behavior and morality.""
One and the same.
"I'm asking you to acknowledge that your "fact" claim is AN OPINION, not a fact, because that is what it is."
That would be lying. Why do you want me to lie?
"Now, perhaps IF you begin with the presumptions "There is a God" and "God 'wrote' the Bible," and "God intended it as the SS""
There IS a God. It's the God of the Christian Bible.
I've never said that God "wrote" the Bible. He did inspire it and what ended up on the pages of Scripture is what He wanted to be in there. I see no reason to dispute this point, nor does it matter with regard to what Scripture says about His will for human sexual behavior.
God doesn't necessarily have to have intended that Scripture is the sole authority for it to be so. Lack of other sources is good enough. The Bible becomes the sole source by default, if nothing else.
"but not everyone is accepting your presumptions."
This comes as a great shock.
"I'm asking you to support a fact claim or to backtrack a bit and admit it's more of an opinion that is necessarily reached IF one shares your presumptions."
Why are you asking me to lie? What presumptions do you have when you see "thou shalt not"? The only one I have is "don't". How can you possibly think differently?
"I truly think that's what's happening here, but you can't bring yourself to backtrack."
This is far more accurately applied to you.
"It's no problem to clarify a misunderstanding, just admit it's not a fact in the normal usage of the word..."
But that would be a lie.
"I have presented my case, including the very specific literal Bible passages that led me AWAY from your position to my position."
I'm still in the process of reviewing those three links wherein you try to prove the Bible led you to your current immoral position, by injecting meaning the text in no way implies, and other such distortions and corruptions.
"...it was the Bible study and reason and prayer that led me away from that position."
You reasoned your way around the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture perhaps, but Scripture itself did not lead you to your position. It's not possible no matter how many times you try to say otherwise. A cursory look at your posts alone shows this to be true, which is why I said that "you haven't presented a case to the extent you assert you have." by which I meant it is weak and so easily shown to be so. So, did you present a case? Sure...such as it is. Is it a solid case in any way? Absolutely not. It's quite pathetic in fact, but again, I'm still reviewing it in order to pick out the best examples to illustrate my point. There's so many.
This reminds me that I provided two of my "best" objections for which you've responded not at all. When's that gonna happen?
"So, here again, you are simply factually mistaken... I HAVE made a "biblical case" for my position..."
Throwing around a few badly abused verses does not constitute a Biblical case. It simply means that you cited some verses. If they don't truly do what you insist they do, the case is not Biblical...it's Tabue-lical. Not the same thing.
No Biblical case exists that honestly leads anyone to a pro-homosexual, pro-SSM position. There's no Scriptural evidence for such a position at all.
I'd guess the Muslim thing would be of interest since they kill homosexuals.
The Muslim thing is of interest because if a Muslim said, "I can 'know' as a 'fact' that it Allah wants us to kill gay people because I read it in my Scripture..." I would say the exact same thing:
So?
Says who?
You are confusing Fact and Opinion.
I don't know how to help you all. You appear to be thoroughly delusional and not understanding basic English words, human communication or logical reasoning and making your case, nor do you appear to understand the difference between fact and opinion.
Good luck. If you ever want to, you know, actually answer the questions that are put to you or deal with the holes in your argument from a rational approach, let me know.
No answers, no comments.
Craig, in one of your now deleted comments (where you opted not to answer questions), you said you were offering an opinion, not making a claim, when you said this...
Your comments suggesting that somehow the presumptions that Art is starting with are somehow inherently detrimental to his case,
while you pretend or
fail to mention how your presumptions
either don't exist or are somehow neutral.
1. That IS a claim.
2. Now, I am fine with you backing up and clarifying, "I don't know this to be true and I can't cite a single thing to support it in your actual words, it's just a stupid opinion with very little/nothing to support it..." and that is fine.
3. This would help clarify one of my points, though...
There are different supports necessary depending upon whether or not a claim is a fact claim or an opinion statement/claim. Further, different opinion-claims may require different supports.
I. FACT CLAIMS on empirical events/opinions of others:
IF someone says, "I know as a physical fact in the real world that God exists, that I relatively well understand the character of that God, that this God inspired the Bible in the way that I am understanding it, that this God inspired the Bible so that it is the Sole Authority, and that this means that God doesn't want the gays to marry" etc, etc, etc. That is a fact claim and it requires some hard support to back it up, not mere interpretations of ancient texts. Just as a point of reality.
At least as Facts are generally understood. IF you are using "fact" in some non-standard way, please provide the definition.
II. OPINION STATEMENTS based upon just understandings of words
IF someone says, I understand Fact to mean, "something that is objectively demonstrable..." That is just a statement of clarification of one's presumption(s) and can be clarified with a simple dictionary citation and then the others can respond if they are using the same usage of the word.
III. OPINION CLAIMS, charges not based on facts but on untested, unproven interpretations of someone else's words
IF someone says, "you pretend or
fail to mention how your presumptions
either don't exist or are somehow neutral..."
Then that should be supported by the specific words of the person in question and then clarification can occur when the person explains "Yes, that is my presumption" or "No, that isn't a presumption I hold..."
But such unsupported charges without the actual quotes are meaningless and, if confronted with the meaninglessness of them, the person should be prepared to recognize that reality... that it is literally an unsupported claim and IF they hold that opinion, they do so with no support at all.
Actually, if you had read my actual words it might be clear by my use of the word "suggesting", that I did not actually make a specific fact claim.
Perhaps you're just unfamiliar with the difference between a word like "is", and words like "seem or suggest".
But to answer your question, you specifically addressed Art's preconceptions and how they affected his views. I ASKED if you didn't have preconceptions that underlie your views and if you gave those the same scrutiny you gave others. You chose not to answer in a straightforward forthcoming manner. Hence, you gave the appearance of pretending as if you are free from preconceptions.
I'm sorry that my failure to grasp your equivocal response confused you.
But now that I've answered your question I'm sure you'll be re posting my comments.
It would appear that my applying the standard you apply to others to you has you a bit touchy and quick on the trigger to delete comments you'd rather not have people make.
It's interesting that I chose to respond with a degree of grace, while you've chosen a different way.
Oh, and I guess your claim to humility wasn't as blanket as you pretend either.
No, Craig, you said, "YOUR COMMENTS suggesting... While YOU PRETEND..." I'm asking a simple clarifying question: What comments? What "pretend?"
And the "pretend" charge is not a conditional claim, but a direct one. I'm saying show me the comments and where specifically, I "pretended" because I'm calling bullshit on your opinion claim. The way to clarify is for you to offer specific quotes.
Support your opinion-charge or admit you've got shit.
Dan
Put another way, if I say, "Craig's words suggest that Marshall is not as intelligent as he is, and yet Craig pretends to be humble!" you would rightly say, "What the hell are you talking about?! WHAT words? What makes you say I'm pretending to be humble?" These are reasonable questions that the charge insists upon, EVEN IF I say, "Well, that's my opinion, so you can't disagree!" Specific charges like that demand explanation and support, otherwise it's just false witness and slander, opinion or no.
Still waiting.
This reminds me that I provided two of my "best" objections for which you've responded not at all. When's that gonna happen?
I have no idea what you think, in all that you've said, is a "best objection" case. I'm not seeing anything. I DO see you offering delusional-sounding comments that demonstrate that you can't separate opinion from fact, so I'm not too inclined to read the ravings of a confused man very far. But if you have some "best objection" that you'd like to point me to, I'd be glad to look at it.
Sure, Dan. But how many times are you going to make this offer and then not follow through? I'll get get my response to your challenge and reprint it here so you can again ignore it long enough to again pretend you don't know what it is I'm referencing.
From Craig's blog you responded to me this way:
I said:
"But I'm still waiting for responses to the many, many problems with your "case" that you've never, ever addressed."
And you responded:
"Name one. Your very best argument for which you think you're waiting for a response. I'm willing to bet it's an idiotic point with an obvious response, but hit me with your best shot."
My supposedly idiotic points, to which you never offered an "obvious" (which doesn't mean "intelligent", of course) response, were included in the following:
I've never thought of the facts you won't face in terms of which is "best". But we can begin with one mentioned very recently: the universality of Lev 18:22 (or the entire chapter for that matter). You claim all Levitical law is specifically for the tribes of Israel at the time the law was handed down, and that we can't know if any of it is universal and applicable to Christians today. But if this is true, then why the reference to the prohibited behaviors of the chapter being practiced by the Egyptians and Canaanites? God said, "Don't do as they do". On what basis do you insist that homosexuality is only detestable to the Hebrews in the time of Moses? Are you suggesting that though God said, "don't do as they do", that homosexual behavior wasn't detestable for the Egyptians in God's opinion? God said, "Don't do it. It is detestable." When did He say it no longer is? You've NEVER addressed this, except to say you don't agree, so you don't need to reiterate that. You only need to address on what basis you disagree with what is so clear.
But here is another: On what basis can you make the claim that the word "marriage" in Scripture can mean anything remotely inclusive of two of the same sex? If you cannot provide evidence that even lightly hints at such a ludicrous notion being true, then to suggest that any possible regard in Scripture that marriage is a good thing means also good for two of the same sex to "marry", that's an argument that can't in good faith be used to support your position. It's a lie and thus not evidence at all.
These two points were put to you long ago on more than one occasion and your "obvious" responses never materialized. Keep in mind, these are only two out of a host of problems your "case" screams in vain for answers. Go ahead...show me why these two are "idiotic". I'm dying to see it.
But we can begin with one mentioned very recently: the universality of Lev 18:22 (or the entire chapter for that matter). You claim all Levitical law is specifically for the tribes of Israel at the time the law was handed down
Stop right there. Just stop.
As I've noted many times, IF you're taking the text literally, it is literally for the ancient Israelis. Period. Here's the text from Leviticus. (God's own self - if you take it literally - introducing Chapter 18, for instance...)
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to
the sons of Israel
Who? THE SONS OF ISRAEL. But wait, there's more.
...and say to them
"Them" who? THE SONS OF ISRAEL. But wait, keep following the literal text...
‘I am the Lord your God.
You
shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are
you
to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing
you;
you
shall not walk in their statutes.
You
are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them...
What I'm claiming then, is that the text literally says these rules are specifically for Israel. Period.
Now, you may disagree with the literal text, that's fine. I encourage you to do more of that sort of critical thinking and not taking things literally. But I'm just pointing out what the text literally says.
Now, you may disagree with my opinion, but it's not the case that I haven't made a case, nor is it the case that my opinion is wild and wacky. It's a literal reading of the text. So you lose the point right there, but I'll give you some grace and take into consideration your next point (and then rationally dismantle them)...
if this is true, then why the reference to the prohibited behaviors of the chapter being practiced by the Egyptians and Canaanites?
We don't know. The text does not say. Literally. The text literally does not say shit about Egypt or the Canaanites as to why they shouldn't be doing it. It does not say that the behaviors are even wrong for E or C.
Indeed, YOU DON'T believe that each line in these passages is universal. YOU don't think that "if they do, kill them..." is a literal rule for every one, every where. You pick and choose, and if that makes you feel good, go for it. But you don't believe what you're asking me to believe.
God said, "Don't do as they do".
The text records that, yes.
On what basis do you insist that homosexuality is only detestable to the Hebrews in the time of Moses?
God did not say that "homosexuality is detestable." That is you reading something into the text that isn't there.
You've NEVER addressed this, except to say you don't agree, so you don't need to reiterate that. You only need to address on what basis you disagree with what is so clear.
I've never addressed it because the text, taken literally at face value, dismisses your point and enforces mine.
Again, whether or not you agree with my reasoning, YOU CAN'T SAY I haven't made the argument on a rational, thought-out basis. There IS some reason to disagree with your hunches, whether you agree with them or not.
more...
One more...
On what basis can you make the claim that the word "marriage" in Scripture can mean anything remotely inclusive of two of the same sex?
Why am I limited to what marriage does or does not mean in Scripture? Who gets to decide that "marriage" usage from the Bible is the end all and be all of deciding what makes for good marriages?
For one thing, "marriage" in the Bible is inclusive of polygamy, which I generally believe to be unhealthy, and certainly not normative of current Christian beliefs. Also, "marriage" in the Bible is inclusive of forced marriages of captured virgins from other nations. That is immoral as hell, at least by modern understandings.
I reject out of hand that how marriage is used or not used in the Bible is the beginning and end of what is acceptable for marriage, and for good reasons, as I've just cited.
Now, you may disagree with my conclusion, but I HAVE addressed this and it IS a reason.
You simply can't say I have not offered considered reasons, rational support for my positions, including based on biblical text, taken in context. I've just demonstrated your error.
Can you admit reality? Or are you unable to recognize reality?
~Dan
First of all, if you insist on making an appeal to reality, then the question arises as to whether or not you have a good grasp of what constitutes actual reality, or whether or not you are daring to presume you have the wit or authority to dictate what reality is. My money is on the latter given your penchant for despotism in all other matters of discourse.
You begin by attacking a point not in dispute...to whom was God giving the Law in the Book of Leviticus. The REALITY is that the question is whether or not any of the laws still apply to Christians today...in this case specifically, Lev 18:22.
Have to go....more soon, but already we see that you're not facing the objection at all if you can't even get square one right.
"What I'm claiming then, is that the text literally says these rules are specifically for Israel. Period."
But the "literal" text does not say that at all, so your claim is bogus. Where does it literally say, "these laws are specifically for Israel" exclusively? While the case is easily made that the civil and ceremonial laws were for Israel (as there is no reference that God's anger toward Egypt or Canaan had anything to do with things like mixing fabrics, shellfish or haircuts), the moral laws reflect God's holiness. The interpersonal relationships regulated by the laws of chapters 18-20 are regulated by God's morality. We know this because 19:2 says, "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy." God's holiness doesn't change so therefore His moral expectations don't change.
Furthermore,
"We don't know. The text does not say. Literally. The text literally does not say shit about Egypt or the Canaanites as to why they shouldn't be doing it. It does not say that the behaviors are even wrong for E or C."
...is more nonsense. It indicates stupidity or deception because the text does literally say that the behaviors were wrong for the Canaanites in particular, but also Egypt because both were referenced as those who did what God denied the Israelites. The prohibited behaviors were so bad and so detested by God, that He said...
"Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled"
I highlighted "nations" because it is pluralized, there having been more than just Egypt and Canaan that defiled themselves by indulging in the prohibited practices, further proving the moral law was universal. But that's not all. 18:26 says...
"But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you."
Clearly the alien was not one of the 12 Tribes. Thus, the moral law was not specific to the Hebrews only.
"YOU don't think that "if they do, kill them..." is a literal rule for every one, every where. You pick and choose..."
Not picking and choosing at all, but operating on the basis of what Scripture says and on that basis alone. Punishments for sins in that time were in place due to a number of things, such as the fact that a Holy God does not tolerate unholy behaviors or sin. Also, Christ's death on the cross did away with our obligation to deal with sinful behaviors in such a manner. Thus, your constant desperate citation of the Chapter 20 sentencing schedule is just that...desperate. There's no picking and choosing on my part, but you are choosing to disregard Biblical teachings on this matter to defend your support of immorality.
"God did not say that "homosexuality is detestable." That is you reading something into the text that isn't there."
This is just a straight up lie. No Biblical scholar has ever denied that Lev 18:22 refers to homosexuality (which the desire to engage in same-sex sexual relations and the actual indulgence in it). The scant few out of the mainstream exceptions are pro-homosexual activists of the last 50-100 years or so. That the word "homosexual" or an ancient counterpart was not used is childish semantic games given the actual behavior is described. A literal reading of the verse can have broad implications. It could be ANYTHING that a male would normally do with a female, such as cuddling. It doesn't get specific. But thousands of years of understanding simply speak of homosexuality as we know it.
"I've never addressed it because the text, taken literally at face value, dismisses your point and enforces mine."
I've just demonstrated that this statement is light years away from true. Now, rather than defaulting as usual to "that's your 'hunch' and you're welcome to it", try using actual Scripture to present a counter argument if you can. Thus, there is not much thought, rational or otherwise, that is evident in your response to this unfilled hole.
I'll tackle the second objection response later.
Marshall, just save it, you've got nothing.
Just a reminder of what you said and what we were trying to clarify.
YOU SAID...
clearly is based on nothing but your personal desire that it be OK.
That is not the case, as I've repeatedly demonstrated.
1. MY "personal desire" when I changed my opinion was to continue opposing SSM and homosexuality in general. Thus, it has nothing to do with my personal desire (indeed, my personal desire is a large part of the reason why I didn't change my opinion earlier... because I didn't WANT to change my opinion.
2. I have offered biblical and rational reasons why I did abandon the opinion you hold and move to the opinion I hold now. Thus, it is a lie, delusional and/or just plain stupid-ass wrong to say I changed "based on nothing."
I changed based upon the reasons I've been providing for years.
And indeed, part of that reasoning is the biblical case. You simply can't say that I have not provided my biblical reasoning or that it's not there. It is.
You just disagree with my opinion - which is fine. But disagreeing with my opinion and my reasoning is not the same as me not having provided my reasoning or that it's "based on nothing."
That is just a false claim, clearly rebutted, over and over.
So, just save it, Marshall. I humored you and it only served to prove my point again and embarrass you again. Discussion over (although I will always gladly accept your recognition of reality, if you ever are able to see it, and an apology for being so bull-headed and making so many repeated false claims.)
Peace.
~Dan
You're in denial, but hey...I'm more than generous with the truth and saving it ain't my style. Yeah...I've no doubt you'll delete my comments because you're too cowardly to admit that you're "case" holds as much water as a colander. But I'm pretty sure I've clarified myself in saying that it's not so much that you haven't presented a case, but that you haven't finished presenting it so long as you fail to support why...that you've failed to show how Scripture is the basis for your having "evolved" like a typical Obama from a warped view of truth to a worse acceptance of lies and fantasy.
And you can insist you had no desire to change, but that's what cemented it without a doubt...the desire to be like those Christians you just damn well knew were great Christians due to the way they lived their lives....except that they promoted, enabled and likely in some cases, engaged in homosexuality. (Point 3 of your first post describing your "evolution" to the dark side)
More importantly for now is that this brief rehashing of the debate about your "evolution" demonstrates the very incriminating aspect of your "case" and how you present and defend it (poorly, by the way). I laid down a challenge with the first of my two "best" objections to your "case". You gave a response that you think is "obvious" and somehow makes my objection idiotic. I then respond with more detail and evidence from Scripture that further makes MY case with regard to this specific point (universality), and which validates it better than it already was. YOUR response to that? The typical Dan denial so common to you when the hurdle before you was never cleared...you turn and run and say you don't want to play. You simply state you've already cleared when I've shown that you haven't.
So yes, desire is very much the basis of your current position because you have no desire for truth if it means rejecting the position. It's rank cowardice.
And don't you realize the opportunity here? I'm still here after all these years waiting for the very thing you refuse to give. What you've done so far doesn't satisfy because it created far more questions than it answered, especially given that your three posts don't suggest you've done any serious study of Scripture at all given how many questions is compels. A serious study would result in the obvious flaws I've exposed in your "case" being answered. Instead, you provoke more questions that you now refuse to answer. I've "got nothing"??? Hardly. I've got so much more and you have nothing but a lame and laughable case that doesn't float at all.
These two "best" arguments are just two of so very many that you've never answered and why you'd refuse just confirms my claim that you don't believe your own bullshit, but only stand behind it for the purposes of posturing to your equally false Christian friends. You clearly don't care for or love them enough to risk their friendship for the sake of God and truth. If you had any understanding of either at all, I could not continue to hold MY position after you defend yours. But you won't, because you can't. It's not a defensible position to hold. It's detestable.
So, as we carry on to your second objection (because I give and share truth freely and generously---at least until some grace revering Christian can show me that I haven't a hold of truth after all. Know anyone like that?):
"Why am I limited to what marriage does or does not mean in Scripture?"
Because the discussion is based on your claim of having seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture in order to come to your current position on prohibited sexual behavior. If you're basing your understanding of marriage on something other than Scripture, then your insistence that serious and prayerful study of Scripture being that which led you to the dark side is false and thus my charge that Scripture couldn't have led you to be pro-homosexuality is confirmed...for which I thank you for the concession. It's unprecedented.
"Who gets to decide that "marriage" usage from the Bible is the end all and be all of deciding what makes for good marriages?"
Certainly for the real Christian, my answer above works here as well. But this is another case of you perverting the question. It wasn't about what a "good" marriage is, but simply what "marriage" is. To restate, there is nothing anywhere in Scripture that so much as hints of marriage being anything but the union of man and woman, so that daring to say that God would bless an SSM cannot be true since based on what Scripture says about the subject, there is no legitimate reason to believe that such a thing exists in minds of any Scriptural author, OT or NT.
"For one thing, "marriage" in the Bible is inclusive of polygamy..."
Irrelevant, since what God tolerates isn't the same as what God expects or desires of us. Christ spoke of God tolerating divorce, for example. He clearly doesn't desire that it be done.
What's more, polygamy in Scripture was no more than a series of the same man entering into several one man/one woman unions without having divorced the women from earlier marriages. In other words, second, third and more marriages with no divorces beforehand. There's no evidence of any same-sex unions included ever.
More importantly is that polygamy isn't a definition of marriage, or a redefinition. It was a perversion of marriage as God instituted it.
"Also, "marriage" in the Bible is inclusive of forced marriages of captured virgins from other nations. That is immoral as hell, at least by modern understandings"
Also irrelevant because of what those male/female unions represented, which was an improvement over previous practices that resulted in more suffering for the woman than what this arrangement obliged the man to do for the virgins. What's immoral as hell is pretending this, too, was the ideal of God as opposed to another concession to mitigate worse situations, as well as to impose modern sensibilities on the practices of ancient times under God's direction. How often have you castigated debate opponents for doing the same thing? Many times.
"I reject out of hand that how marriage is used or not used in the Bible is the beginning and end of what is acceptable for marriage, and for good reasons, as I've just cited"
No kidding? You reject so much of what Scripture teaches and my argument only acknowledged that. Indeed, your easiest response would have been, "I don't care what Scripture says about marriage if it means rejecting my support for sexual immorality" because that's exactly what you're doing and have no admitted. How arrogant to presume you have reasons for your positions that trump God's will. It's what I've maintained for some time about you. Thanks for the concession. You again prove my point.
"You simply can't say I have not offered considered reasons, rational support for my positions, including based on biblical text, taken in context. I've just demonstrated your error."
This is incredible! You absolutely have NOT demonstrated ANY error on my part. You've confirmed my position entirely. Particularly on this question of what "marriage" means in Scripture. You reject what it means in Scripture and you do NOT use Scripture to support your position on what marriage is. You fail to clear the hurdle but strut around saying you have! This is a text-book example of what it means and looks like to be given over to your sin! We've barely scratched the surface with regards to all the problems of you "case" and you've totally vindicated me already!!
Now I suppose you'll be deleting these latest comments of mine given how bad they make you look. But I get it. The truth is so much harder to defend.
If you've provided biblical support (in context) for both homosexual sexual practices as well as same sex marriage, I'll have to go back and re-read this post. I think I would have noticed if you had found a passage (in context) that specifically and directly commended either of those two things.
Hey Dan. Why don't you just close comments on this post as well, seeing as how you've decided to ignore it and not respond to the problems with your "case" that I've pointed out? I know you find it far easier to just assert that you've played it out rather than to actually defend your heresy. So go ahead and do the cowardly thing and run away.
While waiting for you to not acknowledge that you're far from filling the gaping holes of your heresies, I thought I'd comment on this, which I had intended to do much earlier:
"The few who remain will rant and gnash their teeth, insisting that God's Way is narrow and THEY are the few who remain faithful."
Actually, God insists His way is narrow:
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." ---Matthew 7:13-14
"Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them. Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’" ---Luke 13:23-25
"They will deny even other Christians but no one will care..."
This is nothing new. Real Christians have been dealing with this from the time of Christ, as He warned of such things from the start, blessing those who are persecuted for His sake. As to other "Christians", He said,
"“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’" ---Matthew 7:21-23
When the day comes that churches reject the clear and unambiguous Word of God so clearly revealed to us in Scripture, the end times will be upon us.
I take your disregard for the still unanswered objections to be a tacit admission that you're wrong on the issue on the table.
Post a Comment