The forest, here, is alive
I find myself in the midst
of a massive murmuration *
surrounded by sacred songs
engulfed by black-winged
gods and goddesses
awaiting flight
fluttering flailing leaves and feathers
falling down around me
* Murmuration: A flock of starlings
21 comments:
Marshall, I won't allow the off topic, ad hom attacks here. Save your comments for an appropriate place. Don't be a troll. You're losing it.
I've lost nothing. In fact, I've gained validation. Though few will see, since you continue to delete my comments, my low opinion of your character and your complete lack of integrity and Christian values is beyond debate.
Marshall, I'm asking you as a responsible adult to keep your comments on topic.
I'm not in a place where I can delete your comment, being off-topic and all. I'll do that later.
But I will deal with your notion question about why don't I defer to the majority of conservative/traditional religious experts and their expertise. I Absolutely do defer to them in their expertise of conservative tradition. Conservative human tradition.
They are no doubt more authoritative than I am on the topic.
BUT, they are not the beginning or ending of knowledge or even expertise about matters of morality. I do not defer to them on all matters of morality because no one has placed them in charge and they are not sole authoritative experts in all matters of morality. So, the question is: why SHOULD anyone defer to them?
No reason. At all.
Dan
It's interesting that you write off all those theologians with some made-up qualification you call "conservative human tradition", as if your current "wacky leftist human tradition" is somehow superior and closer to the truth, simply because you prefer it personally.
It is not a question of "supreme authority", but rather objective analysis of Scripture and the teachings contained therein. Your job, as one who finds their analysis inconvenient to your personal preferences, is to find actual reason and evidence to demonstrate that they've had all wrong for the last 5000 years.
Another problem you have is the implicit suggestion that "conservative" came first. That is, all those theologians for the last 5000 years were conservative and their conservatism influenced their understanding, rather than their conservatism is the result of their study of the text and its teachings. We apply the term "conservative" based on the desire to preserve the teachings, and you use it as if it has corrupted the teachings. This is typical of your "tribe" so as to provide yourself the liberty to pretend your point of view is as valid if not more so, or as if it is worth a damn at all.
You don't defer to them simply because you prefer to shape morality to your liking, rather than to shape your life to align with morality. Why should you defer to them? Because they are of the latter camp, and actual morality doesn't work for you.
1. It IS their human opinions, just as my opinions are my human opinions.
2. The difference is, I don't mistake my opinions for facts or God's Word.
3. Yes, yes, yes, we get it. The humans you agree with have done their research/study/meditations, but so have the humans I agree with. I have no desire or need to demonstrate you all are wrong. I'm just pointing out that their/your opinions ARE unprovable human opinions, just as mine are.
4. If you want to believe that God sometimes commands people to forcibly marry/rape women or enslave people, you are free to believe that God sometimes does that. Just don't expect people to agree with you.
5. I don't believe you can demonstrate "conservative came first..." Today's conservatives are not the same as medieval believers in tradition or first century believers. It's not like you all received a Holy Message straight from Jesus' hands to yours.
6. "All those theologians for the last 5000 years were conservative..." is a meaningless statement. Beyond that, those people you identify as "conservative" (including people like John Calvin, among others) supported a whole host of atrocities, including support of slavery, support of oppression, support of killing heretics. So, if you want to count them as "conservative," you are welcome to do so, but don't think that this makes for good moral or rational support for modern conservatism.
7. I don't defer to them because I find some of their human hunches ridiculous, others of their hunches atrocious and some of them downright evil/wrong/awful. Where I find their human hunches to be ridiculous, atrocious, evil, I will always disagree with them because, who wouldn't?
is to find actual reason and evidence to demonstrate that they've had all wrong for the last 5000 years.
Okay, many idiots like John Calvin supported killing off heretics.
Rationally speaking, it is wrong for one human to presume to know with such supreme authority that they speak for God that they are comfortable with killing or torturing or enslaving or imprisoning a fellow human for the mere "crime" of daring to disagree with their fucking human hunches.
Are you prepared to say that this is NOT rational? Do you think that Calvin, et al, were right in killing/imprisoning those who dared to disagree with them? What of the Catholics who killed off Protestants for daring to disagree with them?
Are you seriously saying that this was rational behavior?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/shockingbeliefsofjohncalvin/
Now, probably you are NOT agreeing with the nuttier/more awful beliefs of Calvin and ancient "conservatives" (although, no doubt, the Catholic Church probably considered him a crazed liberal...)... it's OTHER beliefs that you think you share with ancient villains like Calvin.
My point is that the church has always evolved over the centuries. Calvin and the Reformers were bloody anarchists and liberals, according to the "traditional" and "mainstream conservative" Catholic Church. Other people then embraced and held on to parts of Calvin, et al... and let go of other beliefs. The point is that there is no solid line connecting all of modern conservative religious evangelicals with ancient people. To try to make that connection is to fail to understand history.
"1. It IS their human opinions, just as my opinions are my human opinions."
Yet, despite their numbers and despite their understandings spanning thousands of years back to the source, you give them far less respect than you do for 60,000 left-wingers of the psych industry who diagnose Trump from afar. Their human opinion is beyond question, while the opinion of those who are in greater number with the earliest taught directly by those closest to the most important characters of the Bible, who then passed it down...that ain't jack. Got it.
"2. The difference is, I don't mistake my opinions for facts or God's Word."
Good for you. When you can demonstrate that what I've put forth as fact is not, I won't even hold it as an opinion.
As for those who came before, they too must be proven wrong, which is hard to do when Scripture is so clear...which is why you continue to hang your hat on this cowardly "opinion, not God's Word" nonsense.
"3. Yes, yes, yes, we get it. The humans you agree with have done their research/study/meditations, but so have the humans I agree with."
The human with whom you agree are liars and are no better equipped with truth to defend their heresies than are you. If they...or you...could, you would have done so by now.
"I'm just pointing out that their/your opinions ARE unprovable human opinions, just as mine are."
You're only half right. That would be the last part of the above. What I believe is directly from Scripture and I've defended it comprehensively with actual verses in the lead, followed by commentaries and other supporting evidences to boot. You provide nothing solid...no "hard data" that you demand of everyone else, and largely because you hide behind the "just my opinion...I don't 'speak for God'" nonsense.
"4. If you want to believe that God sometimes commands people to forcibly marry/rape women or enslave people, you are free to believe that God sometimes does that. Just don't expect people to agree with you."
Nice distortion. Lying comes naturally to you. You also continue to conflate what He once did (despite your conscious misrepresentation of the text to frame it in the most despicable manner possible) with what He "sometimes does". Again...it comes naturally to you.
"5. I don't believe you can demonstrate "conservative came first...""
Yet, your whole premise requires that they were and as such it tainted their understanding of Scripture...as if the earliest weren't taught by the authors themselves. But the fact is that what we would consider "conservative" is the result of their understanding, NOT the other way around...that their conservatism corrupted their understanding. The difference between conservatives then and now will be dealt with later. But as far as this:
"It's not like you all received a Holy Message straight from Jesus' hands to yours."
As a matter of fact, we do. We like to call it "The Holy Bible". The NT specifically, if you're dealing specifically with Christ. You should read it sometime.
continuing...
I don't need to defend every action taken by every Christian in history. But YOU need to keep in mind the times in which they lived and not pretend you'd have had the balls to act differently just because you live in the 21st Century where heresies do not result in public executions.
What's more, your Frank Viola piece doesn't help your position. Reading through some of the comments as well, he doesn't necessarily dispute Calvin's understanding of Scripture so much as his application of his knowledge (conceding there may be aspects of Calvin's understanding with which we'd both disagree). Indeed, it's not Calvin's understanding of Scripture at all that compelled the piece, but the very same "agree to disagree" nonsense based on the fraudulent use of the notion that we can't know everything and thus what differs from your preferred beliefs can be dismissed without basis. It is THAT which I have always rejected, but you refuse to provide that basis...and no, your previous attempts fall far short of providing that basis. They are less than satisfactory on any level for that purpose.
So when I say that thousands of years of theological understanding are in direct conflict with you on a number of issues, none of that has anything to do with public executions and slavery, though they do serve as nice deflections to help you muddy the conversation. What it really does is akin to hoisting the white flag without admitting defeat.
The point (off topic and ridiculous as your bringing it up here, as it is) remains: I gladly concede that traditionalist theologians are experts in their human theories about God as they understand God. I do not concede that these experts are experts on God, though, ONLY on their specific human theories/traditions.
On the other hand, mental health experts ARE experts on mental health.
Now, unless you want to concede the rather obvious point and acknowledge your mistake, there's no point in you making further off topic comments here, Marshall. Take it to your own blog.
"Experts"? No. What they believe are every bit "specific human theories/traditions" in the field of mental health as are theologians in theirs, if that's the standard you wish to employ. You're doing everything you can to make your opinions "gospel" except where it concerns the actual Gospel. Conversely, I'm doing all I can to be consistent. Your willful mistake...and one you refuse to concede out of your own arrogance and corruption, is that theologians aren't claiming to be experts on God, per se, but experts on Scripture, what it says, what it means and why. This is the same as mental health, which is far less exact, especially given that they can change what is or isn't a disorder by mere vote, rather than by solid "hard data" scientific evidence.
And that's all I can honestly concede...that you're not being honest in discourse once again simply because you want to believe what you claim is true, rather than actually having something solid to back it up. So once again...
Yes, Marshall, they are human experts in the field of mental health. Just as conservative theologians are human experts in the field of conservative opinions about God.
Do you understand that this is what they are, and nothing more?
Show me you are actually being consistent.
Or do you think they have some special magic knowledge about God that no one else has?
Once again, you're willfully misrepresenting not only what I've said, but what theologians are and do. They speak to what Scripture says. They don't pretend they have special insight into the mind of God. Understanding Scripture, and presenting sound, logical and obvious inferences of what God expects of us through the study of Scripture is not presuming to understand fully the mind of God. They say, "God expects AB&C and here's why we say that..." and then show how Scripture clearly backs up their conclusion. Some day you'll have to do that with all of your heretical positions for which you've not once cited a specific chapter or verse to back it up, much less an explanation of how.
So, now that I've once again demonstrated complete consistency in my positions, I'll once again point out how you give far more credence to 60,000 left-leaning, Trump hating mental health "professional", while ignoring the work of far more Biblical scholars stretching back in time to the original authors in order to maintain your preferred beliefs based on your invention.
you're willfully misrepresenting not only what I've said, but what theologians are and do. They speak to what Scripture says.
...AND they interpret it as conservative theologians. Period. Thus, they are experts on what conservative theologians think but not experts on what God thinks.
THAT is what I'm saying.
Do you understand that this is what I'm saying?
Do you understand that they are not experts on what God thinks, at least not in any authoritative, demonstrable way?
Last chance on this off topic silliness. Don't embarrass yourself.
I'll once again point out how you give far more credence to 60,000 left-leaning, Trump hating mental health "professional",
Prove it or admit that you can't prove it. Here, I'll help: YOU CAN'T PROVE this claim. Period.
Will you admit that reality? Will you admit you just made a stupidly false claim that you do not know and can not prove and admit that it was stupid of you to make this unsupported false claim?
Or are you delusional?
"...AND they interpret it as conservative theologians. Period. Thus, they are experts on what conservative theologians think but not experts on what God thinks.
THAT is what I'm saying.
Do you understand that this is what I'm saying?"
Yeah. I do. And it's stupid and here's why:
You again insist that they are conservative first, and thus their interpretations are tainted by that conservatism. By your statement, you're saying that one studies what Scripture says and THEN attempts to present it in a manner that validates an already held ideology. That's absurd. It also requires solid proof.
Secondly, you are "dysfunctionally" fixated on this notion that theologians whose interpretations you don't like...because you find them inconvenient...are claiming to know with perfection what God thinks, as opposed to the clear reality that they are honestly presenting an objective understanding of what Scripture says about what God thinks. You're more than free to reject this clear and objective representation. But you need to provide an evidence based alternative beyond your weak "that's your hunch" crap.
"Prove it or admit that you can't prove it. Here, I'll help: YOU CAN'T PROVE this claim. Period."
The proof is in how you chastised me for rejecting your position you feel is vindicated and certified by the subjective opinions of "professionals" who engage in the unprofessional practice of long-distance diagnosis. But the thousands of years old tradition of Biblical understanding is worthless against your preferred, new-age progressive-ism, simply because.
Or are you suggesting that I need to prove these "professionals" are left-leaning Trump haters? THAT is an opinion based on the willingness to engage in the unprofessional practice of long-distance diagnosing. But I stand by it as most likely, especially given that you've never offered an opposing point of view and tried to explain why it is wrong. All you do is rip on Trump with an irrational fervor that makes Bush Derangement Syndrome seem like a good thing by comparison.
A good way to show some integrity would be for you to point to a specific harm Trump has caused by any of his policies thus far. That would be ACTUAL, VERIFIED harm, and not your subjective "he hurt my feelings" kind of example.
In the meantime, you throw around this "delusional" charge often. When are you going bring about some proof for THAT claim? Mere disagreement with Dan Trabue doesn't cut it.
you are "dysfunctionally" fixated on this notion that theologians whose interpretations you don't like...because you find them inconvenient...are claiming to know with perfection what God thinks,
I have not said this. I don't know what they think they "know" or not... although I certainly have met many conservatives who conflate their hunches with God's Word. But I have not said that about "conservative theologians" as a group. Rather, I just noted that they are experts on conservative beliefs and opinions about God, on conservative theology. This is just a tautology. They believe traditional conservative doctrine about God, thus, they are traditional conservative theologians. They are NOT experts on God. I'm not claiming that they claim they are, I'm just stating the blindingly obvious.
And I'm not discounting their expertise in matters of traditional conservative theologies/ideas/hunches. They are, no doubt, experts on that matter. But they are not authoritative voices for God.
Other humans have other ideas about God. They, too, are not authoritative voices for God, just experts on their own theologies.
Understand?
On the other hand, experts in mental health are experts in mental health.
Which leads to this silliness...
Or are you suggesting that I need to prove these "professionals" are left-leaning Trump haters? THAT is an opinion based on the willingness to engage in the unprofessional practice of long-distance diagnosing.
So, many conservative politicos and theologians have engaged in critiques of Trump. Does that make them left-leaning Trump haters?
Your claim is irrational and baseless. Admit it and move on.
No more comments (on this off topic silliness) until you admit it, Marshall. You have nothing.
It's delusional to make sweeping claims about 60,000 people that you do not know a single thing about, whom you've never met, whose beliefs and opinions you do not know beyond they signed a concern paper about the rather obvious (to anyone with actual experience in the field at all) dysfunctional mental health of Trump. It is irrational. It is not indicative of a sound mind.
Look, here I go: There are, let's say, 600,000 conservative/traditional Christian men involved in Promise Keepers. They are all women-hating racists and bigots. I know this to be true because they are involved in Promise Keepers.
Is that rational? Is that indicative of a sound mind? No, it's a ludicrous and baseless claim, much like yours. It's an irrational claim on the face of it, that's the proof. Now, you may not be actually delusional, but the claim is profoundly irrational and stupid, much like many of the stupid-as-sin claims that Trump makes.
Maybe that explains why you're such a defender of his and his supporters... you share a deep and graceless irrationality in your claims and get upset when people point it out?
It makes a lot of sense.
~Dan
"I have not said this. I don't know what they think they "know" or not... although I certainly have met many conservatives who conflate their hunches with God's Word."
That's funny. You totally contradict yourself in the very next sentence. It's right there where you again make the idiotic charge "many conservatives who conflate their hunches with God's Word."
"But I have not said that about "conservative theologians" as a group. Rather, I just noted that they are experts on conservative beliefs and opinions about God, on conservative theology."
That's funny. You again totally contradict yourself in the very next sentence. You label it "conservative theology", which implies presupposition on your part. A more appropriate and accurate label would be "objective" or "traditional", but not "conservative" as if one is conservative and thus the interpretations affirm the conservative worldview. Admit that the tautology is yours. The theology isn't "conservative". It is the conservative who accepts and supports the interpretations of the objective theologians of the past.
And here's the important part: Until you can back up your alternative interpretations with something other than YOUR baseless hunches, you can't even use the term "progressive" to describe your preferred theology. It's simply a rejection of the best available interpretations because you don't like them.
"They are NOT experts on God."
Actually, they are, insofar as they are expert on that which is knowable about God through their study of Scripture and all that is related to it and therefore revealed through it.
"Other humans have other ideas about God. They, too, are not authoritative voices for God, just experts on their own theologies."
Muslims, hindus and druids don't count. They have no more factual basis for their theologies than do "progressive Christians" like yourself.
"On the other hand, experts in mental health are experts in mental health."
A most dubious claim given the dearth of science behind the almost 300 disorders in the DSM. I've found numerous articles by actual shrinks saying the "science" of psychiatry/psychology is a crock. To suggest that "experts" in mental health are a more reliable source of actionable information than the typical theologian is laughable ("progressive" theologians not being typical at all). I mean, talk about wild "hunches"!!
"So, many conservative politicos and theologians have engaged in critiques of Trump. Does that make them left-leaning Trump haters?"
Clearly, you refer to Trump-haters of a different political persuasion. But we're talking about your "experts" and "professionals" that choose to diagnose from afar. And of course, there's this. Hardly a baseless suggestion. No need to move on for me. A great need for you to apologize for deleting my comment and to promise not to do it again.
"It's delusional to make sweeping claims about 60,000 people that you do not know a single thing about, whom you've never met, whose beliefs and opinions you do not know beyond they signed a concern paper about the rather obvious (to anyone with actual experience in the field at all) dysfunctional mental health of Trump"
That's funny, too. Your implication is that those 60,000 people that YOU do not know are beyond reproach and their long-distance diagnosis is unimpeachable. Hell, no. Nothing at all irrational or delusional about such worship!
"Look, here I go" (with another horribly bad analogy)": There are, let's say, 600,000 conservative/traditional Christian men involved in Promise Keepers. They are all women-hating racists and bigots. I know this to be true because they are involved in Promise Keepers."
As I demonstrated, the likelihood that the vast majority of those 60K are left-leaning is very high, whereas you're just pulling crap out of your ass and pretending it's a legitimate analogy. Thus, it doesn't in the least bit stand as proof that my suggestion of left-leaning bias of your 60K "experts" in any way "irrational" or "delusional", no matter how irrational and delusional is your need for it to be so.
At this point in time, I've done very little, if anything at all, to defend Trump. I can do it, however, but the point is that I've been too busy debunking and refuting all the irrational and delusional claims, charges and allegations of Trump by hater like you. His shortcomings as a person and an elected official of his stature is not denied, but only the extent of such suggested by the likes of you and your "tribe".
"Marshall, I'm asking you as a responsible adult to keep your comments on topic"
And I'm asking you as if you are a responsible adult to address the points made in my comment that you deleted, then closed the thread where it first appeared forcing me to post it over and over again on unrelated posts until you do. No time like the present!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14th attempt to post the following, which Dan is unable to counter with reason or logic. He will delete because of abject cowardice.
"No more comments, please Marshall, until you admit: I am completely ignorant of the topic, I have no experience or education on matters of mental health, so please take my wild-ass hunches with a huge grain of salt."
But that wouldn't necessarily be true, and it would allow you to again avoid a point I made, which I recognize as a symptom of your own dysfunction...and a symptom you exhibit with stark regularity at that. So to say that I wouldn't recognize mental illness in someone so obviously deranged that he would relieve himself on me...a typical oversimplification from you intended also to deflect and distract from a point you're too cowardly to face, isn't exactly accurate when I see clearly dysfunction in you. Your constant "or else" policy indicates insecurity and the need to control so as to protect yourself from facing reality.
So, know this before you delete this comment which confirms my diagnosis, your deference to these 60,000 professionals remain suspect so long as no transparency regarding their political leanings is in place. It is particularly important given there is no indication by anything he's done thus far that he is the threat to mankind that you irrational Trump-haters need to believe he is. The contrary seems true so far. Again, I have a palpable degree of uncertainty with this guy, but so far that uncertainty seems unjustified.
There are two problems with your premise here:
1. Few people ever regarded Bill Clinton unfit for his well known character flaws. Almost every politician has some degree of "ego" which is almost a requirement for achievement in the political arena. This and lechery are the two areas under which all other character flaws of Trump seem to fall, and they just didn't seem to matter to the left and their "professionals" at the time of Bill Clinton's ascendancy.
2. Your reliance on 60,000 "professionals" and your chastising me for daring to oppose their "wisdom" is more than a little ironic given a far greater number of experts in the field of Judeo-Christian scholarship/theology that spans several thousand years that you so easily dismiss in order to defend your support of sexual immorality. So, don't give me your crap about matching bonafides until you can explain how your opposition to the overwhelming commentary on the sinfulness of homosexuality is more justified than my suspicion of these 60,000 "professionals".
Bonus addition that Dan won't read: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/diagnosing-trump-is-more-about-politics-than-mental-health/
"Of course, it is a false claim that I have lied about anything. I've deleted comments sometimes to try to get people to ANSWER questions, not to hide anything."
-you answering Craig at his blog.
This is a false claim, as your deletion of the comment I continue to post proves. What's more, you've absolutely used the inability to review that which you've deleted to hide behind statements you make about those deleted comments. I can go way back to a crude statement I deleted several years ago from a former visitor named Mark, against whom you went on to lie regarding the statement I deleted. And of course, the comment of mine that you've deleted 13 times was a direct, on-topic response to which you choose to dodge by deleting.
Post a Comment