[I tried to post a picture here. It doesn't appear to work for reasons unknown.]
Stan, at his blog, tried to answer questions I submitted for him regarding the human tradition/understanding of the notion of Election (that God only elects a few certain people to be saved and literally to hell with the rest). He no doubt thought he was answering my questions. He wasn't.
Here is my response to his post which he will not address, given past history.
For what it's worth, the problem is that you're not addressing the
points I'm making. You're just reiterating the same mistakes I believe
exist in your eisegesis (ie, his reading into Scripture that which Scripture does not insist upon).
You see, the problem is this: JUST
BECAUSE there are lines in the Bible that say This or That, this is NOT
sufficient to say "'This' and "That' are so." You almost certainly don't
think so, yourself.
That is, just because slavery is repeatedly
and consistently throughout Scripture accepted and not condemned and
is even promoted or commanded by God (apparently) does not mean that we
should read into the Bible, "Therefore, slavery can be moral and
commanded and approved by God." Indeed, we should REJECT out of hand
such an atrocious, immoral claim. That would be reading INTO the Bible a
bad rational and moral conclusion.
Hopefully you can agree that the enslavement of innocent people is ALWAYS a great moral wrong/evil. (This is a question that nearly always goes unanswered or, IF it is answered, they will say that we should not regard slavery as not always a great evil!)
With
that example (and others I could give - Jesus' apparent routine
consideration of wealth as a dangerous threat and that giving away one's
wealth is what might lead to the salvation for some, which is pretty
compelling and strong and yet which you, Stan, don't take literally... and
perhaps Jesus' claim that "blessed are you who are poor... and woe to
you who are rich..." is not something you take literally... for two
examples), we see an instance where we can't assume that just because a behavior/action/policy is condoned or endorsed or allowed in the Bible does NOT mean it's a moral option.
The principle here being:
The mere acceptance or condemnation of a behavior or circumstance
found in the pages of the Bible
is NOT sufficient to say, "Therefore, it must be understood this way."
You
don't do this, nor do I. We must seek understanding. Ideally, Godly,
moral and rational understanding. We must not be literally wooden in our
reading of any text. We must use our God-given reason and moral
reasoning - God's Word written on our hearts and minds, as the Bible
says - to rightly understand and interpret the words in the Bible.
So,
YES, there are many verses that say something about the notion of
"election." AND there are many verses that clearly condemn riches. AND
there are many verses that accept and even promote slavery. AND there
are many verses that say God wants EVERYONE to be saved. etc.
But
what do we read INTO those passages/ideas? How do we use our God-given
understanding to interpret them and assign them meaning?
Back on slavery, again: Yes, there are verses in the Bible that accept and promote slavery.
AND there are verses in the Bible that promote human liberty and dignity and "doing unto others."
What do we do with this apparent dichotomy? Insist that slavery is sometimes moral and not evil? God forbid!
And
we're not limited to comparing ideas within the Bible that might be
apparently in conflict. We can also go with known observable reality,
that which we can know with our God-given senses and reasoning.
For
instance, there are verses in the Bible that make it seem like the
universe may only be ~6,000 years old AND there is just the reality that
the data doesn't support that conclusion. Must we accept the notion of a
young earth, just because the Bible nowhere suggests a universe that is
billions of years old?
No. Of course, not.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
Yes,
there are verses that speak to the notion of Election and God appearing to say God is
going to - for reasons completely unknown to us - choose to simply
condemn the majority of humanity to eternal torment for the "crime" of
being imperfect humans. AND there are verses that say God is not willing
to see anyone perish, but wants all to be saved.
Why must we
assume the former must be taken literally but not the latter? ESPECIALLY
when the former paints that god as such an evil, tyrannical and
irrational beast-god, just using common sense?
At
the very least, can you see how people of Good faith can disagree with
taking election literally and the very biblical and rational and moral
reasons we have for doing so? That we do so out or RESPECT for God and
the Bible, NOT because we don't care about God or the Bible?
67 comments:
IMHO - for whatever that is worth, I don’t think the exchange between you is going to be at all productive for 2 reasons:
1. While you clearly have rejected the radical protestant principle of solo scriptura, I’m not sure you have an interpretive framework for reading scripture as the church after rejecting sola scriptura. To me you appear to leave it to the conscience of the individual reader. Agreement under such conditions is hopeless.
The inference, therefore, is that you oppose how Stan reads, not the “what” of what he reads.
2. And the problem about how Stan reads is that he reads under an authority that is Supra-solo scriptura - and so decidedly not solo scriptura - yet lies to itself that it is the utmost servant of solo scriptura. Therefore Stan is unconscious that he does not read scripture under a solo-scriptura framework. He, and anyone and everyone can longer read scripture - in truth no one ever did - as it’s own authority.
But you cannot get him to acknowledge that in order for your dialogue to proceed. It would destroy his internal hold on his faith. Quite the non-starter.
All of this has been discussed before, and never have you addressed the inconsistencies of your own positions.
First, let me state that I have no problem with debate on Scriptural concepts. I do have a problem with how you engage in such debate. Overall, I find your argumentation weak from failures in a variety of areas, such as "apples to apples" comparisons, subjective acceptance of what to take literally and when, and of course your routine questionable understanding of what "taking Scripture literally" means and looks like. Atop that is your serious problem with properly interpreting most everything.
As to this particular issue of election, I haven't done my due diligence on the subject to the extent where I feel confident in offering my own opinion. In general, it's another are wherein I don't feel I need to have it nailed down, but only that I continue striving to live according to God's will.
For now, I will simply speak to a couple points made toward the end of the post:
---With regard to the age of the universe, you again seem to worship science over Scripture in the sense you presume there can be no doubt the science is accurately...or more reasonably...passing judgement on something with which it has no method of truly measure veracity. That is, how can we have any faith in the methods and tools of imperfect humans to conclude the universe is any age at all? You seem quite willing to put a great deal of faith there rather than on the words of those inspired by God.
---"Yes, there are verses that speak to the notion of Election and God appearing to say God is going to - for reasons completely unknown to us - choose to simply condemn the majority of humanity to eternal torment for the "crime" of being imperfect humans. AND there are verses that say God is not willing to see anyone perish, but wants all to be saved."
Setting aside your ongoing presumption you can dictate to God, there's absolutely no inconsistency with Scripture affirming not all will be saved while acknowledging God would prefer we are all worthy of it.
"Why must we assume the former must be taken literally but not the latter? ESPECIALLY when the former paints that god as such an evil, tyrannical and irrational beast-god, just using common sense?"
There's no reason one shouldn't take either literally. Not all of us will enter heaven. God would prefer all of do. Both are true. Your problem is in daring to indict God for the crime of not working according to your dictates and then presume those who accept Scripture's clear teaching...or the authors who present it to us...are the ones painting God as evil, tyrannical, irrational and a "beast-god"...and then daring to speak of "common sense".
---
As Marshal performs my point: one cannot genuinely believe Scripture like one lives in 1492 and believe oneself to be rational like it's 1820.
Part of the reason Thomas Jefferson cut out all the miracles and all refernces to the supernatural in his New Testament. But that's just an immature acknowldgement of the challenge.
Marshal and Stan fail the human mind that god gave them by thinking the can live in two opposing eras and neither are our own.
Feodor...
I’m not sure you have an interpretive framework for reading scripture as the church after rejecting sola scriptura. To me you appear to leave it to the conscience of the individual reader. Agreement under such conditions is hopeless.
Correct, I believe in the freedom of conscience and the obligation of the individual reader to interpret any text, and this is certainly true of the Bible. The fact is, we have no way to objectively prove most (all?) of our OPINIONS about how certain biblical texts should be understood. We can't appeal to the authors, nor can we appeal to God to grant us an authoritative and verifiable interpretation, just as a point of fact.
IF we can agree to that observable reality, then that's a beginning agreement on our mutual inability to objectively prove our interpretations as the same as God's word.
THAT is a vital starting point that I believe that traditionalists can reach, although it has been my experience that it doesn't come easily (certainly didn't with me!)
Agreeing to that much is a starting point to where we can then begin to discuss which conclusions about morality and spiritual, God and humanity, are most rationally consistent and worthwhile.
But I think that is the key starting point, which is why I continually ask such questions.
Marshal, this is a more well-done, respectful response to my post. Thanks for the improvement. You say...
All of this has been discussed before, and never have you addressed the inconsistencies of your own positions.
What specifically? What inconsistency?
Marshal...
With regard to the age of the universe, you again seem to worship science over Scripture in the sense you presume there can be no doubt the science is accurately...or more reasonably...passing judgement on something with which it has no method of truly measure veracity. That is, how can we have any faith in the methods and tools of imperfect humans to conclude the universe is any age at all? You seem quite willing to put a great deal of faith there rather than on the words of those inspired by God.
1. I don't worship science. Of course, not. I've not made any such suggestion.
2. Scripture no where at all says that the earth is 6,000 years old. I recognize that the DATA that shows this is true and factual outweighs some humans having an opinion that the text of the Bible demands the earth be considered "young," as in 6,000 years old.
What is unbiblical, irrational or inconsistent about that?
Do you agree with the reality that the Bible never insists upon a Young Earth?
If you DO think the Bible insists upon a YE, show me.
NOTE: The mere presence of a passage that mentions "On the first day, God created the heavens and the earth," etc, does not demand a YE. Is that passage figurative or literal? Says who? Literal in what sense? Says who? Under what authority?
Again, that some humans think it should be interpreted that way is not the same as an authoritative answer.
Marshal...
That is, how can we have any faith in the methods and tools of imperfect humans to conclude the universe is any age at all?
Data. Tests. Re-tests. Multiple sources of proofs of an ancient universe and earth that can be weighed, measured, verified and re-verified. Like that.
Now, I'm not a scientist and am not the best person to explain some of the many ways science can demonstrate the the earth is not 6,000 years old, but I can read and understand well enough what the data shows and again, since the Bible doesn't contradict the data, why would I?
And again, IF more and better data and tools show up that demonstrate the the earth is 6,000 years old, I'd go with that age. Because, science. Data. Common sense.
Unless I'm mistaken, you don't believe the YEC models either, do you?
https://nineplanets.org/questions/how-old-is-the-universe/
https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html
This is Dan.
Marshal...
"Setting aside your ongoing presumption you can dictate to God."
I suspect what you're calling dictating is my suggestion that it is unjust and unloving to condemn the majority of humanity to eternal torment for the crime of being imperfect. There are at least two ways of looking at my belief on this.
1. I, Dan, think I'm smarter than an almighty perfect God. That would be ridiculous on the face of it and I've never said anything like that. It's clearly non-factual.
2. I accept the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God and such a God would not operate in a cruel and unjust manner. By the very character of such a God, COULD not operate in an unloving and unjust manner, not and still be just.
Agreed?
A perfectly loving and just God isn't going to create a village full of children, then send a bunch of demons to torment, torture and rape them... and laugh about it! For that gods own pleasure.
Right? To make that claim about a perfectly loving and just God, that would be insulting and irrational.
Right?
I believe in a perfectly loving and just God.
"Marshal, this is a more well-done, respectful response to my post. Thanks for the improvement."
Any appearance of disrespect on my part is provoked by your own character failings. Deal with it as you expect others to deal with those failings.
"What specifically? What inconsistency?"
The problem with these kinds of questions is your penchant for making more of the example than that which the example is provided to illustrate. But, an example immediately appears later in the same comment the questions do. That is...
"2. Scripture no where at all says that the earth is 6,000 years old. I recognize that the DATA that shows this is true and factual outweighs some humans having an opinion that the text of the Bible demands the earth be considered "young," as in 6,000 years old."
Explanations for what Scripture says, or what Scripture means when it says something in particular are ignored or dismissed if they are in conflict with what you prefer. That's an inconsistency as you therefor are not giving the same weight to that which is in conflict as you do with that which pleases you. The easiest example is still God's clear and unambiguous disapproval of homosexual behavior in all its forms and in any context or scenario in which it might take place, including those of "committed" homosexuals. To date, you've still not argued your way around the clear and unequivocal prohibition of Lev 18:22. Yet you'll pretend there is ample evidence in support of "marriage" defined in a way which includes same-sex unions. That's inconsistency on steroids, and it's common across other issues as well.
AS regards the age of the earth and/or universe, there is most certainly evidence for a young earth and actual scientists defend the notion with that evidence. You reject it either outright or with some blather about such scientists being religious extremists or some such. But the reality is, you don't suppose the atheism of scientists supporting an old universe matters to their work. Inconsistency. In the meantime, I've no doubt there are extremists of both persuasions in support of both positions. We know science has brought some scientists to God, while it has also led some away from Him. Thus, all that matters is that there is evidence for both sides and you choose, in your admitted limited understanding, to get behind one side without a legitimate argument for doing so.
"Do you agree with the reality that the Bible never insists upon a Young Earth?"
Here is another problem. You demand specific wording for any contrary position without which you insist Scripture doesn't teach, imply or suggest them. You reject all arguments which defend those positions and use Scripture to do so because it lacks the specific wording you demand must appear in order for the notion to be true. And when the shoe is on the other foot, you default to "I'm just saying it's my opinion, not a fact" as if that absolves you from having to provide evidence to hold the opinion. Inconsistency.
"If you DO think the Bible insists upon a YE, show me."
Google "arguments for a young earth" and do you own research as if you actually care to learn and know, rather than simply default to your object of worship: science.
"NOTE: The mere presence of a passage that mentions "On the first day, God created the heavens and the earth," etc, does not demand a YE. Is that passage figurative or literal? Says who? Literal in what sense? Says who? Under what authority?"
You never provide answers for those questions as concerns your contrary positions. Inconsistency.
"Again, that some humans think it should be interpreted that way is not the same as an authoritative answer."
If the interpretation stood alone without evidence from science, you might have a point. It does not.
"Data. Tests. Re-tests. Multiple sources of proofs of an ancient universe and earth that can be weighed, measured, verified and re-verified. Like that."
All imperfect human methods and tools which rely on assumptions impossible to confirm, yet...worship.
"Now, I'm not a scientist and am not the best person to explain some of the many ways science can demonstrate the the earth is not 6,000 years old, but I can read and understand well enough what the data shows and again, since the Bible doesn't contradict the data, why would I?"
You only give weight to one scientific side of the issue without legitimate basis. You simply dismiss all scientific arguments for the other side. Inconsistency.
"And again, IF more and better data and tools show up that demonstrate the the earth is 6,000 years old, I'd go with that age. Because, science. Data. Common sense."
But you're "not a scientist and am not the best person to explain some of the many ways science can demonstrate the the earth is not 6,000 years old" yet you dare suggest you're capable of recognizing "more and better data and tools" when you're simply dismissing outright that which doesn't support your preferred narrative. Inconsistency.
"Unless I'm mistaken, you don't believe the YEC models either, do you?"
I believe God's capable of creating all things in the blink of an eye if He so chooses and mankind isn't close to intelligent enough to understand a damned thing mankind wasn't around to witness first hand. I don't need to worry about which narrative is true while there's no way to prove either, so I don't. But I also don't condescend to any who believe it all went down in 6 days as we understand the word "day". I don't regard as sophisticated those who don't.
Out of time...
"I suspect what you're calling dictating is my suggestion that it is unjust and unloving to condemn the majority of humanity to eternal torment for the crime of being imperfect."
It is to you. But this requires that God must be no more offended than you are, as if you have any right to presume you can dictate to Him.
"1. I, Dan, think I'm smarter than an almighty perfect God. That would be ridiculous on the face of it and I've never said anything like that. It's clearly non-factual."
You presume the ramifications of your words do not suggest exactly this. Recall how many times you've said to me words along the lines of "don't you realize how you sound?" Inconsistency.
"2. I accept the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God and such a God would not operate in a cruel and unjust manner. By the very character of such a God, COULD not operate in an unloving and unjust manner, not and still be just.
Agreed?"
Not in the least, for as I said above, it requires that God must be offended to a degree you find satisfactory and no more for the offenses which result in the consequence you insist in cruel and unjust. Keep in mind, the vast majority of criminals...even simply law breakers such as motorists cited for breaking rules of the road...always regard their punishment as cruel and unjust. The sinner doesn't get to dictate what constitutes a just punishment for offending God. The sinner doesn't get to criticize the character of God for acting as He sees fit. The sinner doesn't get to sin and then whine about justice.
So you're absolutely deigning to dictate to God.
"A perfectly loving and just God isn't going to create a village full of children, then send a bunch of demons to torment, torture and rape them... and laugh about it! For that gods own pleasure."
I have no idea what the hell you're on about with this!
"I believe in a perfectly loving and just God."
On your terms. If God doesn't act as you dictate He must, He is not perfectly loving and just.
"Correct, I believe in the freedom of conscience and the obligation of the individual reader to interpret any text, and this is certainly true of the Bible. The fact is, we have no way to objectively prove most (all?) of our OPINIONS about how certain biblical texts should be understood. We can't appeal to the authors, nor can we appeal to God to grant us an authoritative and verifiable interpretation, just as a point of fact."
Your claims are negligent assumptions of the nature of Scritpure:
1. The canon of the Old and New Testaments were assembled by a communal process of discussion, debate, and selection/exclussion.
So, apparently the origin of our Bible is a consensus of opinion.
2. All individuals of the early church involved in the process of assembling the canon agreed that individual opinion must bow to consensus of opinion.
So, apparently, the origin of the Bible did not predicate individiual opinion above the community's.
3. The early church theologians documents their reliance on a process of gathering individual opinion, discussion, and decision. The staked their claim of reliance not on their own individual reasoning but the reasoniong of the gathered.
So, apparently, the origin of the Bible was not born in an appeal to the original authors nor a finding that god handed down an authoritatvie version.
4. The gathered community trusted this process because, by faith, they firmly believed that the Holy Spirit was inspiring opinions (not forcing clarity on anyone but giving them inspiration) influencing the give and take of rational discussion, give and take (again not forcing clarity but co-creating with the commtted intentions and mature disciplining of each others' give and take), and ultimately glorifying how things played out by sealing the canon with the Holiness which was sufficient to make of the Bible all that we absolutely need to frame faith and walk in discipleship with Jesus. Again, the early church did not conceive that their process was perfect... only that god, continuing to work with the gathered community of the church, as gathered and not isolated individuals, would perfect all things in due time via the best faithfulness that the body of Christ could muster on Earth.
So, the origin of the Bible is rooted in absolute faith that the three person god would make all things sure.
None of these points seem to agree with your stance. What you have written is simply the late modern post-Enlightenment protestant disenchantment with the limits of reason to provide a reality of Church.
However, when you begin to echo the early church and all catholic and orthodox christian theology and certainly modern theology that has migrated the way of Christ's love into the humanism required of all modern people... it is then that you begin to lay out the vision of a mystical, spiritual ground that gathers Christians in community for worship and teaching offered without perfection and perfected only via the life lived together in an ongoing dialogue of love by all practioners in thick relationship with each other and within the love of the Holy Spirit. You just need to clarify these things for yourself and the community your are involved with. Rely on rigorously discursive community. THAT! is what the christian church does, by faith.
But we white people are badly suspicious of having other white people tell us what to do. And far, far from believing that the Holy Spirit can make perfect, as far as the living material cosmos goes, a crowd of individuals who really need to be a community in love with each other. Here again, once again, we should follow black folks in their christian believing. When they escape the pollution that white protestantism infected them with, we see true Christian community marching forward not in absolute indivudual agreement but in faith with each other as communally glorified and carried by the spirit of god. THAT! is a church living by faith seeking understanding with Scripture open and telling us stories and our corporate hearts engaging such material and reaching for truth.
Feodor...
apparently the origin of our Bible is a consensus of opinion.
...
So, apparently, the origin of the Bible did not predicate individual opinion above the community's.
I should clarify. I deeply value consensus and community input. I deeply value tradition, so far as that goes. So, I'm not really saying precisely, "Whatever any ONE person thinks is what matters."
My point is that no one group or church or body has the authority or the wisdom to say, definitively, "THIS is what God wants..." and I sure as heck don't ascribe that authority to much of modern conservatism.
But for our part, at least in my circles, the progressive-minded folks would also not claim or want to claim to have that sort of authority, to speak authoritatively for God. "Hear our conclusions and no others!" It is an humble community/communion of ideas, valuing the shade and slant and particular insight of each contribution for what it's worth and as far as it goes. And we value the individual's right and responsibility to strive to understand such matters as best they can.
Marshal...
Explanations for what Scripture says, or what Scripture means when it says something in particular are ignored or dismissed if they are in conflict with what you prefer. That's an inconsistency as you therefor are not giving the same weight to that which is in conflict as you do with that which pleases you.
So Marshal, if I consider what modern science has to say on the topic of the age of the universe - and what they have to say about it as it pertains to age of rocks and carbon and the speed of light and distance and immensity of the university, etc, etc, etc (in other words, in a large range of fields and specialties) -
AND
If I consider what the Bible says
AND
I consider what the Bible doesn't say
AND
I consider what YEC types have to say,
And I don't find the YEC arguments compelling. At all. (and keeping in mind, I CAME from believing YEC), then I "dismiss" them or, as I am saying, just note that I don't find them compelling...
What is the problem with that?
If I don't find an argument compelling either rationally or biblically, why should I pay much heed to it? How is it "inconsistent" to not grant any weight to that which I don't find deserving of much weight?
It sounds like you're saying I should treat views that I find unbiblical, irrational, unscientific and lacking in data as equally relevant. Why?
You certainly don't.
Marshal...
All imperfect human methods and tools which rely on assumptions impossible to confirm, yet...worship.
First of all, this is an unsupported claim. You didn't even try to support it.
WHICH tools and methods are imperfect and in what sense?
To the degree that tests and assumptions are imperfect, so what? What tests or assumptions do you have that would support a YE? If you have nothing (and you almost certainly don't), then why criticize the established scientific models and estimates?
Is it simply because that is your particular human tradition?
And if so, isn't that human tradition precisely as fallible as scientific theories? Moreso, because they're not based on any data, but stories and interpretations passed down from one human to another human, with NO attempt at proving or providing data?
Marshal...
you don't suppose the atheism of scientists supporting an old universe matters to their work. Inconsistency.
Wait. What? Why? Atheism is not married to an ancient universe. There are no tenets of atheism that says, "One must affirm an old earth to be wise..." Atheism is not beholden to an old earth. So, why would the atheist beliefs of some scientists be cause to question their conclusions?
Marshal...
"I suspect what you're calling dictating is my suggestion that it is unjust and unloving to condemn the majority of humanity to eternal torment for the crime of being imperfect."
It is to you. But this requires that God must be no more offended than you are, as if you have any right to presume you can dictate to Him.
Why? How does it "require God must not be more offended?"
In our world, fallen though it is, we recognize that any punishment should fit the crime and a crazy harsh punishment is actually unjust.
The assumption that I bring, then, is that God is at least as just as we are.
It sounds like to me you have an assumption that God views "sin" and "justice" in some way vastly different than we do.
Is that the case?
If so, isn't it you who is holding a presumption that God must be vastly more offended and incapable of tolerating sin than we are? And if that's your assumption, do you see how that sort of emasculates your little god?
I mean, I work with some rough people sometimes. I tolerate a good bit of sin and bad behavior in an effort to help such folks. And I'm a mere mortal. Am I made of sturdier stuff than your god?
Do you see the problem?
And what I am suggesting is that the history of Christian deliberation in community - as documented in its ancient letters (including those of the NT), in its medieval letters, in its ancient and medieval theologies, whether Eastern or Western - has never believed that it could discern "definitively, 'THIS is what God wants...'".
What you are consciously battling when you fight against those saying "definitively, 'THIS is what God wants...' is not any form of Christian historical behavior with the sole exception of radical protestantism in its thousand sectarian forms: a thousand sects precisely because they believed in their definitive cultic rule.
The ancient and medieval church did speak in definitive terms, as I described above. The "Cloud of Unknowing" author and all those who wrote similarly of the ultimate impossibility of humankind knowing the mind of god - beginning with wth accounts of the transfiguration, the road to Emmaus, and Paul's dark glass - and running on for 1500 years held no such concept.
Because the concept itself: with reason we can obtain the absolute truth... arises only with the beginnings of positivist rationalism as belief in absolute law organizing society absolutely. Calvin was a lawyer, not a theologian. Calvin is like an Ayatollah in regime control of Geneva. This early Modern rationalism propelled western European society toward the Enlightenment when general populations refused to be controlled by religious extremism like Calvin's. What nations among Europe are the most secular? All those that underwent a puritanical protestantizing first... and France. Not true of Portugal, Spain, Italy, the Orthodox slavic countries, etc.
Anyway, what you battle openly is an outmoded Modern (16th century construct). What you remain unaware of is that you battle it within its own terms. It is the foundational theological platform of protestantism that all liberal mainstream, non-ritual forms of protestantism have long since given up but have not yet admitted it and so are unable to go on to new systems of thought. What liberal non-sacramental protestantism has adopted unconfessedly, however, are humanist Enlightenment confidences in describing human rights and a generally positivist account of the scientific revolution.
But ancient and medieval christianity didn't need to waste so much time rationalizing Biblical texts (but did spend a great deal of time reasoning out theological systems) because they understood Scripture as mythological literature: mythological literature NOT as a diminutive BUT as a symbolic communication of the life and nature of god and the pursuit of faith that all communities can enter into via typology, figuration, metaphor, and contemplative vision... AS adjudicated by the community as the gathered church.
When you use your own art and poetry and music, you are participating in that historic traditon of interpreting the Christian life by living it, not by rote reading of printed material. What does St Paul say? "But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach)..."
That is, Christ Jesus has accomplished all that needs to be accomplished. We do not need to ask him to do it again. We have all we need. By faith in Christ, we have the Word on our hearts and our lips. We no longer have hearts of stone, which Paul refers to as the old faith, but now the word is written on hearts of flesh. The text is within. It lives. And moves us.
Not perfectly. Those who are anxious about perfection because they are scared and weak and in desperate need to feel powerful, they are the ones who look to bound books with red ink as the law to impose perfection. They have simpy replaced the scrolls of the Torah with a book.
That is not life. It is death. Marshal and Craig and Stan and the other thugs are in the midst of death and its decay. Becasue they cling to textual laws and call it love. They are legalizing clerics.
You live a modern Christian life because you experience god in artistic expression, spiritual inspiration, and in your life in your communities of work and church and village. The only think lacking for you is what is lacking in almost all US christian communities: to spend time in deep community shareing are full selves in art and music and poetry and bodily ritual and highest critical, interelated, interdisciplinary intellectual thinking.
Richard Rodriguez, the gay Catholic essayist, wrote that everyone who spends enough time living in the US becomes a protestant. It is our cultural default. And it is so profoundly generative of white supremacy with its legalistic segregational sectarianism that we are all corrupted by it and have been since religious extremists disembarked from the Mayflower.
So... you are speaking a different reality from those white supremacist thugs. And I suggest that spend some time reflecting on recovering the sources of identity that are not white and not protestant and developing a deeper relationshp with them. There are two large categories of these sources. 1. The deep grammar of your lineal inheritances from the varous European cultural ancestors you have. They are not white: they are a miscegenation of quite distincit cultures. The Scots aren't Swedes aren't Germans aren't English, etc. 2. Your present day miscegenation of idenitites by virture of the cultures you spend your time with that do not track race, but track physical and mental and regional and spiritual gifts that are not treasured by mass white culture, rather are they marginalized.
Own all the many ways by which you behaviorially honor marginalization. Let your non-cognitive, non-protestant gut take your further into solidarity with those with whom you work, with the forest in which you walk, in the instruments you play and the songs you sing. Those are your sacraments by which the inward and spiritual grace of god given to you is made visible and outwardly productive.
You already read Scripture in the same way as you walk the forest and encounter your clients. But your protestantism doesn't want to admit to it. It would feel wrong. It wouldn't feel wrong to Gregory of Nyssa. But it would seperate you from Marshal and Craig and Stan. You really don't have christianity in common with them. Paul himself wrote of those who lied to the various communites he knew in Turkey. He exorcised them from his own love. Give them up to god. It's the only way to talk to them in truth and faith.
The manner in which you comment makes responses especially difficult...not because your comments are compelling, but because they're to convoluted to be so. They barely address the point(s) of mine. Nonetheless...
"So Marshal, if I consider what modern science has to say...etc...
What is the problem with that?"
If I don't find an argument compelling either rationally or biblically, why should I pay much heed to it? How is it "inconsistent" to not grant any weight to that which I don't find deserving of much weight?
The inconsistency would be in your methodology, assuming you have one. That which you support is rife with problems which apparently are not important to recognize and resolve, while with YEC, you seem quick to write it all off as if it is even more problematic. I see both sides of the issue as being addressed by opposing people of equal (more or less) intelligence, education and ability. Your side clearly assumes what might be known, while the other side (not necessarily "mine") makes a greater effort to deal with only that which can be known. How can the latter be less compelling when it seeks to avoid presumption so common, if not necessary, for the former to arrive at its theories and conclusions?
"It sounds like you're saying I should treat views that I find unbiblical, irrational, unscientific and lacking in data as equally relevant. Why?"
I'm sure you need it to sound as if I'm saying that, but the comment is an unsupported false claim of the type you would not suffer were it to have come from me. In any case, I'm saying you don't explain why you find something unbiblical (except that it isn't worded in a manner specific and exacting to your satisfaction), irrational (except that you simply assert it is so), unscientific (without explaining how it in any way conflicts with known and well accepted science) and lacking in data (that's just totally subjective and without basis).
"All imperfect human methods and tools which rely on assumptions impossible to confirm, yet...worship.
First of all, this is an unsupported claim. You didn't even try to support it."
Are you really suggesting I need to support the fact there was no eye-witnesses to anything, say, 40,000 years ago? No one to witness the beginning?
"WHICH tools and methods are imperfect and in what sense?"
Dating methods, for one. Both radiocactive/radiometric and carbon dating methods are flawed and there are many sources which affirm this. And I speak in the obvious sense all humans beings are imperfect. Is this news to you? Yet, despite that reality, you accept one un-provable position over the other despite it reality on more assumptions.
"What tests or assumptions do you have that would support a YE?"
They're as easy to find as all those tests and assumptions you've never provided to support the alternative. You assert your position without such provision, but demand support for the other without which you simply dismiss. More inconsistency...or double standards.
It must be simply because that is your particular human tradition.
"And if so, isn't that human tradition precisely as fallible as scientific theories? Moreso, because they're not based on any data, but stories and interpretations passed down from one human to another human, with NO attempt at proving or providing data?"
"AS" fallible? That's determined by an honest comparison which you haven't truly made. My support for the claim is in the rest of your quoted comment which suggests YEC is based solely on "stories and interpretations passed down from one human to another human, with NO attempt at proving or providing data?" The articles I've read regarding evidence for a young earth do not match this made up description. All deal with data...much of it the same the old earth people use...and scientific explanations. Whether or not it is more compelling than your stuff is not a true measure as it is totally subjective.
Marshal...
Are you really suggesting I need to support the fact there was no eye-witnesses to anything, say, 40,000 years ago? No one to witness the beginning?
You claimed, "All imperfect human methods and tools which rely on assumptions impossible to confirm, yet...worship."
You claimed that we "worship" these human methods and tools. That is an unsupported claim and a goofy, stupidly false claim. You didn't even try to support that.
Marshal...
Both radiocactive/radiometric and carbon dating methods are flawed and there are many sources which affirm this.
Another unsupported claim. Look, I GET that the sources you prefer will tell you that they think these methods are flawed. But so what? They want to prove a young earth and so reject the tools/methods used by scientists.
And what do you mean by flawed? That they can't give you the day of the week that a rock was formed? Or that the methods are wholly unreliable? If the latter, says who? Prove it. And because one of the rational methods in science is the notion of repeatability - ie, that it doesn't matter who is testing/making the claim about a process, the results will be the same. So, find someone who is not committed to YEC and have them prove the claim that these methods are flawed with actual science.
Here's a clue: IF the only people who can agree with an unproven theory all already agree with conclusion X and are committed to conclusion X, then your science is not valid or worth much.
Here's a scientist address YECs on this point.
https://ncse.ngo/radiometric-dating-does-work
Marshal...
They're as easy to find as all those tests and assumptions you've never provided to support the alternative.
Unsupported claim. Boring.
Marshal...
It must be simply because that is your particular human tradition.
MY human tradition was YEC. It was data that led me away from it and the lack of data for YEC that keeps me away.
This conversation is not worth much, it seems to me. You're not providing anything but "nu uh, the scientists are wrong because YEC believers say so..."
So what?
Marshal...
That which you support is rife with problems which apparently are not important to recognize and resolve, while with YEC, you seem quick to write it all off as if it is even more problematic.
As I've already noted, one reason I moved away from YEC that I was raised with is the ONLY scientists who affirm anything like YEC are YEC believers. That's just rationally problematic.
Why can't they provide tests, measurements or other data that can be affirmed by non-YEC scientists? Do you know how very exciting it would be for actual scientists to be able to disprove a widely accepted theory/set of theories? IF there was ANY weight to YEC, it could and would be demonstrated by non-YEC researchers.
That this does not exist, so far as I know, is one of the great holes in YEC.
Well, that, and just textually and from a literary point of view, they appear to be starting from an irrational and unbiblical point of view.
Some questions I'd be glad to hear your answers to, Marshal:
Marshal said...
this requires that God must be no more offended than you are, as if you have any right to presume you can dictate to Him.
My questions:
I. Why? How does it "require God must not be more offended?"
II. In our world, fallen though it is, we recognize that any punishment should fit the crime and a crazy harsh punishment is actually unjust.
Agreed?
III. The assumption that I bring, then, is that God is at least as just as we are.
Do you agree?
IV. It sounds like to me you have an assumption that God views "sin" and "justice" in some way vastly different than we do.
Is that the case?
V. If so, isn't it you who is holding a presumption that God must be vastly more offended and incapable of tolerating sin than we are?
VI. And if that's your assumption, do you see how that sort of emasculates your little god?
VII. I mean, I work with some rough people sometimes. I tolerate a good bit of sin and bad behavior in an effort to help such folks. And I'm a mere mortal. Am I made of sturdier stuff than your god?
"You claimed that we "worship" these human methods and tools. That is an unsupported claim and a goofy, stupidly false claim. You didn't even try to support that."
If science says "A", but Scripture says "B", you go with science most every time. How is that not a form of worship? I know...you never said you worship science...not in so many words. All else you say belies that insistence.
"Both radiocactive/radiometric and carbon dating methods are flawed and there are many sources which affirm this.
Another unsupported claim."
What follows is a smattering of the wealth of info available to honest people who wish to understand both sides of the issue. The first is just the first I came across and so I present it here:
https://www.mnhsonline.com/opinions/columns/radiometric-dating-flawed/
This next is by a guy who admits his religiosity, but has background which lend validity to his position:
https://blog.drwile.com/scientist-realizes-important-flaw-in-radioactive-dating/
This brief video addresses some of the objections to the notion that radiometric dating is unreliable:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX20w3KXYwI
This one is a monster and I didn't read the whole thing. It's rather scholarly, to say the least and hardly an example of some backward Christian beginning from a school boy understanding of Creation:
https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
I could have provide tons more, and this is just on one form of dating. It affirms my position that dating methods are, to say the least, flawed and unreliable and often wildly so.
"Look, I GET that the sources you prefer will tell you that they think these methods are flawed. "
These are not sources I "prefer", but merely sources which you demanded to support the truth I presented about the imperfections of human methods. What's more, as you can see if you are honest, these few examples I presented do not present facts as simply people who "think" the methods are flawed. They present facts which support the premise.
Worse is this is another example of your inconsistency as you would not presume that those you favor merely "think" their methods are reliable. They claim they are and as an acolyte, you bow down in worship.
"But so what? They want to prove a young earth and so reject the tools/methods used by scientists."
Still more inconsistency. Your high priests of science want to prove an OLD earth and so you (and they) reject outright anything which disputes their methods and their findings. In the meantime, I continue to hold no position on the age of the earth or universe and don't think it matters with regard to my faith in God, who I believe is capable of all manner of wondrous acts no science can fathom or explain. Not a position for the sophisticated, I know, but believing themselves wise and all...
"And what do you mean by flawed?"
Explained in the links. Read them closely.
"So, find someone who is not committed to YEC and have them prove the claim that these methods are flawed with actual science."
Inconsistency. Find someone who is not committed to an old earth and have them prove their methods are beyond reproach and unassailable. I've only used sources who deal in actual science. You insist that can't be simply because they disagree, not because it isn't true.
"This conversation is not worth much, it seems to me. You're not providing anything but "nu uh, the scientists are wrong because YEC believers say so...""
This has absolutely no relation to my position at all. But it is an example of your inconsistency. You're position is the YEC believers are wrong simply because the old earth people say so. I acknowledge science and data is used by both sides to reach their conclusions, but you reject anything which conflicts with the high priests of science to whom you bow down.
Science has led atheists to become believers, and believers to question Scripture. Clearly it has led you to reject Scripture where belief would have you scorned as a rube. I don't have the faith in human ability you do, despite having faith in it to do great things. Thus far, your gods of science have not proven that for which there is no witness to confirm, yet you believe THAT "not seen" bit of business over Scripture.
"As I've already noted, one reason I moved away from YEC that I was raised with is the ONLY scientists who affirm anything like YEC are YEC believers."
That's entirely meaningless and irrelevant and ignores the fact that those who affirm old earth science are old earth believers. Inconsistent as hell!
"That this does not exist, so far as I know, is one of the great holes in YEC."
Also meaningless and irrelevant. Your lack of knowledge as to how both positions have scrutinized the work of the other...and to what extent...has no value whatsoever. You're simply writing off one side as if you've actually studied it with the same vigor and interest as that you've come to embrace for reasons I doubt are solely related to "the science".
"Well, that, and just textually and from a literary point of view, they appear to be starting from an irrational and unbiblical point of view."
To you, whose devotion to Scripture is questionable at best, and flighty to be sure.
"I. Why? How does it "require God must not be more offended?""
Because if He's not, and you've no way to determine just how offended He is, then there's no other possibility. He must be no more offended by any given act or sin in general in order for you to maintain your beliefs about your notions of the seriousness of sin or sinful acts.
You continue to dictate what is "just"...how God is "unjust" if He punishes anyone in ways you find "unjust". This suggests that God is no more offended by sin or a sinful act than you are, or must not be. I insist a true Christian doesn't even think in such terms, but simply avoids behaviors Scripture clearly prohibits and condemns as sinful or abominable and seeks to do only that which Scripture clearly describes as pleasing to God. In doing so, I don't have to worry about how offended a given act may be to Him, but only consider that it is at all. That should be enough for anyone. It seems not so with you.
"II. In our world, fallen though it is, we recognize that any punishment should fit the crime and a crazy harsh punishment is actually unjust.
Agreed?"
Of course. But in "our world", we do not have total agreement/consensus on what is criminal nor the severity of criminality. Look at what your party has been doing lately with regard things like cash bail, increasing the amount one can steal without serious penalty, what constitutes a "peaceful protest" and a host of other changes to our cultural understanding of right and wrong. This proves some are not offended by specific crimes as are other people. Yet God should be different? He can't have His own standards regarding the offensiveness of sin? Not according to you. You judge Him by YOUR standards of what for you passes as justice.
"III. The assumption that I bring, then, is that God is at least as just as we are.
Do you agree?"
But it's not a matter of justice. You keep defaulting to that as if His response to that which offends Him is unjust. I insist He has all authority and knows far better than you how offended He is by sin and His response is always just whether you find it so or not. You want to concentrate on sinful acts. God deals in sin. You don't seem to grasp the blatant and obvious distinction here.
"IV. It sounds like to me you have an assumption that God views "sin" and "justice" in some way vastly different than we do.
Is that the case?"
No. I'm saying you're assuming (insisting, actually) God must view sin and justice in the way you demand He must in order to you to regard Him as Just God. That's rather presumptuous to say the least.
"V. If so, isn't it you who is holding a presumption that God must be vastly more offended and incapable of tolerating sin than we are?"
No. In fact I couldn't have been more clear: I'm saying God is more offended by sin than you're allowing Him the right and authority to be. I'm saying that by virtue of our sin nature, and our penchant to please ourselves, we're willing to tolerate what we shouldn't based on how it pleases us to do so and reviled by that which we personally find displeasing. Indeed, this is your way and it is puts yourself above Him. I prefer to put His will above my own and strive to live accordingly. I KNOW He is greatly offended by sin...far more than any human being is.
"VI. And if that's your assumption, do you see how that sort of emasculates your little god?"
You can dispense with this "your 'little god'" crap. It's a direct attack on Him, not me. What's more, it's YOU who "emasculates" Him by insisting He must abide your limitations on how offended He must be by sin. You clearly don't have a grasp of just how dangerous it is to minimize sin as you do in this way. To compound it, you dare suggest there's a problem with God if He's more offended than you think He should be. Good luck with that shit.
"VII. I mean, I work with some rough people sometimes. I tolerate a good bit of sin and bad behavior in an effort to help such folks. And I'm a mere mortal. Am I made of sturdier stuff than your god?"
Bullshit, Dan. If you tolerate criminal behavior...literal or figurative...then you're complicit. No one who truly cares to help "such people" tolerates their bad behavior. Even if you're consciously refusing to report criminal behavior to the authorities on some nonsensical premise that you're helping them, I do not believe you "tolerate" the criminal actions themselves. "Oh...go ahead and keep mugging and raping while we work through your issues." I don't buy it.
And no, Dan. You're hardly made of sturdy stuff at all. You can't even abide God's clear teachings on sexual morality. The very thought is laughable.
Marshal...
I'm saying you're assuming (insisting, actually) God must view sin and justice in the way you demand He must in order to you to regard Him as Just God. That's rather presumptuous to say the least.
I'm literally not. I'm saying, quite clearly, that I think justice and sin can be reasonably understood and that I have no reason to presume that God has created some secret notions of sin and justice that are not known to us and unknowable by us.
In other words, just because I disagree with some humans about what they think is sin or justice, doesn't mean I disagree with God, nor that I'm insisting God view sin and justice as I do.
See the difference?
Is it possible you've so conflated your notions of sin and justice with what God thinks that you're confusing the two? As if disagreeing with you is disagreeing with God?
Marshal...
I'm saying God is more offended by sin than you're allowing Him the right and authority to be.
Prove it. Or retract it and apologize.
(Hint: You saying, "you said X and I think that you thinking X means that you're not allowing God the right and authority blah blah" is not proof. Objectively prove it or admit it's just an unproven hunch you have.)
Marshal...
If you tolerate criminal behavior...literal or figurative...then you're complicit.
? I've never said anything about "tolerating criminal behavior." What I said was:
I work with some rough people sometimes.
I tolerate a good bit of sin and bad behavior in an effort to help such folks.
That is, I'm able to be in their presence and not puke or punch them or decide I need to punish them then and there. Racists, sexists, misogynists, anti-LGBTQ types. I tolerate them, talk with them, ask about their family... The point being, I'm able to be in their presence and even want to help them.
And I'm a puny mortal.
I think an almighty God who loves everyone and isn't willing for any to perish is able, all the more, to tolerate and love such people.
Are you saying your godling is NOT able to be in the presence of such sinners, even some truly bad people?
"For it is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick..."
What sort of weakling God would say that!? Is that what you're suggesting?
Marshal...
You can dispense with this "your 'little god'" crap. It's a direct attack on Him, not me. What's more, it's YOU who "emasculates" Him by insisting He must abide your limitations on how offended He must be by sin. You clearly don't have a grasp of just how dangerous it is to minimize sin as you do in this way.
Of course, the reality is I have not placed limitations on God. I have not minimized sin.
And you can not support such claims. They are false claims.
Now, before you make any more comments, either prove your false claims (and you can't) or admit that they were false claims.
(And I'll extend some grace your way if you don't see this and make comments, but I've been quite clear: You need to support your fact claims if you make them and if you can't support them (and as we see, you generally can't), then make clear "THIS is just an opinion I, Marshal, have... I can't prove it.")
I had said:
"I. Why? How does it "require God must not be more offended?""
And Marshal responded...
Because if He's not, and
you've no way to determine just how offended He is,
then there's no other possibility.
He must be no more offended by any given act or sin in general
in order for you to maintain your beliefs about your notions of
the seriousness of sin or sinful acts.
? What does that mean?
First of all, as a point of fact, we do not have a way to determine "just how offended God is." About anything. You don't. I don't. None of us do. It's not like there's a "God offense" scale somewhere that we can appeal to.
Do you recognize that reality?
You continue...
"God must be no more offended
by any given fact or sin in general
in order for you to maintain your beliefs"
? Says who? Prove it. This is a meaningless bunch of words, not based on anything I've said.
Do you understand that?
Again, if you can't prove it, don't make it the claim.
What I've said is:
A. I believe in a perfectly just, perfectly loving God.
B. I believe humans are imperfect and any understanding we have is going to be imperfect.
C. I believe, nonetheless, that we can reasonably understand ideas of justice and morality.
D. None of us can objectively authoritatively prove our understandings of justice and morality. Not Marshal. Not me.
E. Nonetheless, we humans in general can have a reasonable understanding of justice and morality and
F. It is important for us to try to find common ground on justice and morality because an amoral anarchy would be hellish. Like Trump on steroids (hate to bring him up, but he's a good representation of human amoral anarchy).
G. I don't think God has a secret world of Justice and Morality that is incomprehensible and generally uknownable to humanity.
I. It is the difference between having a REASONABLE but imperfect understanding of justice and morality and having NO idea of what is just and immoral.
Do you agree that none of us - not even conservatives like you - have a perfect understanding of justice and morality?
Do you agree that we all, generally, CAN have a reasonable understanding of Justice and morality?
Do you agree that you can't prove objectively that your notions of morality or justice on any one point is objectively authoritatively true? (And don't say yes, when you can't do it. You pointing to some verses in the Bible and telling me that you think they mean X is not "proof." It's literally your subjective and unproven opinion.)
"I'm literally not. I'm saying, quite clearly, that I think justice and sin can be reasonably understood and that I have no reason to presume that God has created some secret notions of sin and justice that are not known to us and unknowable by us."
This is an intentional distortion of the point. Only you are suggesting the possibility of "some secret notions of sin and justice". To say God's ways are not our ways and we can't know God's ways as He does is not a suggestion there are secret notions of sin and justice. More importantly, the concept of "God's ways are not our ways" doesn't even enter into the discussion on the table with regard to how offended by sin God is. But then again, you continue to continue manifestations of sin...sinful behaviors...with sin itself, or our sin natures. Is our salvation jeopardized by our sin nature or by any particular behavior or number of them we might commit? If you said the former, you get a gold star. But you seem focused on the latter. This focus leads you to speak of "my" God being unjust for condemning some to eternal punishment for that which YOU insist is out of proportion. But you're basing this on YOUR feelings about what is proportional because YOU don't believe a behavior, the frequency with which a behavior is committed, how many behaviors are perpetrated are so bad to YOU. You're not considering how offensive, or even if it should be offensive to God. "I don't think it's so bad that eternal punishment is a just response, so therefore God best not think otherwise if He expects me to regard Him as just." Then you dismiss this as if it's not what you're doing. But you absolutely are. As I said at Craig's, you're focused on the gumball.
And again I remind you of how common it is for people to disagree about what should be regarded as upsetting. One person might complain about a slight, and the person's confidant will say, "Why are you so upset about something so insignificant?" To the first person, clearly the slight was more problematic than for the confidant. But you insist God can't be more offended by sin than you are. If He is, then He's not a just God, and you demean Him as some "petty godling" or some such.
You're absolutely insisting God view sin and justice as you do.
"Is it possible you've so conflated your notions of sin and justice with what God thinks that you're confusing the two?"
Not even slightly. Indeed, my position necessarily removes any notion of mine regarding sin and justice apart from acknowledging the former exists and should be avoided at all costs and the latter is how God will respond to good and evil.
I HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT WHAT FOLLOWS MAY SEEM A BIT DISJOINTED. I RESPONDED TO ALL YOUR RESPONSES IN ONE COMMENT BOX...AS IS MY PRACTICE...AND CUT THEM DOWN AS THE CHARACTER LIMIT COMPELS ME. UNFORTUNATELY, IT SEEMS SOME OF IT MAY BE A BIT OUT OF SEQUENCE. NONETHELESS, ALL RESPONSES OF MINE WILL FOLLOW COMMENTS OF YOURS AND IF YOU'RE AT ALL CONFUSED, YOU'LL HAVE TO SCROLL UP TO YOUR FULL COMMENT FOR CONTEXT. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE.
"I'm saying God is more offended by sin than you're allowing Him the right and authority to be.
Prove it. Or retract it and apologize."
I've not only been doing that for a long time now, I've done it yet again above. Given Scripture's teaching about eternal punishment...even allowing for the fact you reject that teaching as you do so many others...it's clear God's opinion of sin is severe and more so than yours or you wouldn't defend so much of it so openly and happily.
And by the way, your constant default "Prove it" where a point is not "provable" as say, "I have videos of you doing unspeakable things with farm animals" is absurd, petulant and weak. Better would be for you to attempt to be more clear in your position. As it stands, my conclusion is more than sound and puts the ball firmly in your court to return volley. "Prove it" won't get it done regardless of how I might try to comply. Here's a hint for you: I won't comply.
--------------------------------
"If you tolerate criminal behavior...literal or figurative...then you're complicit.
? I've never said anything about "tolerating criminal behavior." What I said was:
I work with some rough people sometimes.
I tolerate a good bit of sin and bad behavior in an effort to help such folks."
Semantics. Sin is a crime against God. Thus, since we've been speaking of sin, sinful behavior equates to criminal behavior. Said another way, I'm not talking about a state's criminal code. I'm talking about God's.
"That is, I'm able to be in their presence and not puke or punch them or decide I need to punish them then and there. Racists, sexists, misogynists, anti-LGBTQ types. I tolerate them..."
Stop right there. That's where you should have begun, or at least where I would have. I would have said, "I tolerate these people in order to help them. I do not, will not and let them know that they must never again indulge their bad behaviors if they're truly seeking help." This is what we Christians call "repentance". It accounts for backsliding, but not for willful disregard for the sinfulness or criminal nature of behavior in favor of the profit in indulging it. See the difference? Thus, I will again allow for you having misspoke. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you do NOT tolerate their bad behaviors. Does this clarification better reflect reality?
"And I'm a puny mortal."
No argument there.
"I think an almighty God who loves everyone and isn't willing for any to perish is able, all the more, to tolerate and love such people."
You keep saying this as if it means something it doesn't. That is, it does NOT mean that God won't allow them to perish. It means He'd prefer they repent and abide His Will. Thus, the fact is that He Will most certainly NOT tolerate the presence of anyone who is not washed clean by the Blood of Christ. And we most certainly know that few will go through the narrow door. This is all basic stuff any serious and prayerful student of Scripture knows full well. Indeed, it's clear to those who've only taken a cursory glance. Disparaging God by calling Him a "godling" because you reject the Truth isn't really a good plan. But good luck with it.
""For it is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick..."
What sort of weakling God would say that!? Is that what you're suggesting?"
I don't get the connection to this discussion. Are you drunk blogging?
"As if disagreeing with you is disagreeing with God?"
If I'm presenting God's Will and/or teachings accurately on a given subject, then this is true. Until you can present a compelling argument I'm wrong, with a compelling alternative to support the proposition, then this is true. I'm open to any and every attempt when you decide to get one together and present it.
------------------------------------------------
"Of course, the reality is I have not placed limitations on God. I have not minimized sin."
You most certainly have and I've most certainly and comprehensively explained how you've done so.
"Now, before you make any more comments, either prove your false claims (and you can't) or admit that they were false claims."
I'll just do what you do and say that it's my opinion. The difference is that unlike with you, I've actually presented a sound argument in support of my premise. Once again, you demand that God must regard sin as no worse than you do, supposing that despite the clear teachings of Scripture...the clear statements of Christ Himself...that some will be subject to an eternity apart from God. Eternal torment compared to eternity in His presence. Christ said that to some who say "Lord, Lord..." He will respond, "I do not know you." All this and more from Scripture more than suggests a level of offense to sin God has which you do not. YOUR comments more than suggest a level of leniency Scripture does not with regard to God's disdain for sin. And through it all, you equate YOUR notion of justice as incumbent upon Him lest you regard Him as a "weak godling" simply because He regards offense more seriously than do you.
Said another way, whereas I simply acknowledge that He regards certain behaviors as sinful and so I do as well as strive to never indulge any of them do the extent my weak humanity can resist, you choose to choose from among the many manifestations of sin that which YOU insist HE MUST regard as unworthy of His concern. Whereas I KNOW that the issue is sin as opposed to any specific sinful behavior, any number of times that behavior is indulged or any number of behaviors one might perpetuate, you fixated on the stolen gumball.
Apart from the above and apart from putting in the effort to track down, copy/paste into a list all comments of yours that bear out what I've said...after which you'll simply reject and dismiss them as not what you mean, said, implied or believe....I've just totally, completely and comprehensively once again supported my claim about your poor understanding of God's justice.
------------------------------------
"
"I. Why? How does it "require God must not be more offended?""
And Marshal responded...
Because if He's not, and
you've no way to determine just how offended He is,
then there's no other possibility.
He must be no more offended by any given act or sin in general
in order for you to maintain your beliefs about your notions of
the seriousness of sin or sinful acts.
? What does that mean?"
I can't believe you're really this dense despite how you strive to prove it. So I'll try in yet another way which is equally clear and compelling and equally likely to be dismissed and avoided by you:
You have your notions of what is egregious sin and what isn't. Thus, you focus on acts rather than the nature of man which is what God judges...or more precisely, what will determine our eternal destiny. As I've explained above, Scripture is rife with explanations which support the premise. It is our sin nature which provokes our sinful behaviors. Despite our best efforts to be the best darn Christian we can be, we can't do a damned thing to get around the fact we're sinful beings. Our good works are as filthy rags to God. Have you never read the verse which affirms this? Our sinful acts are judged in a similar fashion...one is like the other in terms of relevance. It's our sin nature which condemns us. All we've done which is sinful is because of that. Note that Jesus was without sin. Are you He? I'm certainly not. What can we do about that? If all our good works are as filthy rags, what does that mean to you? And conversely, how can our sinful deeds matter more than the sin nature which provokes them?
"First of all, as a point of fact, we do not have a way to determine "just how offended God is." About anything. You don't. I don't. None of us do. It's not like there's a "God offense" scale somewhere that we can appeal to."
This is absurd. Of course we do. It's revealed in the Genesis story which tells us that when sin entered the world, the consequence was pain, suffering and death. It's revealed in Jesus saying few will pass through the Narrow Gate, or that to some who say "Lord, Lord" He will respond "I do not know you", or the several passages where Christ speaks of eternal punishment. All that indicates God is greatly offended by sin. How you could have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture and not come across this evidence astounds me, but THAT is the reality. Not what you need to believe.
A. So do I.
B. So do I.
C. So do I.
D. This doesn't make sense. Do you mean we can't prove our understandings are correct? I don't agree.
E. Not in dispute.
F. This is present in all "civilized" societies. But such societies don't lie about Donald Trump as you do.
G. Neither do I.
I. What is?
"Do you agree that none of us - not even conservatives like you - have a perfect understanding of justice and morality?"
A foolish and irrelevant question. Perfection isn't required. And the real issue isn't a matter of perfect understanding anyway, but understanding what is clear and unequivocal.
"Do you agree that we all, generally, CAN have a reasonable understanding of Justice and morality?"
This suggests you're as reasonable as I am. You're not. This discussion is great evidence of that claim.
"Do you agree that you can't prove objectively that your notions of morality or justice on any one point is objectively authoritatively true? (And don't say yes, when you can't do it. You pointing to some verses in the Bible and telling me that you think they mean X is not "proof." It's literally your subjective and unproven opinion.)"
This is nonsensical, Dan. First, you take out Scripture on the weak premise that my understanding is not a reflection of its truth. This is only your attempt to assert that as fact in order to provide for you the freedom to indulge or enable that which is not at all ambiguous in its sinfulness.
Secondly, there are quite a few points about which there is no doubt as to the moral status of a given point. But it all relies on agreeing that Scripture is beyond reproach. If it's the Word of God, on what basis can you dare attempt to rebuke its clear revelation on any given point which is not ambiguous?
Thirdly, you're constant attempt to regard my (or any opponent's) position on ANY point of Scripture NEVER comes with an alternative explanation of any kind supported by any fact or truth. You simply assert my (or any opponent's) position is unsupported subjective opinion and that's supposed to be regarded as a comprehensive rebuttal. It's not. It's "Nyuh uh" and that dog don't hunt.
Before you say anything else, PROVE this claim objectively or admit you can't. Support your claims/answer the questions in bold. Don't comment otherwise.
Marshal...
Given Scripture's teaching about eternal punishment...even allowing for the fact you reject that teaching as you do so many others...it's clear God's opinion of sin is severe and more so than yours or you wouldn't defend so much of it so openly and happily.
? PROVE IT.
I know there are passages that speak of eternal punishment. There are also passages that speak of God not being willing any to punish. What is your PROOF, objective, demonstrable PROOF, that God thinks the every day "I took the last cookie even though I knew my wife wanted it" sins are worthy of eternal punishment, in God's opinion?
PROVE IT.
+++++++
Beyond that... I said...
"I'm literally not. I'm saying, quite clearly, that I think justice and sin can be reasonably understood and that I have no reason to presume that God has created some secret notions of sin and justice that are not known to us and unknowable by us."
Marshal responded...
This is an intentional distortion of the point.
Prove it, liar. What it is, is me making clear what my position is.
Marshal...
Only you are suggesting the possibility of "some secret notions of sin and justice". To say God's ways are not our ways and we can't know God's ways as He does is not a suggestion there are secret notions of sin and justice.
So, what DO you mean that God's ways aren't our ways? Do you think we CAN reasonably understand morality and justice issues?
Marshal...
"I tolerate these people in order to help them. I do not, will not and let them know that they must never again indulge their bad behaviors if they're truly seeking help."
Not an effective method for dealing with some of these sins/failings. Addicts and racists don't respond well to ultimatums. I'm interested in reform, not judgmentalism.
I said...
D. None of us can objectively authoritatively prove our understandings of justice and morality. Not Marshal. Not me.
Marshal responded...
D. This doesn't make sense. Do you mean we can't prove our understandings are correct? I don't agree.
I mean PRECISELY that your opinions about justice and morality are opinions that you can NOT prove objectively.
You can't PROVE objectively that God is opposed to gay guys marrying.
You can't PROVE objectively that we are saved literally by Jesus' blood to "cover" or "pay for" our sins.
You can't PROVE objectively that transgender folks are "sinning."
You can't PROVE objectively that ANY of your opinions about what God thinks about moral questions are objectively correct. NOT ONE.
These are human traditions and beliefs that are not provable.
Do you admit that reality?
If you THINK you can prove it objectively, do so. OR, admit you can't.
Again, no more comments from you until you address the bold questions/requests.
I asked...
"Do you agree that none of us - not even conservatives like you - have a perfect understanding of justice and morality?"
Marshal didn't answer, saying instead...
A foolish and irrelevant question. Perfection isn't required. And the real issue isn't a matter of perfect understanding anyway, but understanding what is clear and unequivocal.
Answer the question, directly. Given your non-answer, I suspect that you are willing to admit, "NO, conservatives don't have a perfect understanding of Justice and morality."
AM I RIGHT? ANSWER THE QUESTION PUT TO YOU.
Marshal...
"what is clear and unequivocal..."
According TO WHO?
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS PUT TO YOU, directly. Clearly. With no vague non-answers.
I asked...
"Do you agree that we all, generally, CAN have a reasonable understanding of Justice and morality?"
Marshal responded without answering...
This suggests you're as reasonable as I am. You're not.
ANSWER THE QUESTION PUT TO YOU. Do you agree that humanity can and does have a reasonable understanding of morality and justice, even if it's imperfect?
I asked a reasonable question...
"Do you agree that you can't prove objectively that your notions of morality or justice on any one point is objectively authoritatively true?
Marshal responded without answering, saying...
This is nonsensical, Dan. First, you take out Scripture on the weak premise that my understanding is not a reflection of its truth.
WHAT is nonsensical? It's a reasonable question that you dodged. Do you agree that YOU CAN NOT PROVE OBJECTIVELY that your notions of morality or justice on any one point is objectively, authoritatively true?
Answer the question put to you.
Then you proceed to make nonsense claims like... "You take out Scripture on the weak premise that my understanding is not a reflection of its truth..."
What does that mean? I "take out scripture..."?? What does that mean? That I disagree with YOUR opinions and interpretations is "taking out Scripture..."? Are you conflating your hunches with Scripture or God's Word? They ain't, son.
You continue dodging the question, saying...
Secondly, there are quite a few points about which there is no doubt as to the moral status of a given point.
PROVE IT. NAME ONE and objectively PROVE that there is no doubt that YOUR hunches/interpretations/subjective opinions are beyond doubt.
That's enough homework for you. Step up. Answer questions directly and clearly. Or admit you can't and admit these are your subjective hunches. Be an adult in an adult conversation. Apologize for your false claims and statements.
So, you're NOT willing to grant assurance you'll allow me the freedom to respond in my own way as I allow you such freedom at my blog. Got it.
Marshal...
False in two ways:
1. You assert, not prove, our positions have not been proven...as evidenced by the fact you write it all off as "hunches", ..."
I'm telling you as clearly as possible:
I have seen NO DATA that objectively proves a given moral code or even objective proof for EVEN JUST ONE MORAL QUESTION.
Now, ALL you have to do is provide that is objectively demonstrable proof and you win.
If you provide objective proof on my post, it will remain.
And even if you try and fail, it will remain for all to see.
Better yet, if you admit you can't (and you can't - no one has in all of history) and apologize for your prideful rude boasts, that to will remain, as testimony to your growth and reason.
One other question to answer first, Marshal, as it may save you some time and embarrassment: What precisely do you think you can prove objectively on this point?
That everyone who reads the Bible sincerely will have perfect understanding of all moral questions?
That SOME who read the Bible sincerely will have objectively provable answers to all moral questions?
...to SOME moral questions?
If only SOME, then how do you know which moral questions you objectively know the One Right moral answer to? Based on what?
Do you see the problem?
The premise itself collapses under the weight of its irrational and unbiblical inanity.
Marshal...
"What's more, you don't even define exactly what it is about which you're now demanding "data". Is it Scripture itself?"
Craig and others have complained when I note we have no objective, authoritative, provable way to prove our opinions are objectively factual. We don't, not any of us, but Craig complains when I point it out AS IF he has an objectively correct source. He doesn't.
So, for instance, for those who insist that all abortions (or some subset of abortions) are wrong and God-opposed... they have no way to objectively and authoritatively prove that claim.
The same is true for those who'd say all wars are wrong and opposed by God or that taxes are wrong or that gay folk marrying is wrong or being transgender is wrong... NO ONE can authoritatively, objectively prove those claims.
Do you recognize that reality?
Marshal...
Scripture is "data" that objectively presents a moral code you reject where it fails to please you personally. But more importantly, there's no "data" for which you would not demand "data" in order to prove that which was just given. It's a bullshit, childish game you play, except that you posture as reasonable, honest and intelligent in playing it.
1. I'm requesting that you speak in respectful, adult terms. Do it or risk being deleted.
2. Scripture is a bunch of words. If people read bad meanings into the words in the Bible, then that interpretation is no good. If people read good, reasonable meanings into the words in the Bible, that's good. In either case, we have no way to get objective clarification on what God does or doesn't think.
That is, if someone reads the Bible and concludes that slavery is sometimes a moral, even a good thing to do, then that person is reading evil into the Bible and that "scripture" (ie, their personal interpretation) is not good. But we have no way to "prove" objectively that this person is wrong, beyond the obvious.
Which is why I think Human Rights/Causing harm is a much better, much closer to objective manner of determining moral questions.
And again, I repeat: IF you can "prove" some moral notions objectively, authoritatively, TELL ME. Even if I'm wrong, I want to understand morality and do the right thing. But you just can't prove your interpretations are the same as God's and mine are wrong and I don't agree with your hunches and interpretations.
BUT, if you CAN prove them objectively, do so.
If not, admit it.
"So, for instance, for those who insist that all abortions (or some subset of abortions) are wrong and God-opposed... they have no way to objectively and authoritatively prove that claim."
"Thou shalt not murder."
“Whoever sheds the blood of man; by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”
I'm unaware of any verse which puts an age on who must not be murdered. And as we now know there is no need to abort a child in order to save the life of the women pregnant with that child, we can know that God opposes all murder, regardless of the age, size and/or location of the victim. It's pretty simple. Don't murder.
"The same is true for those who'd say all wars are wrong and opposed by God or that taxes are wrong or that gay folk marrying is wrong or being transgender is wrong"
I love how you purposely put veggies with fruit. Which of the above do not belong? There's no way to support the notion "all wars are wrong", because clearly a nation attacked must defend its people. I doubt there are any who say "all taxes are wrong". But there is clear and unequivocal prohibitions against homosexuality and cross dressing so clearly there can be no SSM which isn't sinful, nor any "transgender" methods which are OK. (Again, I allow for the caveat of mental disorder driving either of these behaviors...but we don't judge such things based on the possibility of mental disorder playing a role)
"1. I'm requesting that you speak in respectful, adult terms. Do it or risk being deleted."
Stop pretending you're routinely respectful and adult in your discourse. For example, referring to God as a "godling" is a direct insult toward me when you use it against my positions. But this quote above follows a more direct, honest and accurate description of your disrespectful and childish methods of discourse.
"2. Scripture is a bunch of words."
It's quite clear you think so. But it's truly more than that to actual Christians. What's worse, it your routine mention of the absurd in order to pretend the absurd is possible from anyone but you. You DO read evil into Scripture, by suggesting there's any possibility God would approve or bless a union based on a behavior He's clearly told us is detestable to Him.
"Which is why I think Human Rights/Causing harm is a much better, much closer to objective manner of determining moral questions."
Saying so doesn't make it so, and you are keen on dictating both according to YOUR "moral code" which is derived from personal preference more than any hard objective source.
"But you just can't prove your interpretations are the same as God's and mine are wrong and I don't agree with your hunches and interpretations."
Again, there's no end to what you can't apply this self-serving concept. There is no "hunch" or need for "interpretation" to understand one must not do what follows "Thou shalt not". Just considering all such behaviors, we get a really good and solid and OBJECTIVE code of behavior. What we never get is your proofs, evidence, data or support for why such verses aren't crystal clear to you. You simply try to assert "we can't know". Nonsense.
"Answer the questions put to you and do so in a respectful, adult manner. Quit dodging."
I did. But you once again default to your pat deflection rather than defend your alternative position. The you dare condescend in suggesting you're the "respectful adult". Laughable. It's this sort of crap which has led to your banishment from so many blogs.
Marshal...
I'm unaware of any verse which puts an age on who must not be murdered.
1. You're also clearly unaware that Jewish folks (at least some/many)don't consider life having begun (and thus, human rights...) until the first breath.
2. That YOU personally and your human traditions consider such verses as applying to fetuses and zygote is NOT objective proof that abortion is "murder."
Strike one.
Marshal...
Stop pretending you're routinely respectful and adult in your discourse. For example, referring to God as a "godling" is a direct insult toward me when you use it against my positions.
It is not meant to be disrespectful. It's meant to describe the impotent godling you describe with your words.
Marshal...
2. Scripture is a bunch of words."
It's quite clear you think so
No. It's literally, objectively demonstrably that.
Answer the questions put to you. Now.
Marshal opined...
But there is clear and unequivocal prohibitions against homosexuality and cross dressing so clearly there can be no SSM which isn't sinful, nor any "transgender" methods which are OK.
SAYS YOU. And you are welcome to your hunches. My point is that you can not objectively authoritatively prove your opinions on these matters. They are your hateful, subjective, bigoted opinion... one that has demonstrably, measurably caused harm to countless people through the ages.
What I'm asking is DO YOU RECOGNIZE YOU CAN NOT OBJECTIVELY, AUTHORITATIVELY PROVE YOUR BIGOTED OPINION is a moral or good one?
Yes or no?
Put another way: It is objectively factual and demonstrable and provable that thousands and thousands and probably millions of people have been harmed, oppressed, killed and molested because of anti-LGBTQ bigotry through the centuries, including and especially from those who claim to be Christians. That's not debatable, I can show you the data.
But you CAN'T prove that God agrees with your bigotry against LGBTQ people, that God doesn't love gay folk, that God is opposed to gay folk marrying or, you know, just living their lives free from oppression and demonization.
Do you recognize these realities?
"1. You're also clearly unaware that Jewish folks (at least some/many)don't consider life having begun (and thus, human rights...) until the first breath."
I'm even more than clearly aware that you don't have a monopoly on being wrong and on perverting Scripture in order to support falsehood. One must reject/disregard other verses which speak of life beginning far earlier.
https://carm.org/abortion/does-human-life-begin-at-our-first-breath/
What's more, science is unequivocal regarding conception being the beginning of a new person.
https://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/
So I'll continue to abide the totality of Scripture regarding human life and murder, as well as the facts on the subject from a biological point of view.
"2. That YOU personally and your human traditions consider such verses as applying to fetuses and zygote is NOT objective proof that abortion is "murder.""
You're free to continue denigrating my grasp of facts and truth derived from the clear teachings of Scripture and science as mere "human traditions", while pretending your counter-Christian beliefs aren't human traditions as well, but with far less Biblical or scientific support, but the point remains, God prohibits murdering other people, which include people of every age, size and location, and abortion as the word is used today is murder. There is no just reason to abort a child. None. Ever. I've provided much from those who specialize in difficult pregnancies who affirm that fact. You provide testimony from those who profit by murdering the most innocent and defenseless of our kind.
Not "strike one", but a Grand Slam home run!
"It is not meant to be disrespectful. It's meant to describe the impotent godling you describe with your words."
But it is disrespectful to me as it supposes without evidentiary basis that my description of God is inaccurate in any way. It's blasphemy against the Spirit for ignoring all Scripture says with regard to God's opposition to sin and His means of dealing with those who are not redeemed of it. This would not even be a question had you chosen to support your position with actual evidence rather than condescend in lieu of any.
"No. It's literally, objectively demonstrably that."
Only in the most technical sense, but not at all in the most completely honest sense. As such, your pronouncement is meaningless, moot and intellectually vapid.
"Answer the questions put to you. Now."
Oh, I very much have and in great detail at my blog where you can't delete any of it on the weakest of grounds after I put in the effort. Here's where you pretend you'd be over exerting yourself to address my answers there or copy paste them and do so here. Respond or don't. Courage or cowardice. Your choice.
"SAYS YOU."
Says Scripture. Clearly and unequivocally. Go ahead and try to prove me wrong. Go ahead and provide Scripture which directly supports your position as the verses I continue to cite so solidly supports mine...which isn't mine but just a repeating of Scriptural teaching you don't like.
"My point is that you can not objectively authoritatively prove your opinions on these matters."
I can, I have and I did yet again at my blog in response to your questionable questions. And I did it with citations from Scripture which are not ambiguous in any way such that those of your kind can pervert their clear and unmistakable meaning...despite your doing so anyway.
"They are your hateful, subjective, bigoted opinion..."
Wrong again. They're Biblical truths which provoke such false descriptions because no legitimate counter argument exists. You've certainly never presented one.
"one that has demonstrably, measurably caused harm to countless people through the ages."
Aside from the adage "the truth hurts", the mere repeating of Biblical truth hurts no one and never has. But like you and those you enable, there are those who pervert Scripture to rationalize their bad behaviors toward these people. I've always opposed those perversion as well. Thus, you can only "demonstrate" and/or "measure" harm caused by such perverting Scripture to rationalize attacks on LGBT sinners, but not on those who simply preach the Truth about God's opposition to their behaviors.
"What I'm asking is DO YOU RECOGNIZE YOU CAN NOT OBJECTIVELY, AUTHORITATIVELY PROVE YOUR BIGOTED OPINION is a moral or good one?
Yes or no?"
Please restate this question. As worded, either answer I give affirms I hold a "bigoted" opinion. I hold no "bigoted" opinions at all, despite your ungracious, unChristian description of my positions as such.
"Put another way: It is objectively factual and demonstrable and provable that thousands and thousands and probably millions of people have been harmed, oppressed, killed and molested because of anti-LGBTQ bigotry through the centuries, including and especially from those who claim to be Christians. That's not debatable, I can show you the data."
I can't wait to see it. I don't expect you'll provide it.
"But you CAN'T prove that God agrees with your bigotry against LGBTQ people..."
Not an argument I'm making, especially given the fact that opposition to any given behavior indicates "bigotry" on any level. But I have proven God opposes the behavior totally and without allowing for any context or scenario in which it might take place. As such, it's not a matter of God agreeing with me. It's a matter of me acknowledging the Truth about God's opinion of the behaviors as "detestable" or "an abomination". No place in Scripture is that Truth altered in any way.
"...that God doesn't love gay folk,"
The question of whether not God hates anyone is irrelevant here, as it's not a position I've ever suggested. So, I've not argued that God "doesn't love" "gay folk". My argument is that He is not at all cool with their behavior and wanton disregard for that fact. God might have love Stalin, Hitler, Amin and a host of other murderous despots. It's doubtful they're in heaven short of some death bed conversion. So why not just concentrate on things I do say and have said and not go off on things which are irrelevant in the false hope it bolsters your sinful position on the subject?
"...that God is opposed to gay folk marrying"
I've proven this handily. What you've never proven is that God would not be opposed to such unions based on the wanton disregard of His clear, unambiguous and unequivocal prohibition of the behavior on which such union are based? By your "logic", God would not oppose incestuous marriages, or polygamous marriages. All three are absurd.
"or, you know, just living their lives free from oppression and demonization."
I would suppose God does not want believers to oppress sinners, except where "oppression" is just another word for "expecting others to live moral lives"...which is pretty much how your kind perverts such words. God "demonized" the behavior you enable, so clearly God isn't opposed to the concept. Since He's already done it, my pointing it out isn't an example of me demonizing people. It's simply stating the fact.
But you don't recognize these realities. Instead, you promote falsehoods and expect me to regard them as "realities". I'm not so obliged. But you're obliged to reject your falsehoods and accept God's Truth, regardless of how your LGBT friends will respond to you as a result. That's just Luke 6:22, or what you're doing to me. I rejoice in these days!
Marshal...
What's more, science is unequivocal regarding conception being the beginning of a new person.
No one is disputing that a LIVING HUMAN ZYGOTE is created at conception and that living zygote will become a living human embryo and eventually a living human fetus at a later point.
That does not prove that this zygote, embryo or fetus has human rights in the same sense that a newborn does.
And science does not say otherwise.
Do you understand that reality?
So, score zero for you for making a point that is not in dispute.
Marshal...
You're free to continue denigrating my grasp of facts and truth derived from the clear teachings of Scripture and science as mere "human traditions"
It's not denigrating to recognize the reality of it all. Science has NOT "proven" that human fetus deserve full human rights. That would be a false and unsupported claim.
Do you recognize that reality?
Now, answer the actual questions actually put to you. You're skating on thin ice.
And just fyi: Since your responses do not answer my questions and since your answers don't even TRY to provide actual objective support, I probably WILL be deleting your empty bigoted claims. But I'm giving you a chance. Don't waste it.
Or better yet, just answer my reasonable questions with direct answers, apologize for being obtuse and bigoted and dodging reasonable questions... you know, be a reasonable adult and admit you are wrong when you're clearly wrong.
Grow, Marshal. Be better. You have this chance.
On his blog, Marshal effectively put up, over and over again, "The Bible says in some places X and I MARSHAL, TAKE IT TO MEAN A, B and C" and offers NO PROOF that objectively proves his hunches. Thereby DEMONSTRATING his complete impotence to objectively prove his extremely subjective and unproven hunches. But it DOES prove his dedication to his traditions' bigotries and immoral biases.
Do you all even UNDERSTAND the difference between objective and subjective?
Marshal continues with the abusive, grade school taunts and attacks on women with his language and still doesn't answer the questions put to him. He said, for instance...
The "reality" is that science states conception is when a new person exists.
No. That's NOT a reality. Science notes that a new living human fetus is a new living human fetus. THAT is observable reality.
YOU are the one assigning personhood to that fetus.
AND you are doing so without proving it or even TRYING to prove your subjective hunch.
AND you are not recognizing or acknowledging your hunch IS a subjective hunch.
REALLLY wanting your hunch to be objectively proven doesn't mean it is.
"Science notes that a new living human fetus is a new living human fetus."
Setting aside your lie that I was abusive, "taunting" and attacking women (which women exactly?) I answered all your questions directly. Then, you follow with the quoted lie above. It's a lie because you think the word "fetus" denies the humanity of the person who is passing through that stage of development. And by the way, science doesn't refer to it as a fetus as the moment of conception, so you strike out twice here.
"YOU are the one assigning personhood to that fetus."
No. It's a given, similar to affirming the personhood of any person in any stage of human development. Except I hesitate to grant that term to murderers who are willing to off the most innocent and defenseless people for the most selfish of reasons, and then lie there was some dire necessity which justifies it.
"AND you are doing so without proving it or even TRYING to prove your subjective hunch."
Not a hunch to state plainly the obvious reality of the humanity of all people from the moment they're conceived until whatever point in time their life is taken. It falls to the murderer to prove the murdered is not worthy of the title "person". In the weak attempts to that end, you vile people present no valid evidence or proofs, but rely on nothing BUT subjective opinion. Indeed, it doesn't even rise to that. It's merely selfish dismissal of the value of another person.
"AND you are not recognizing or acknowledging your hunch IS a subjective hunch."
Liar. I'm dealing in fact. The procreative act exists to bring about a new person into existence. The product of that act can be nothing less than a new person. Your fake "logic" would demand proof fire burns.
"REALLLY wanting your hunch to be objectively proven doesn't mean it is."
What you lie in calling a "hunch" is merely stating what all of science affirms as reality. Science, nor scientists, bother proving the obvious. The obvious here is all people...even the likes of you...have always been people endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life since conception because from the moment of conception, and new individual person exists.
But murderers defend murdering, so you'll no doubt continue doing what you do.
By the way, don't lie about how I've responded to you at my blog. Borrow a pair of testicles and come by and try to defend your crap. I love to laugh.
Marshal...
It's a given, similar to affirming the personhood of any person in any stage of human development.
LAST CHANCE: It's a given ACCORDING TO WHOM?
Just because YOU say it's a given doesn't make it a given. Science has not TOLD you it's a given. GOD has not told you it's a given. It's very literally YOUR SUBJECTIVE and ENTIRELY UNPROVEN OPINION that it's a given.
Do you understand that?
I'm not saying that you personally may think it's very reasonable or that "many" or "most" people may agree with you (they don't)... I'm noting the reality that "it's a given" is YOUR subjective opinion, naught else.
Is the newly fertilized zygote deserving of all human rights? That's a stage of human development?
How about the sperm or the egg? There are some who say it's a given that these are a stage on human life.
These are your opinions, subjective and unproven.
Now, you have one of two options.
1. PROVE objectively that this is so, not just wave away others opinion by noting YOUR opinion that it's a given. PROVE IT.
2. Or, when you can't prove it, admit this IS your subjective and unproven opinion an apologize for being so obtuse and demanding that everyone bow down to the little godling of Marshal's imagination.
Last chance.
"LAST CHANCE: It's a given ACCORDING TO WHOM?"
There you go again with the old tomato. You continue with the sad threats in lieu of an actual rebuttal of the truth I present.
According to whom? According to honest people, including some who aren't even actual Christians. You're neither, so you wouldn't know. You purposely use the term "fetus" as if it means something apart from "person" at a particular stage of human development. Honest people don't do that. They acknowledge the word is only a label applied to that stage. You use it as if it means something other than a person endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life you claim for yourself but of which you are far, far less deserving. As I've proven, science states when a new person comes into existence. It doesn't insist it isn't a person when it's in the earliest stage of development. That's what those of your kind do without providing the least shred of scientific or Scriptural evidence.
Honest people also know that no one gets here with a man and woman engaging in the very act intended to bring forth a new person, and thus, what is brought forth cannot possibly be anything but another person. God says not to murder people, so liars pretend one is not a person until one gets to some arbitrary point in one's life. You don't prove one is not a person at such arbitrary points, you don't even provide evidence which suggests such a thing. You simply assert it for personal convenience and profit...very much like a nazi or klansman.
So there's no "subjectivity" on my part. It's all on yours and not even that which rises to that level. Yours is simply self-serving lies. Anytime you care to bring about evidence, I'm here for ya.
"I'm not saying that you personally may think it's very reasonable or that "many" or "most" people may agree with you (they don't)... I'm noting the reality that "it's a given" is YOUR subjective opinion, naught else."
Saying so won't ever make it so, Dan, no matter how often or how emphatically you attempt to try. I don't "think" it's "reasonable". I'm saying it's an actual scientific, as well as Christian fact and have cited both science and Scripture to back it up quite comprehensively. You're simply rejecting it in your typical "Nyuh uh" style with nothing akin to supportive proofs or evidence to overcome it even slightly. Worse, you demand...as you always do...that science and/or Scripture must say something specific in a specific way of YOUR demand and choosing in order to accept it as truth. Adults don't work that way, even if such would make things easier, though it wouldn't be the end of it for the likes of you.
"Is the newly fertilized zygote deserving of all human rights? That's a stage of human development?"
You see, here's another part of the problem, and I won't debate at this point whether or not it's intentional on your part. But I've NEVER argued any child is deserving of "ALL" rights. I've been solely focused...and most incredibly obviously so...on the only particular right at issue in the abortion debate: the right to life. As that newly fertilized zygote is a person in the first stage of human development, it is deserving of the right to life endowed by its Creator. That it is endowed with this right by its Creator, no created individual has the authority to take the life of that zygote without just cause, without which doing so is murder. Such an individual presuming to assume such authority is then, according to the Lord, undeserving of life.
"How about the sperm or the egg? There are some who say it's a given that these are a stage on human life."
No one says a sperm or ovum is a separate human being with unique DNA which has the potential to grow all by themselves into a Louisville fake Christian moron. No one. There's no science which so much as hints at such a thing. It's an incredibly idiotic attempt to rationalize the murder of the conceived because there has been no conception until the two components unite. This is basic biology once again favoring my side...the truthful, honest and factual side...of the debate.
"1. PROVE objectively that this is so, not just wave away others opinion by noting YOUR opinion that it's a given. PROVE IT."
You keep demanding I do what I have done repeatedly, comprehensively, using science, Scripture and truth. I wave away that which has no evidence or proof to support it, but has ONLY the desire that it be so...which is to say it's not even a legitimate opinion, but a selfish wish. Prove me wrong with facts or concede like a man.
"2. Or, when you can't prove it, admit this IS your subjective and unproven opinion an apologize for being so obtuse and demanding that everyone bow down to the little godling of Marshal's imagination."
I have proven it and thus it is not my "subjective and unproven opinion"...facts provided means it's not opinion in any way, shape or form, and I don't demand anyone bow down to the actual God of Scripture you reject because you worship yourself and the ways of the world while only pretending to be a Christian. I think that's called "blaspheming the Spirit". Good luck with that.
"Last chance" means "wait for it...I'm about to delete you because I can't overcome the truth and logic of your argument!" A standard Dan the Liar ploy.
Marshal...
"According to whom? According to honest people"
And you're done. That is just the latest in the endless stream of unsupported subjective and ridiculously false claims. You and Craig, et al, make it clear that you literally can't support your claims of "objective facts" and that, indeed, you all can't even articulate what it is you MEAN by your unsupported vague hints that you have "proof" of "objective morality..."
Move on. I gave you more than enough time and rope and you only chose to be abusive, disrespectful and hang yourself.
You lose.
In our nation, you remain free to decide for yourself what to do in the case you get pregnant, Marshal. You have the religious and philosophical freedom to decide, "I REALLY think a fetus has a right to life and so, I won't abort" if you get pregnant.
BUT, in our nation, YOU do not have the freedom to impose your unproven and unsupported philosophical and religious hunches on other people. You do NOT get to take away their human rights.
The GOP lost in large part because, EVEN in conservative strongholds like Kentucky, we recognize that we don't want a "morality police" forcing a fascist, anti-liberty made-up rules on people against their will. That's the stuff of fascist nations, not the US.
This is a losing cause for conservatives because it's just morally and rationally wrong.
Just cuz I have a moment, Scripture is my moral code. It is proof of objective morality. There is no better source, none that you could provide and certainly none which elevates "reason" of any given person, given "reason" is totally subjective. When you can present something more tangible than Scripture for determining what is or isn't moral, it'll be a first and most likely entertaining in its comedic quality.
The fact of the matter is that you would reject ANY moral code as objective unless it was in total alignment with your many evil positions. The fact of the matter is that you DON'T WANT an objective moral code, because you know it would absolutely not align with your many evil positions. Ambiguity and subjective "reason" is your default, not an actual argument.
You want "proof" that Scripture is objective morality. Whatever you say, Dawkins.
"In our nation, you remain free to decide for yourself what to do in the case you get pregnant, Marshal."
You say that as if it's a rational out for an alleged Christian who finds children inconvenient. Under God, I remain free to put a bullet in your head. That doesn't make it a moral act or one I should employ (lucky for you, I seek to be a real Christian for His sake rather than, like you, one who seeks to posture as one for my own sake). There are many forms of immoral behaviors in which we are free to indulge as a citizen of this nation. Only a fake Christian would offer this as an argument in defense of murder.
"You have the religious and philosophical freedom to decide, "I REALLY think a fetus has a right to life and so, I won't abort" if you get pregnant."
It's not a matter of "deciding" or "thinking" what is. It's having the honesty (as in, not lying...glad I could clarify for a liar like you) to acknowledge what is true and an actual fact. In this case, because there is no honest, scientific argument to the contrary, the product of the procreative act is a PERSON with the God-given unalienable right to life of which you've proven yourself wholly unworthy.
"BUT, in our nation, YOU do not have the freedom to impose your unproven and unsupported philosophical and religious hunches on other people."
There is no proven or supported "philosophical and religious hunch" you have any right to life. None. But moral people concede it because of faith in God and the willingness to abide truths and facts, in this case the science which affirms all products of intercourse between men and women are people with the same right to life and far more deserving of having that right respected than oppressive murderers like you.
"You do NOT get to take away their human rights."
Where in our Constitution or under God are we possessed of the "right" to deny the right to life of any innocent person? You dare speak of human rights when you support the murder of the most innocent of our kind. "Vile" doesn't go far enough in describing your unChristian lack of character, morals and love for others.
"The GOP lost in large part because, EVEN in conservative strongholds like Kentucky, we recognize that we don't want a "morality police" forcing a fascist, anti-liberty made-up rules on people against their will."
To scum like you, defending the lives of innocent, defenseless people is "fascist" and "anti-liberty"? Not surprised, given your wanton rejection of God and His Will. That's the stuff of reprobates given over to their corruption who revel in their rebellion against God.
"This is a losing cause for conservatives because it's just morally and rationally wrong."
It's a losing cause for our nation as God turns His face from us due to the craven nature of so many like you. God have mercy on those who seek His ways and cry out for His Justice. May He forgive us for allowing the likes of you to have any foothold here.
ads
Because all comments go in moderation after 30 days or something, Marshal has several comments in moderation. But none of them are anything new. Just unsupported claims. So, not much point in rehashing what he can't prove as long as he's not even acknowledging he can't prove his claims.
For instance, Marshal said...
Scripture is my moral code. It is proof of objective morality.
This claim is a fully entirely unsupported and subjective claim. What makes "scripture" "proof of objective morality..."? That's just an opinion claim and it's given with ZERO support.
Do you understand that this claim is unsupported, Marshal?
Do you understand that it's just a claim and you have nothing to support it, that it's YOUR subjective and unproven opinion?
Marshal also said...
There is no better source, none that you could provide and certainly none which elevates "reason" of any given person, given "reason" is totally subjective.
Correct. And YOU are using YOUR reason to read the Bible and take everything else in consideration and then, using YOUR reasoning, you are deciding with ZERO objectively provable support, that YOU have concluded based on YOUR SUBJECTIVE REASONING that YOU think there is "no better source" for understanding morality or even proving moral codes than the Bible.
For my part, I'm not "elevating" reason. I'm noting the reality that we ALL use reason to reach our moral conclusions. YOU DO THIS.
Do you understand that reality?
Or do you think you read the Bible and with NO REASONING on your part, whimsically make up your mind on what the intent of biblical authors was?
And you do this in spite of your proven inability to understand what I've said here and now today in the same language you speak and the same culture?
Marshal continued...
When you can present something more tangible than Scripture for determining what is or isn't moral
Harm is more tangible. We can SEE when someone is unjustly harmed. When someone is enslaved against their will, we can SEE the harm being done to them and how they are being denied their basic human rights. The harm is observable and EVEN THOUGH the Bible never condemns slavery outright, we don't NEED the Bible to reasonably recognize the oppression and immorality of slavery.
Is it a perfect system, recognizing when Harm has crossed over into an oppressive/anti-human rights area and where it might be reasonable? No, recognizing harm is not a perfect or provable source for understanding morality. But then, neither is the Bible. Why? Because we must use our HUMAN REASONING to understand the biblical authors' points on morality and our human reasoning is subjective and imperfect.
What are you not understanding about this?
How perfect do you think the Bible is when it comes to "proving" morality? Can we all know perfectly what the right moral decision to make in ALL instances is because of what the Bible says?
I don't think you think that.
So, WHICH behaviors/attitudes/actions/policies ARE objectively provable based solely upon "the Bible?" And where is your objective proof of that?
I'll get back to your equivocating response of November 30, 2022 at 8:38 AM later. For now, I will simply reiterate that your unwillingness to man up, get a pair and just post my comments is dishonest and typical leftist cancelling of truths you find inconvenient. Note that I don't do that with your drivel at my blog. I simply post and respond...in detail and without farting around. My comments you delete or refuse to post have the answers you demand, and that's why you don't post them.
Post a Comment