I've posted this poem before, but it seems all the more appropriate now. Just today, I was listening to a new story about the horrible conditions at Willowbrook State School that was finally shut down in the 1980s (interestingly, in part due to an expose by a very young Geraldo Rivera in the 1970s and RFK condemning the facility in 1965!). At the "school," people with developmental delays and disabilities were warehoused like cattle and treated worse than cattle.
People needed to rise up and demand human rights. Eventually, changes began to come.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willowbrook_State_School
The moral arc of the universe is indeed long and sometimes quite slow.
I'm also reminded of the need to rise up now, more than ever, for LGBTQ rights, in a nation whose conservative states are regressing on hard-won human rights wins. We won't go back.
I'm also reminded of the need to rise up as women, their families and allies, and medical personnel are increasingly having limits put upon them, human rights taken away.
Rise up, rise up, rise up! Not that you need my approval...
Rise up wild daughter of the woods
dance and romp
struggle and scream
kick and punch.
Persist. Resist. Insist. Consist
of and within your
own sweet and glorious dragon Self.
Kick at the stones and
split the sky into
one thousand shards of color
bellow in rage
fight
spin
sing.
Or don't.
Just rest and relax or do
whatever
it is your own unchained soul wants.
It IS your life. Live it by your rules.
This poet stands with you and your choices.
33 comments:
Who is "this poet"?
That's my poem.
Dan
Don't quit your day job.
Marshal has as much spiritual feeling in him as he does respect for women. Defaming an NFL quarterback for kneeling in response to police violence against black people, he praised an NFL kicker for spouting deadly misogynist spit at female graduates of a Catholic college. Marshal believes that it was simple facts from the past that are clear. But the nuns of Benedictine College - toward whom Marshal is a bigot - clapped back.
“Harrison Butker’s sexist, anti-LGBTQ commencement speech condemned by Benedictine College’s nuns: The nuns of Benedictine College condemned Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker after he delivered a controversial commencement speech deemed sexist and anti-LGBTQIA+.
“The sisters of Mount St. Scholastica do not believe that Harrison Butker’s comments in his 2024 Benedictine College commencement address represent the Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts college that our founders envisioned and in which we have been so invested,” the Benedictine Sisters of Mount St. Scholastica said in a statement on FacebookThursday. “One of our concerns was the assertion that being a homemaker is the highest calling for a woman,” the statement continued. “We sisters have dedicated our lives to God and God’s people, including the many women whom we have taught and influenced during the past 160 years.” The nuns said that these women have made a “tremendous difference in the world” in their roles as wives and mothers and through their “god-given gifts in leadership, scholarship, and their careers.”
“Our community has taught young women and men not just how to be ‘homemakers’ in a limited sense, but rather how to make a Gospel-centered, compassionate home within themselves where they can welcome others as Christ, empowering them to be the best version of themselves,” the nuns said. They rejected the “narrow definition of what it means to be Catholic” and said they want to be known as “an including, welcoming community.” We thank all who are supportive of out Mount community and the values we hold,” they concluded. “With St. Benedict, we pray, ‘Let us prefer nothing whatever to Christ, and may he lead us all together in life everlasting.”
Don't quit your day job.
Do you have anything to say on topic?
As an aside, writing poetry, writing songs, singing songs, doing art, raising a garden... we do these because they nurture the soul and bring life. We do them because we are co-creators with God, created in the image of a creator God. It's not about meeting others' approval of the art in question, it's about joy, solidarity, sharing, creation, life.
Blessed are the creators, those who share and give and bring life and joy. We should busy ourselves with that sort of grace.
I bet I'd love to hear your singing and playing some time.
Life doesn't have to destructive or oppressive all the time.
Peace.
Indeed, Feodor. It's instructive that the very people who found silently, respectfully taking a knee in peaceful protest are the same ones defending this ball player who pissed on some women's celebration.
And more than that. Called them to stick to the house and bearing children. And hated on the Catholic Church for its 1960 reforms.
1960!
Butzker and the thugs rage for the time of their dead fathers because they’re too fragile for the demands of the living world.
Fragility and fear certainly seem to be the root of what's driving much of this push back against progress. See my next post about the psychology of fundamentalism.
"It's not about meeting others' appoval of the art in question..."
Sure. That's why poets, composers, painters and performers present their craft for public viewing...to be ignored.
As to poetry itself, my limited exposure to it revealed a high degree of pretentiousness. Your poetry has always struck me thus. This
particular piece also promotes idiocy. Given the prevalence of folks "living by their own rules" and the incompatibility of one set of rules being in strong conflict with other sets of rules...those also in conflict with each other...such people have caused great harm in the world, as well as in this country.
But you pretend the blame lies elsewhere.
One more thing is the repetition of the "fragility" claim regarding people far better than the two of you. Fragility is a leftist trait as you, feo and leftists in general prove constantly. Fragile people delete and censor opposing views, for example. They see racism everywhere, for another. They even think Donald Trump is an actual "threat to our 'democracy'".
But then, you fragile little snowflakes love to project.
-Art
What a graceless, heavy, witless soul. Not because you don't like my poetry (I truly don't care), but because you don't recognize the value and view it as "pretentious," the expression of words and ideas and imagery.
That's why poets, composers, painters and performers present their craft for public viewing...to be ignored.
I write because I enjoy writing. I write poetry because I enjoy reflecting on what I've seen, felt and experienced. I create art, I write songs for the joy of creation. I do this for myself and, as it turns out, at least some others enjoy it, but that's besides the point.
I'm sure there's a range of views with artists and poets, but the ones I know - to a person (and I'm surrounded by large numbers of creative types) - do it for the joy of creation. What Marshal or Ralph or Karen happen to think of it is not the point.
Beyond that, you are free to not like the poem, but if you have nothing to say on the topic of the poem, move on. Unsupported nothingness is a waste of time, little brother.
Beyond that, you enjoy music, you see and appreciate at least some things. Maybe you should try your hand at poetry or art. Maybe it will make you a happier, more whole person. Maybe it will get you to thinking. I encourage it for everyone.
Because you're attacking and making a claim ("promotes idiocy") with zero support, I'm likely to delete this attack, NOT because you don't like the poem - again, your appreciate is meaningless as to why I write - but because you are making an unsupported claim that the notion of women (or other oppressed groups) rising up past oppression and being pushed into a box is "promoting idiocy." That is a stupidly false claim. Of course, people should rise up past any attempts at oppression. Your unsupported attack is a fart beneath a swamp, it's nothing but a swipe against the oppressed.
But perhaps you didn't understand the meaning of the poem? You tell me.
On fragility:
The modern "conservative" and especially "christian" "conservative" movement is a series of hurt feelings that they no longer have the numbers to command control of the nation. They see gay folks deciding to marry (and their allies supporting them) as "taking away" from their rights as conservatives to control the laws.
They see trans folks just living their lives openly as an affront to them because their ideology (entirely removed from the rational and the biblical) is under attack.
They see people saying "Happy Holidays" as an attack on Christmas and "christianity," because back in the day, everyone would say Merry Christmas and it soothed their souls to have that kind of power.
They see women expecting to have the liberty to make their own damned medical decisions as an attack on society, and to disagree with these conservatives is to disagree with morality and their "god," and it offends them.
On point after point, the conservatives have lost NO liberties - they can still choose to be straight, they can still choose to be boys if they were born with a penis, no one is forcing them to have an abortion or marry a guy (if they're a guy), no one is taking away their right to worship as they see fit.
The ONLY thing that is happening is that we, as a free nation, are saying to conservatives that you all can make your decisions FOR YOURSELVES, but you can't force your "religion" on others. THAT is what makes you all feel like you're under attack.
That points to the emotionally fraught, fragile nature of your views. If you don't get to decide for others, then you're under attack.
There is not much similar on the left. For us, if you don't want to have an abortion? Fine, don't. If you want to be a stay at home mom, fine, stay home. If you don't want to gay marry, fine don't marry a guy. Nothing fragile or emotional about that. It's just a live and let live, healthy, freedom-loving attitude.
You confuse people disagreeing with your demanding that you get to make all the calls as fragility, when it's only rational freedom.
Given the prevalence of folks "living by their own rules" and the incompatibility of one set of rules being in strong conflict with other sets of rules...those also in conflict with each other...such people have caused great harm in the world, as well as in this country.
Conservatives have long lived by their own rules. They denied liberties to women, to LGBTQ folks, to people of color, to others so they can create the rules for everyone that appeals to them.
THAT forcing others to live by your rules IS at least potentially harmful (often is, by nature of the oppression in that kind of system). But you deciding, for yourself, I want to marry a woman... a man... I want to drive a car/take a bus... I want to ride a bike/walk... I want to go to church/go to synagogue, NOT go to church... etc, you enjoying the freedom of self-determination IS a good thing SO LONG as you're not harming others.
Your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose, as they say.
God bless self-determination! It IS a good thing. I support that for conservatives, liberals and all others. SELF-determination.
You all trying to determine for others, that's where the harm comes in.
"...but if you have nothing to say on the topic of the poem, move on."
You must have missed the part where I said:
" This particular piece also promotes idiocy. Given the prevalence of folks "living by their own rules" and the incompatibility of one set of rules being in strong conflict with other sets of rules...those also in conflict with each other...such people have caused great harm in the world, as well as in this country."
It wasn't a long comment. How could you have missed this bit where I clearly had something to say about the topic of the poem?
"Beyond that, you enjoy music, you see and appreciate at least some things."
I appreciate all sorts of artistic things. But some artistic things are crap...some are pretentious crap. Is this some sort of suggestion that I need to appreciate all of it...yours? It should be enough for you that I appreciate you giving it a go for whatever reason. That's a good thing. I like to golf. Golfing brings me joy, even when I golf badly which is all the time (can't afford to do it enough to get much better. doesn't matter. I still like doing.).
"Maybe you should try your hand at poetry" (not my thing) "or art" (see above). "Maybe it will make you a happier, more whole person."
You seem to have this desire to believe I'm not a happy person. I have my moments, as to most all folks. But in general, I'm quite the happy-go-lucky guy. You can tell by my great insults alone! And I'm also already "whole". How can one be "more whole"? That makes no sense.
"Because you're attacking and making a claim ("promotes idiocy") with zero support, I'm likely to delete this attack, NOT because you don't like the poem"
That would be dishonest, because given your constant defaulting to "self-evident", "common knowledge", "widely known" in lieu of supporting YOUR claims, few things fit those default terms so well as the many harms caused by people following their own rules. The obvious example is criminals following rules which conflict with the rules of an ordered society. That one example alone should be sufficient support for...not a mere "claim"...but for stating a basic reality. Couples...marriages...break up because of it. That's another example. And certainly you don't even acknowledge the rules of God, pretending the Bible which presents them is not a "rule book". I can provide more unassailable examples, but I don't expect you to address any of them, either.
"... because you are making an unsupported claim that the notion of women (or other oppressed groups) rising up past oppression and being pushed into a box is "promoting idiocy.""
I clearly referred specifically to the "live by your own rules" bit, which is not at all sound advice. I never got around to speaking to any other aspect of the piece. But if need be, I can not only elaborate on my actual criticism which you clearly didn't get despite it's not being worded in an unclear manner, but on other aspects of the poem as well.
"Of course, people should rise up past any attempts at oppression."
Keeping in mind, of course, that not every complaint about oppression is really a matter of being oppressed and without specific complaints provided, it's too general to be relevant to our society. What "oppression"? I can imagine how you might respond, but it's highly unlikely to be an accurate reflection of reality.
"Your unsupported attack is a fart beneath a swamp, it's nothing but a swipe against the oppressed."
Thanks for an illustration of what constitutes "mature, respectful, adult discourse". I'm sure you'll delete me when I mirror that in my future comments.
But it's not "a swipe against the oppressed" to criticize your foolish encouragement to live by their own rules. Especially given it's such an open-ended encouragement without regard to how off the rails a given individual's "rules" might be.
Marshal:
You post artwork and poems as well as vids of you playing music. Don't try to tell me you ain't fishing for compliments.
But of course, I'm not. There is joy in creation and there is joy in sharing. Life doesn't have to be transactional. There remains joy and grace.
And of course, I'm not, on this blog that may have a handful of visitors and most of those people are those inclined to find fault and demonize. If I were fishing for compliments, I'd toss that line into more receptive waters, wouldn't I?
The best of live, love and grace is not transactional.
few things fit those default terms so well as the many harms caused by people following their own rules. The obvious example is criminals following rules which conflict with the rules of an ordered society.
In the poem, I'm clearly speaking to a person/woman/women-plural who has been kept down, oppressed, told to stay in their lane and in their "place." Those who have been denied opportunity to fly, to be free, to embrace their own true selves.
In none of that am I speaking to criminal or oppressor or abuser types who wish to "follow their own rules" to abuse and cause harm. That is a given in the Beloved Community, in the realm of wholeness and grace.
Of course, I'm not encouraging harm.
But the woman who was told by her parents she should settle for being a stay-at-home mother when what she wanted was to be a journalist or lawyer... the gay man or lesbian who just wants to openly be themselves without fear of oppression or being thrown into jail or fired from their jobs (common realities in our lifetime)... the transgender person who would be denied the option of being themselves... the person with a disability who was encouraged to "just get a job as a Walmart greeter," even though they struggled through and completed college who wants to be a teacher or coach...
To ALL those told to stay in their place, to not be too uppity, to just shut up and be quiet... to THEM, I say, Rise up and be your beautiful self.
Why? Because I'm not a jerk. Because, why wouldn't I?
Who rational would oppose such glory?
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment (because he made claims that he didn't even try to support and which were stupidly false on the face of it) said:
This again proves you know nothing of what conservatism is. Conservatives didn't invent the rules which guide them.
Of course, your rules and traditions ARE your rules and traditions, human beliefs and rules put in place by humans. YOU all are the ones who decided, "Well, we don't want a lesbian couple, a gay couple to be able to adopt a child..." that law/rule came from humans like you. YOU all are the ones who decided that gay folk should not be able to marry and kept that in force for centuries.
Of course, these human rules are human rules. All our rules are human rules. Who else would they belong to? And I know you'll be inclined to say that you get your rules from "god," but what you do is lift this verse and that verse from an ancient text and say, "What that MEANS, according to me, is that black and white people shouldn't marry... that it's morally acceptable to drop a bomb on thousands of innocent people... that it's morally acceptable to put "practicing gay people" in jail..." EVEN WHEN you read the bible (or Koran or whatever), you are STILL applying your reasoning and lifting "rules" out that YOU decided are rules we should have.
Don't be obtuse. Of course, they're your rules.
"In the poem, I'm clearly speaking to a person/woman/women-plural who has been kept down, oppressed, told to stay in their lane and in their "place." Those who have been denied opportunity to fly, to be free, to embrace their own true selves."
It doesn't matter to whom you're speaking. It matters what you're saying to them. "Live by your own rules" results in conflict...unless you're referring to the mundane, insignificant things like whether one eats corn on the cob by rotating it verses row by row, how one makes one's meals, where one prefers to shop and the like.
"Of course, I'm not encouraging harm."
Pretty damned sure I spoke of conflict. I referenced criminality only as an obvious example of the problem of conflicting rules for living. You'd server yourself better by focusing on exactly what was said as opposed to pretending something was implied. Any confusion can be clarified, so if you're unsure of a meaning, just ask.
"But the woman who was told by her parents she should settle for being a stay-at-home mother when what she wanted was to be a journalist or lawyer..."
Is this supposed to be an example of oppression? Encouraging a different path isn't oppression.
"the gay man or lesbian who just wants to openly be themselves without fear of oppression or being thrown into jail or fired from their jobs (common realities in our lifetime)..."
And there's the conflict, wherein you insist that objection to a lifestyle choice is oppression...that one must associate, hire or accommodate someone who's openly in opposition to the beliefs of another is more oppression than being forced to any of those things without consideration of the feelings and "self-determination" of the objecting party. Thanks for the help in defending my position.
"the transgender person who would be denied the option of being themselves..."
Another conflict, wherein that which is regarded by most as disorder is to enabled as normal, and again, forced upon those who believe differently that the "transgender person" (no such thing).
"the person with a disability who was encouraged to "just get a job as a Walmart greeter," even though they struggled through and completed college who wants to be a teacher or coach..."
The conflict here is demanding that others go out of their way to find, create a position and simply tolerate the difficulties of accommodating a disabled person simply because the disabled person wants a job. And again, you insist that in your capacity as employment aid you don't force anyone, but seek those who are willing makes this point nonsensical, especially given able-bodied people run into difficulties in finding jobs they want as well. You're padding your argument again with whatever you can think of.
"To ALL those told to stay in their place, to not be too uppity, to just shut up and be quiet... to THEM, I say, Rise up and be your beautiful self."
How about white conservative Christian males? Are they allowed to be their beautiful selves? It doesn't seem you give them equal rights to such at all. You call them fragile and oppressive without just cause.
"Why? Because I'm not a jerk."
That's funny.
"Marshal, in a now-deleted comment (because he made claims that he didn't even try to support and which were stupidly false on the face of it)"
That's not why, but rather you deleted it...as you always do...because you can't honestly and factually dispute what I say. What you chose to reproduce for that purpose proves that fact:
"Of course, your rules and traditions ARE your rules and traditions, human beliefs and rules put in place by humans."
This is like saying, "You need to eat something and get a good night's rest" is a human belief, tradition or rule, rather than truth.
"YOU all are the ones who decided, "Well, we don't want a lesbian couple, a gay couple to be able to adopt a child..." that law/rule came from humans like you."
We didn't merely decide...we produced studies and factual information which supported the reality that children are best served by being raised by their biological parents, or those who mirror such a set of parents. To consciously deny a child a parent of each sex is not the best option at all, and should not be regarded as if it makes no difference. YOU and YOUR kind relied on horribly flawed research, polling and other studies to pretend otherwise, and I've provided support for this many times in past discussions, so pretending it's an unsupported claim is an outright lie on your part if you intend to delete me on that basis.
"YOU all are the ones who decided that gay folk should not be able to marry and kept that in force for centuries."
"Gay folk" were always able to marry throughout history and did so in great numbers in that time. The conflict came when a tiny minority succeeded in finding rogue courts and later legislatures to pretend the word "marriage" did not mean the union of two of the opposite sex. Prior to that, since Lawrence v Texas, "gay folk" were able to form allegedly monogamous unions with each other and regard themselves as married, just as common-law opposite sex couples were already doing. Since that ruling, no one would stop them from doing so.
But objections to this arrangement were/are in alignment with the clear Biblical prohibitions against the behaviors common to "gay folk", and thus were/are just and righteous.
"Of course, these human rules are human rules."
This isn't an argument. It's a dishonest attempt to pretend the point is about civil and criminal law, rather than the notion of "following your own rules" and the consequences of a society where that is ubiquitous.
"And I know you'll be inclined to say that you get your rules from "god,""
The best, most beneficial rules...be they civil/criminal, personal or whatever, are those which flow from the Will of GOD (not "god"), not the self as you promote with your poem.
"but what you do is lift this verse and that verse from an ancient text"
It's not the age of any text which matters, but the time-tested truths which are found within it which does.
""What that MEANS, according to me, is that black and white people shouldn't marry...""
The same type of people who say this are the same type of people who say "gay folk" should be allowed to "marry" each other. Such people pervert Scripture to rationalize both of these falsehoods.
""that it's morally acceptable to drop a bomb on thousands of innocent people...""
This depends on the tradeoff. What's most likely if that bomb is not dropped? You like to pretend there's never a justification for such an act because you think you're being more holy by suggesting no such justification is ever possible. That's childish thinking about an incredibly serious situation.
""that it's morally acceptable to put "practicing gay people" in jail...""
As the great Justice Antonin Scalia observed in his descent on the Lawrenece v Texas ruling, society has a right to determine for itself what constitutes acceptable behavior and craft laws and sentencing accordingly. Note that prostitution, for example, still results in arrest in most jurisdictions in this country. Consenting adults in each case.
"EVEN WHEN you read the bible (or Koran or whatever),"
The Bible (far more appropriately capitalized than a pagan religious tome) stands apart from other religions and your routinely attempts to pretend there's any similarity to them or the people who are devoted to them is intentionally dishonest.
"...you are STILL applying your reasoning and lifting "rules" out that YOU decided are rules we should have."
Actual reasoning to object would require factual evidence to support the objection, not simply defaulting to some claim that a given rule is inappropriate or "oppressive"...given all rules are to all who don't like the rules.
As always, none of your objections to my comments actually demonstrate to any extent that my comments are in error. Your encouragement to "live your own rules" still is.
One more thing. Which rules or laws do you support which you know are in conflict with the Will of God as you believe it is?
Start with the easiest:
Which rules or laws do you support which you know are in conflict with the Will of God as you believe it is?
Not one single rule/law. That is, I strive to be faithful to God and God's way and I never, not one time in all of recorded history support ANY actions that I know are in conflict with God's ways. Or that I THINK are in conflict with God's ways/the will of God.
NOT ONE.
It's why I stand opposed to so many of your human theories about God.
Surely you understand this by now? If not, why not?
"Live by your own rules" results in conflict
So? What of it. IF there is someone who is trying to oppress/harm/damage you and you refuse to abide by their attempts at harm, YES, there is conflict. But that's a good thing. You agree with this, right?
There is not one single blessed thing wrong with conflict WHEN one is standing against oppression or harm. Rational people everywhere can agree with this.
I'm not sure of your point on this.
Pretty damned sure I spoke of conflict. I referenced criminality only as an obvious example of the problem of conflicting rules for living.
You spoke of conflict as in disagreeing with what, for instance, some conservative fundamentalist thinks someone else should do with their lives. And you gave the example of criminal behavior as an example.
I simply made clear that what I'm speaking of when I speak of following your OWN rules is standing in opposition to oppressors, NOT encouraging people to do harm.
Did you not understand that?
Is this supposed to be an example of oppression? [telling a woman to be a stay at home mother instead of a lawyer] Encouraging a different path isn't oppression.
Spoken as if one belonged to the oppressing, privileged class. When one is in and has historically been part of an oppressed group, where ONE group (white men, especially white men in positions of power) has significantly more power than another group (women, for instance), then of course, the ways that women have been told to "stay in their place" is an example of oppression.
It has everything with who is in power.
We're not talking about, "Oh, I really think you'd like chocolate ice cream if you give it a chance." We're talking about adults in power and with the money and who make the rules telling women what to do with their lives and choices. You'd know that if you listened to women or were familiar with and in solidarity with other traditionally oppressed groups.
And there's the conflict, wherein you insist that objection to a lifestyle choice is oppression.
When privileged men in power tell LGBTQ folks, women, black people, immigrants what they should - must - do, it is of course, oppression. You'd recognize that if you weren't one of the privileged ones who are now all falling apart because you don't get to make the rules any more. Speaking of...
and simply tolerate the difficulties of accommodating a disabled person simply because the disabled person wants a job.
Spoken like a true oppressor who doesn't care about the needs of society or even what's in their OWN best interests, who only want to make it all about themselves, selfishly.
Your vulgar, oppressive comments will be deleted soon.
The Bible (far more appropriately capitalized than a pagan religious tome)
Another example of the conservative fragile ego... that you'd waste one single second worrying about a capital B. AS IF God has told you God wants THE BIBLE capitalized.
Here's a hint: IF there's an almighty all-powerful, thunder in his steps and lightning in his fingertips GOD OF ALL CREATION, that God doesn't give one single damn about a capital b. Or a capital g, as in god.
The Hebrew texts/language HAS NO LOWER OR UPPER CASE letters.
Stop being so lightweight in your concerns. There's an actual pervert oppressor who has a chance of being put back into a position of power and promising even more oppression, THAT is something to be concerned about.
There are tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians being killed - 40 mostly women and children who were burned to death in their tents this week - THAT is something to be worried about.
There are people dying in Haiti and Sudan and gay folks being threatened and women being denied rights to self-determination... THESE are things to be worried about?
But a pissy little b-b-b-bible? NOT something adults should worry about. At least adults without a pathetically fragile ego.
Just checking in before I hit the rack.
"Surely you understand this by now? If not, why not?"
Because you're so gravely dishonest and not very bright.
"It's why I stand opposed to so many of your human theories about God."
Which "human theory" do you think I hold which isn't actually directly Bible based...as in, what Scripture clearly says without any equivocation. And why would you stand opposed to it?
What follows this particular comment whence comes the above quotes requires more time than I have at this particular moment. But don't worry. I'll be back to shred the rest later.
Because you're so gravely dishonest and not very bright.
This is another example of you making stupidly false claims and not even trying to support them.
Whatever you may think of my opinions and my reasoning, the fact is, I've never been dishonest with you, much less, "gravely dishonest." When I've offered my opinions and answers, I've given you my truthful opinion, generally backed by facts. That you disagree with my opinions and conclusions does not mean I'm dishonest.
As to being, "bright," well, I'm perhaps not the smartest guy in the state, but I'm educated, relatively well-read, generally knowledgeable and have at least a middling bit of intelligence. That you disagree with my opinions does not make me "not very bright."
Unsupported and childish name-calling is meaningless, except insofar as how it reflects negatively on you and yours.
Which "human theory" do you think I hold which isn't actually directly Bible based...as in, what Scripture clearly says without any equivocation. And why would you stand opposed to it?
ALL of your theories about what you personally think that your god thinks ARE, by definition, YOUR human theories. God has not told you to be rude to transgender people. God has not told you to be a sexist defender of rapists and sexual assailants. God has not told you to defend Trump. God has not told you to push away immigrants and refugees. God has not told you to oppose gay folks getting married. These are ALL your human theories. Yours and those who agree with you.
I don't care what you may think that, in your opinion, the "bible" is suggesting you should think. It's still your opinion, your theories which you can't prove in any objective sense.
As a point of fact.
Don't bother saying, "yes, they are!" unless you provide OBJECTIVELY DEMONSTRATED proof for your opinions. And you can't do that so you won't. Just acknowledge it and move on. Or, failing that, just move on.
"This is another example of you making stupidly false claims and not even trying to support them."
Except for my practice of pointing out your lies as they happen. In doing so, I explain where you went wrong and you're obliged to support your claims to which I objected as being lies. I conclude you aren't bright enough to truly do so because you shouldn't have made your claim in the first place, which also validates the premise that you're not very bright.
But hey, it's easy to just disparage a statement, and thus the person making it, as being "stupidly" false, because...you know...embrace grace...and then to demand some kind of support for every statement made when you support pretty much nothing...and poorly that which you do.
"Whatever you may think of my opinions and my reasoning, the fact is, I've never been dishonest with you, much less, "gravely dishonest.""
More's the pity if you truly believe the dishonest things you so routinely say. It also validate my premise that you're not very bright.
"When I've offered my opinions and answers, I've given you my truthful opinion, generally backed by facts."
See, this is dishonest. You rarely provide anything that is more than your assertion of something being a fact, and in those rare occasions when you bring a link, the vast majority of what you provide are no more than someone else saying the same thing you're saying without them supporting it, either. And then when we get down to those rarest of occasions when there's some data...research finds it wanting as well. At this point, you simply ignore rebuttal or disparage it without a valid counter argument.
And even if you don't like what I'm saying here, you'd be well served to prevent a repetition of it by actually providing legitimate support for everything you say (or stand prepared to do so on request) with actual links to data which is unassailable, or as close to it as you can find. You would then at least be acting as you expect others to act, in a very "Golden Rule" kind of way which demonstrates a true embrace of graciousness.
"As to being, "bright," well, I'm perhaps not the smartest guy in the state, but I'm educated, relatively well-read, generally knowledgeable and have at least a middling bit of intelligence."
Well, that you can tie your own shoes is no true measure. But it's not the disagreement with your opinions which makes your opinions unintelligent. It's that your unintelligent opinions validate the premise. Unlike you, I have always argued against the obvious flaws of your opinions and claims, despite not doing it every freakin' single time one of them comes up again.
"Unsupported and childish name-calling is meaningless, except insofar as how it reflects negatively on you and yours."
I don't need to support a position, even why "childish name-calling" is appropriate every time I present again. I find you most contemptible and I've supported THAT hundreds of times, so that any variation on that theme is already covered. If your unsupported and childish response to it requests another explanation, I'll provide. The problem is I can never be assured when you'll falsely insist my comments, responses or claims are worthy of deletion and why the hell should I bend over backwards to make an honest effort for a dishonest person who changes the rules of his blog when things get too difficult?
Dan:
"When I've offered my opinions and answers, I've given you my truthful opinion, generally backed by facts."
Marshal:
See, this is dishonest. You rarely provide anything that is more than your assertion of something being a fact, and in those rare occasions when you bring a link, the vast majority of what you provide are no more than someone else saying the same thing you're saying without them supporting it,
See, THAT is where you make a false claim. It is literally not dishonest that I've given you my truth opinion about the ideas I believe in.
I honestly believe God would bless gay folks getting married. Aside from that, I honestly believe it is a matter of human rights for gay folks (women, trans folks, immigrants, the disabled, etc) to have the human right of self determination and that it's a good thing for them to hold to, these human rights of self determination.
I honestly believe that it is gravely immoral and rationally preposterous to target and kill innocent people in war time, especially deliberately knowing that tens, hundreds, tens of thousands of innocent men, women, children and babies will be killed.
I honestly believe that it is rational and moral to consider ALL enslaving of people always a grave affront to human rights and as such, a great evil.
I honestly believe that modern/medieval traditional/conservative religionists identifying as christians are not being biblical, rational or moral in their human theories and traditions about theories like "virgin birth," YEC, atonement, "inerrant bible," etc.
And not only do I believe these ideas and others that we've talked about endlessly, I've explained in some great detail over tens of thousands of words over roughly two decades - with biblical and scientific and reasoned explanations of why I believe these ideas.
It is false to say I don't actually believe it and that I'm lying.
It is false to say that I have not given my explanations for all of these ideas/beliefs.
It is false to say that I was not a conservative.
It is false to say that I have not demonstrated abundantly with actual data about why I was clearly conservative in my belief system.
And on and on.
You make claims that are false and not only that, stupidly, demonstrably false. Your claim that I'm being "dishonest" in stating that is, itself, a stupidly false claim, as I've pointed out.
Marshal, in a now deleted comment (because it was an empty and stupidly false claim, demonstrably so) said:
Now this is a problem, because to "start with the easiest", you are saying you do not oppose laws which all the murder of innocent people in utero and the sexual immorality of a select group of people you regard as not being immoral, despite the clear and unambiguous teachings of Scripture.
As a point of fact, the Bible does not take a position on abortion. ANY human theories on what the Bible says about "abortion" (WHETHER IT USES THAT TERM OR NOT - don't be obtuse) are demonstrably ONLY human opinions and interpretations and READING INTO scripture something it doesn't literally teach. Something Jesus literally does not teach. You don't even try to support this false claim and it's because you can't. It's false.
And so, deleted.
Marshal, in a now deleted comment:
You've thus far, after all these years, never provided any evidence to support that either of these two issues are permissible by God in any way.
We can't prove God's opinion about abortion. God has not told me. God has not told you. YOU DEMONSTRABLY, OBJECTIVELY can't prove your personal opinions.
Now, you have just one chance, Marshal. PROVE OBJECTIVELY in a manner that can be seen by all that God is opposed to any and all abortions.
Your next words (they can be a link) MUST be that or your comments here are done.
Alternatively, admit the reality that you absolutely 100% in no way in all that is holy and good CAN prove it objectively and that it is only your opinion. It may be the case that you think your beliefs are reasonable, BUT you must admit the reality that it IS your opinion, and not something proven.
Step up. Demostrate you are not totally delusional (like your deranged orange pervert prince). Admit you can't prove it or prove it objectively. And you can't, so just admit you can't.
How can I understand what is not at all obvious in your poem?
This poem (and picture) happens to be one of my more popular one, getting all kinds of positive feedback in social media and in places where women and others who've been oppressed read it.
Not ONE SINGLE person misunderstood it to think I was speaking of letting oppressors be free to cause harm to others. They ALL understood it to be a stand against oppression, in support of loving, gracious human rights and self-determination.
Now, it certainly is the case that many conservatives have shown themselves hostile to the notion of human rights and self-determination and such people may well be inclined to fail to understand.
I wasn't writing to you all.
Your failure to understand the obvious (especially given your years of reading my writings where I've consistently written in opposition to violence and oppression) is your problem, not a problem with the writing.
Your reaching irrational conclusions, unsupported by known data. That's on you.
Now answer the questions above in bold. Or move on and, in so doing, admit defeat.
I repeat: Now answer the questions above in bold. Or move on and, in so doing, admit defeat.
Post a Comment