Conservative bloggers, Marshal and Craig, are complaining that I "never" make my case for my positions or to explain what's wrong with the conservative's position when I engage in conversations with conservative religionists with whom I dare to disagree.
Of course, this whole blog, for over two decades, has largely been devoted to doing just that - me explaining, step by step, reasonably and looking at what the Bible says (although I don't view the bible as a rulings book in the way they do anymore), why I disagree with their human theories. They're complaining about it now, saying that another blogger, Stan, has recently posted about his theories on sin and it's "full" of biblical citations. The post:
https://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2026/05/consider-sin.html
Now, setting aside that I've been methodically disputing these human theories for years now, let me tackle it more directly from what they view is the "biblical" point of view (which is, of course, their personal human interpretations of various selected passages and how they use those interpretations of theirs to form another opinion that's not in the text.
So.
Stan:
Sin is not small because God is not small. Our culture measures sin by the size of the act; Scripture measures sin by the worth of the One sinned against. David understood this when he prayed, “Against You, You only, have I sinned” (Psalm 51:4)
I won't cover the whole of this entry, not today. But let me start here. Stan begins with an unsupported assertion: "Sin is not small because God is not small."
To which I respond, as always, says who? In this case, it's Stan who says this. Jesus didn't say anything like this nor is there a text anywhere in the Bible that says this. It's Stan's personal human take as he starts building his personal human case for his personal human theories about "sin," "Sin nature," "SIN," "Inheriting a 'sin nature' from Adam," and related topics.
It's not at all a given that "sin is not small because God is not small." I mean, if my children disobey me in some minor way and I respond, "HEY! Even though you THINK that was a little white lie, you told it to ME and that makes it BIG!" It just doesn't follow or is not a given. It's literally an unsupported theory at this point that I suppose Stan thinks he's going to support. Moving forward then.
Our culture measures sin by the size of the act. Presumably Stan is noting that we judge how horrendous a misdeed is by its awful, harmful impact on others. A person who drives 28 MPH in a 25 MPH zone is committing a civil wrong, but we DO view it as relatively minor as compared to the person who is drunk and driving 70 MPH in a 25 MPH school zone, which is a greatly bad behavior, and made worse when that person actually kills a child as a result of his bad behavior. So, YES, we do measure sin by the size of the harmful impact of that sin, and rightly so. I suspect that if we pushed Stan, Craig, Marshal, et al, they could probably agree. Genocide is vastly more evil than stealing a cookie, which barely rises to the level of "bad," much less evil. At least to rational people. Again, our conservative theorists probably can agree.
Continuing:
Scripture measures sin by the worth of the One sinned against.
There are no biblical texts that say this. Presumably Stan will try to make his case, and he begins with David repenting for his truly awful sin when he raped/seduced Bathsheeba, then arranged for the murder of her husband, Uriah. Psalm 51:
Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight...
So, yes, David says that his sin (rape, abuse of power and murder to cover up his rape) was against God only. But is that factually correct OR is David, in his penance, engaging in hyperbole?
In this case, David's sin is literally NOT against God only. He abused his power to seduce or rape this woman. He abused his power to arrange for Uriah's death so he could "have" Bathsheeba as his own wife. His sin is against many people, including his whole nation. He is NOT literally correct in this claim.
Reading Rabbis talking about this topic, they will note that David's actual crimes merited the death penalty. David was desperately pleading for his life and of course, engaging in hyperbole to sound penitent (and he probably was truly sorry, if we want to give him the benefit of the doubt.)
But that David engaged in hyperbole here is NOT biblical or rational proof that his "sin was against God alone" OR that Scripture measures sin by the worth of the one sinned against. THAT claim of Stan's is simply not supported in this verse. At all. Literally not supported. It's an extension of an idea that Stan is trying (and failing) to extrapolate out some reasoning for his personal human theory. And he fails.
Continuing, Stan made more empty claims:
He had sinned against Bathsheba, against Uriah, and against Israel, but
he recognized that the ultimate offense was against God Himself. Sin is
not primarily horizontal; it is vertical. A crime against a neighbor is
finite. A crime against the infinite God is not.
David HAD sinned against multiple people, Stan acknowledges. THEN Stan theorizes that David's claim (against you, alone, God, have I sinned) is that
a. David was making a claim that "the ultimate offense was against God..." The text does not say that. Stan is reading that INTO David's hyperbole.
b. Sin is not primarily horizontal, it is vertical" Another unsupported and empty claim. The text literally does not say that, Stan is reading that INTO the text. And again, if you read Rabbis speaking of this passage, they will not take that stand, but rather emphasize that David was desperately begging for his life.
c. "a crime against a neighbor is finite, a crime against God is not." The text does not say that, reason does not insist upon that. It's Stan's unsupported theory to try to build his case.
But he is failing on every point so far.
So, you can see that a rational person can look at Stan's theorizing and recognize holes right away, but it takes some time to wade through and play the Bible game that these Bible-as-rulings-book conservatives like to do and, truly, it's a waste of time. But I will continue for at least a bit more, later. Just to point out how devoid of both reason and biblical acuity this line of conservative religionism is.
Stan, Craig, Marshal, can you at least concede that, at least THIS far into Stan's attempt to make a case, he hasn't done it yet? That indeed, so far, as he's done is make several empty claims?
31 comments:
What you spent decades doing and what you've accomplished are two very different things. What you've NOT accomplished is to present a fact-based case for your positions or against ours. Keep trying though.
I'm doing it again, right now. Look at it and recognize the reality that none of what Stan claims are in the texts that he's cited. OR, show me where I'm wrong. Is it "coded" in there? Do I have to read the text backwards or upside down to find it? Is there a key where F=T and J=M, etc that I have to use to find ANY of what he's claimed in these texts?
FYI: Noting: "That's literally not in the text" IS biblical exposition.
What Stand relates is indeed Biblical and he uses verses and passages to back up his understanding. This is something you don't do. That is, he uses DIRECTLY related verses and passages, while you favor verses with no direct relation to that which you seek to defend.
More over, it's not at all lost on me that a guy who is trying to insist that what Stan presents is not in Scripture, you choose to boldly portray King David as a rapist, which is not in any way depicted in the story of David and Bathsheba. It's total invention which goes well beyond your typical eisegesis.
First of all, Marshal: I've already asked you a reasonable question. Answer the question or move on.
Look at it and recognize the reality that
NONE
of what Stan claims are in the texts that he's cited - those words and the intent are just literally NOT THERE. Admit that
OR,
show me where I'm wrong. (ie, show me in Psalm 51 where David or anyone opined that "Sin is not small because God is not small."
It's literally not there.
As to your latest comment...
you choose to boldly portray King David as a rapist,
which is not in any way depicted in the story of David and Bathsheba.
What I said, if you look at my words, was:
He abused his power
to seduce
OR rape this woman.
I allow that this king who had total control of his subjects,
who sent his guards to "bring" Bathseba to him
Bathsheba, whom he didn't know and she didn't know him,
so he could have sex with her (noting that SHE did not ask for ANY of that)...
I allow that MAYBE this out-of-control king DID seduce this woman who was his subject, who had no power in the situation and who did not ask for this sex... maybe it was consensual. Maybe. But that's a rather naive view. The more rational view, knowing what we do about power dynamics in times like that (and still today), is that he raped her as a benefit of his total power over her.
I'm being fair with the story that is in the Bible.
Also, this view is hardly unique to me.
https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/ad-fontes/did-king-david-rape-bathsheba/
And even though the conservatives over at GotQuestions say, "NO, David didn't rape Bathsheba..." they base that conclusion on the misogynistic theory that only violent rape should count as "real" rape. Vulgar pissants that they are.
They acknowledge there that David had the power, Bathsheba had none and didn't request this sexual conquest of King David. But she didn't "fight" it or is not mentioned that she objected, so it's not rape.
Vulgar misogynists and rapists-defenders, there.
https://www.gotquestions.org/did-David-rape-Bathsheba.html
There are many other sources. This is an in house debate and only the conservative extremists (some of them, anyway) seem unwilling to call it even possibly "rape," even while they acknowledge that she had no power and didn't request it.
My point is that it is not a out-of-hand viewpoint to note that maybe Bathsheba consented and maybe not (ie, was raped), given what the text literally says.
I'd suggest you not speak on this topic anymore, as you'll probably lean towards making some rapist-friendly comments that would only be deleted. Instead, answer the question/request put to you.
Or move on.
Oh, one last question, where you say (about "using" scripture): " This is something you don't do."
Do you acknowledge that, looking at a person's claim (Claim A) and the texts they cite and then noting, "That Claim A is literally NOT in the text," IS referencing Scripture. I'm literally looking at the verses he's cited (and going beyond that and looking at the whole chapter) and noting, "Those words and the intent of those words are literally not in the passage..."
That IS referencing Scripture. Do you understand that objective reality?
If someone says, "The bible speaks of Curse of Ham in Genesis, where it says, "When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’ " Therefore, black people are cursed to be the slaves of white people..." It is only rational, biblical and moral to say, "Um, that passage does NOT say that. You're reading into the text what the text does not say... AND even if the text SAID that, it's a bullshit, amoral crazy claim."
Right?
Just because it is so vulgar and misogynistic - this out of hand suggestion that someone is wrong for thinking D v. B could be called Rape, here are some more sources. This from someone who cites conservative religionist, John Piper:
https://margmowczko.com/a-sympathetic-look-at-bathsheba/
Or from a rabbi...
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/the-bible-says-what-king-david-was-a-rapist/
And another...
The grammar of 2 Samuel 11:4 really indicates a non-consensual sexual offense, or what we would refer to as "rape", which is something that no one has noticed, and I intend to contribute to that observation. This interpretation is supported by the surrounding context, early translations, and rabbinic sources
https://www.pharosjot.com/uploads/7/1/6/3/7163688/article_3_vol_104_1__2023.pdf
And even if, at the time, this was not considered rape (because these were misogynistic and patriarchal societies where women were more like property/chattel than free humans), doesn't mean it wasn't rape. Perhaps, back then, virgin girls who had their families killed off by invading nations truly DID think, "Well, at least I get a husband out of this" when they were forcibly wed to the invading conquerors who "chose" them... doesn't mean it's moral or rational or just, in the same way that just because enslaving people was considered normative.
We truly have and can learn to do better.
Perhaps you reacted out of gut panic and fear that I was being unfair to David and you didn't really think through. But try again. Look at the text and the wide variety of people (including some conservatives) who think this truly was a forcible sex situation (ie, rape) and acknowledge you spoke too quickly and were wrong to dismiss it out of hand.
Quick question: We now know that president Bill Clinton - who WAS a president (but not a king) with a lot of power (but not the power over his subjects that King David had) - had sex with a 21 year old intern. Do you consider THAT rape or at least rape-equivalent? I do.
Why do so many conservative religionists seem so sympathetic to sexual predators?
Or do we know that answer?
Knowing the risks I am taking, I'll note that Dan has finally come around to acknowledging that Bill Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski could reasonably be considered rape by the standard Dan articulated earlier. But is absolutely sexual harassment as defined by US criminal code.
I'll further note that Dan seems to be reducing both David and Clinton down to one "sin" that they committed, not allowing for the possibility for forgiveness or redemption. Interesting. It seems strange that YHWH would then choose that the lineage and throne of Davide/Jesus would flow through Bathsheba.
Craig...
" I'll note that Dan has finally come around to acknowledging that Bill Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski could reasonably be considered rape by the standard Dan articulated earlier. "
I've always been abundantly clear how vulgar and disgusting I considered Clinton's actions to be. Unlike y'all, I do not vote for sexual predators.
I/we had much less information going into the vote for Clinton but just the hint of sexual predatory nature was sufficiently strong that I would not vote for him. When the Lewinsky news came out, I supported Clinton being removed from office. Once again, unlike y'all, when the evidence is sufficiently strong, I am opposed to putting sexual predators in power. Y'all are not, with much more compelling evidence.
Craig...
"I'll further note that Dan seems to be reducing both David and Clinton down to one "sin" that they committed, not allowing for the possibility for forgiveness or redemption."
That I think especially harmful behavior should have serious consequences as a matter of justice, that does not mean that I don't allow for forgiveness or redemption. I just don't think we should reward rape and sexually predatory nature. Y'all disagree, given your votes THREE times for a known sexual predator. That's on y'all not on me.
I'm all about redemption and restorative justice but part of that process means consequences must be had. After all these years, y'all still don't understand my position on wrongdoing and justice.
I'll further note that for those who believe in the inherent sin nature of humanity and that it means ultimately that a 20-year-old should be punished for an eternity for the "crime" of stealing a cookie (because it suggests to you the presence of this mythical sin nature that y'all hold in your superstitions and religion) and yet y'all vote multiple times for overt cheaters, abusers of humanity, hedonists and sexual predators who are wholly and repentant.
You are swallowing the camel while straining out the gnat.
Craig...
"I'll note that Dan has finally come around to acknowledging that Bill Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski could reasonably be considered rape by the standard Dan articulated earlier. But is absolutely sexual harassment as defined by US criminal code."
Knowing that it's not likely you will answer, I'll ask you the same question I asked Marshall.
Do you consider Clinton's behavior to be rape equivalent? That is, since she gave consent, it's probably not the crime of rape, but it's an abuse of power to achieve sexual intercourse. Do you agree?
Again, knowing the risk I take of this comment being disappeared for unknown reasons (Dan's own personal version of the Nacht and Nebel Erlass), here goes.
No, I consider Bill Clinton's behavior to violate US code on sexual harassment. It might be rape adjacent as Lewinsky clearly consented (based on her testimony she intended to attempt to seduce Clinton), but I can't see "rape equivalent". I'll note that, per US law, rape is a specific offense which is defined for legal purposes and these subjective categories are meaningless distinctions. I agree that sex in the workplace, especially where one of the participants is in a position of power over the other, is literally the definition of the crime of sexual harassment. By definition the action was an abuse of power, even though Lewinsky showed intent in provoking the sexual encounter(s).
Whooooooooooooooo, tough questions. All scary.
To be clear by saying rape-adjacent, what I'm saying is that it is the same sort of grotesque, demonic abuse of power and trust that is common with rape. It is vulgar and disgusting and should be a non-starter for people in power.
I'm not saying it's a crime. Although maybe it should be its own sort of crime, common given how common it is.
Congratulations on actually answering a question. Here's another. Would you make it a crime if you could? Would you expect or demand companies to fire leaders who did this?
As always, I don't care what you are "saying". It's a phrase you've coined which has no real, official meaning or definition beyond your subjective imagination. I
I answer questions all the time, maybe you should try it sometime. Perhaps I'll go back through the recent threads and pull out a few comments worth of questions you haven't answered. It's also strange that you can somehow act as if I never answer your questions, while also bitching that my answers are too direct and two specific.
Not necessarily. Sexual harassment of this nature is already a crime, and I fail to see how making it a double crime helps. Especially with the (in this specific case) factor of Lewisnky initiating the sexual contact to some degree. I would think that a CEO who engages in sexual harassment should probably be fired. Hell, our child mayor just fired our police chief for some sort of sexual misconduct.
It is not currently a crime or a dismissible charge for a president, a senator, or representative to have sex with one of their staff members. Would you support Congress making laws that, at the least, would require the firing of any president or senator or congressperson who had sex with one of their staff? If you want to comment, we could limit it to junior members of the staff.
That last line should have read, "If you want we could limit it to junior members of staff."
Let's start with the fact that congress has been hiding millions of dollars in sexual harassment settlements for decades. As far as I have been able to tell, this is taxpayer money used to pay off those who've been sexually harassed by those in congress. Full disclosure of this should be the first step.
Second, as far as I know, sexual harassment laws apply to elected officials. Therefore this behavior is already illegal and should be treated as such.
Congress has the ability to make rules for itself (although potentially not for the Executive) regarding censure or other punishments. I have no problem with that, although good luck forcing them to do so.
Constitutionally the only remedy to remove a president is impeachment, and yu saw how well congress did with Clinton. I see no reason to change this, especially as we've seen an increase in political prosecutions over the last few years.
If a president is convicted of sexual harassment in a court of law, for acts engaged in while in office, after due process, maybe. Of course the VP who follows has the ability to pardon.
In short, while it's not perfect, I fail to see how giving the losing political party any more avenues to overturn an election is a good thing. As we saw with Gorsuch, it's completely possible to find a woman who will lie about being "raped" decades ago to achieve a political goal.
In short, make elected officials (Al Franken, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, or Keith Ellison) subject to existing law first before you start talking about adding new law.
Sexual harassment law doesn't draw distinctions based on hierarchy, why make things more complex than needed?
I repeat:
It is not currently a crime or
a dismissible charge
for a president, a senator, or representative to have sex with one of their staff members.
Would you support Congress making laws that, at the least, would require the firing of any president or senator or congressperson who had sex with one of their staff? Even if it was nominally consensual?
I made the note about junior members of staff to note the real world difference between a 60 year old politician having "consensual" sex with a 20 year old aide and a 60 year old politician having consensual sex with a senior member of his team who is roughly the same age. I think there is a world of difference and morality between the two.
For my part, I would probably not make it a crime, but Congress and the Presidential office have it entirely within their power to create internal rules that SHOULD such a thing happen, the offending man should step down and, failing that, his administration and congress should insist upon it.
And, yes, the Code of Conduct in Congress exists, but given our current state of "leaders," it should be tightened up with more enforceable consequences.
Do you agree?
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, if you repeat yourself then it somehow makes your comment more serious or something.
"Would you suppprt Congress...staff?"
I answered this above.
"Even if...consensual?"
1. This is a completely new question, as far as I can tell, not a repeat.
2. My response above contains the answer I would give here if I was so inclined.
As usual, what you think is irrelevant to anyone but yourself and your subjective opinions about morality have no bearing on what is or is not legal.
Again, I simply don't care about what you would do as we've seen how you apply one standard to GOP elected officials who transgress your moral code, than you do to DFL members.
"Do you agree?"
If they don't enforce the current congressional rules, why would "tightening" them make a difference?
It is the horizontal sin which the vertical judge judges. Christ sacrificed himself because the triune God loves the world and hates the evils of brutalities against the world. Jesus identifies WITH the oppressed. Jesus REPRESENTS the abused. Jesus does not erase horizontal brutality. We cannot injure God! There is no vertical sin without horizontal sin.We do violate God’s justice when we injure human persons, human communities, and God’s creation. Horizontal sin need not be outwardly directed. Inward brutality - which is necessarily included in outward wrong, is horizontal sin which violates God’s justice. God’s justice is an attribute of the divine which serves love. Horizontal sin violates justice. And the vertical judge judges because the vertical judge identifies with us.
Matthew 25
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left….
Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels…
Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’”
___
What is the telos, the goal, of all the gifts of grace - beyond faith! - which Christ gives us?
2 Peter 1
“His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants of the divine nature. For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with LOVE.” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is the Thugs (like Craig) - brutalizing the Other - who brutalize themselves every day. Which God abhors. They destroy the image and likeness in which they are made. They refuse to accept love as the Divine principle. They want law.
That’s why they want the US and Israel to conquer all their enemies.
They believe in a God contained by stone tablets. This is not faith. It’s ideology.
"(ie, show me in Psalm 51 where David or anyone opined that "Sin is not small because God is not small."
It's literally not there."
Once again as always, nothing is required to be worded in a manner demanded by you in order for a claim or interpretation to be valid and accurate. Your opposition to Stan's position that "Sin is not small because God is not small", is because you need it to be false in order to allow for the sins you champion. Is it your position that God is small or that sin is?
"What I said, if you look at my words, was:
He abused his power
to seduce
OR rape this woman. "
I looked at your words and questioned your choice to even mention rape at all, given it was not a rape situation at all. You simply want it to be one. But even the word "seduce" doesn't suggest force of any kind or even an abuse of power. Looking at the story as written, where is she described as forced, non-consenting, or objecting in any way? While David's actions were clearly inappropriate and sinful, that should be enough for an honest reader. To add your own ideas into the story is inappropriate as well.
"The more rational view, knowing what we do about power dynamics in times like that (and still today), is that he raped her as a benefit of his total power over her."
That's not "rational" because it comes from your own black heart which desires to disparage people of power and wealth. What's "rational" can only be that which is drawn from the story itself. Her purifying herself suggests an understanding of her obligations as a Hebrew woman under God's Law. That Law requires her to resist rape in order to not be seen as consenting. There's no evidence in the story she balked in any way. No mention that she begged her King not to "seduce" her (which alone doesn't require force of any kind, including implied by virtue of any "power dynamic"). No mention that she expressed her discomfort with the idea at all. Given the ancient language has words for rape and sexual abuse, none are used in describing this sinful act. The episode is written as an invitation accepted by Bathsheba.
It's also "eisegetic" to describe David here as "this 'out-of-control' king" as if he's a total Clinton. That's absurd. He was tempted and acquiesced to his temptation. Then he sought ways to cover it up. THAT might justify the accusation, but it comes AFTER his initial sin of having sex with a married woman. Thus, it's unwarranted hyperbole.
"I'm being fair with the story that is in the Bible."
No. You're not.
"Also, this view is hardly unique to me"
Doesn't matter how many people argue for the same lame angle, nor does it matter who it is who does it. It wasn't a rape situation in any way, shape or form. Your insistence that men of power are always evil when doing what men of lesser status do as well is just your marxist dishonesty. Once again, it's quite enough to note that David sinned in merely seeking to have sex with a married woman, to say nothing of succeeding. That it's not enough for vulgar pissants like you is not at all surprising.
"And even though the conservatives over at GotQuestions say, "NO, David didn't rape Bathsheba..." they base that conclusion on the misogynistic theory that only violent rape should count as "real" rape."
It's based on the fact that he didn't rape her. Nothing more, nothing less. It's only vulgar pissants who suggest conservatives view rape as you dishonestly suggest they do. Conservatives see rape as a violent act. The word denotes force, and it doesn't require slapping the chick around. And while I use your term "vulgar pissant" against you, you have far less justification for daring to whitewash conservatives as misogynists in order rationalize your use of it against us.
"My point is that it is not a out-of-hand viewpoint to note that maybe Bathsheba consented and maybe not (ie, was raped), given what the text literally says."
And my point, which considers not only the text as written, but the Law which obliges a woman to act in a certain way when a man attempts to force her into having sex she doesn't want, LITERALLY doesn't indicate or imply a rape took place.
"I'd suggest you not speak on this topic anymore, as you'll probably lean towards making some rapist-friendly comments that would only be deleted."
I don't indulge in "rapist-friendly" comments. I don't even "lean" towards anything of the sort. Rather, you intentionally project upon me such things because you need your narrative to be accepted as "reality" when it's doesn't even rise to a level of evidence-supported opinion. It's intentional dishonesty, be it about those like me, or about your perversion of the David/Bathsheba story. I don't care if you delete me for defending myself against your lies. Lying is what you do and you delete to hide it. It's YOU who should no longer speak on this topic until you can do so in an adult and honest manner.
"Do you acknowledge that, looking at a person's claim (Claim A) and the texts they cite and then noting, "That Claim A is literally NOT in the text," IS referencing Scripture. I'm literally looking at the verses he's cited (and going beyond that and looking at the whole chapter) and noting, "Those words and the intent of those words are literally not in the passage..."
That IS referencing Scripture. Do you understand that objective reality?"
I understand you want it to be reality. I see nothing which compels an honest person to accept it as such, particularly since you provide no evidence anyone should.
It's not "referencing Scripture" to say Stan's citations in support of his premise doesn't do so in your poorly functioning mind. The reality, objectively speaking, is that the verses do indeed his premise that "sin is not small because God is not small." Scripture certainly presents sin as being quite a significant act of rebellion against God, while also presenting God as being far beyond mortal men to the extent that we can't know Him with perfect accuracy. Stan's selection of citations support both and more importantly, Stan never said that "Sin is not small because God is not small" is a Biblical verse. YOUR understanding does not make Stan's incorrect, objectively or otherwise. The true "objective reality" is that you disagree with Stand, can't bring yourself to mount an actual counter argument, and thus you satisfy yourself by daring to suggest only you have a grasp of "objective reality", whatever you need that to be at any given moment.
Here's a fantastic example of "irony" (knowing how much you love irony):
"If someone says, "The bible speaks of Curse of Ham in Genesis, where it says, "When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’ " Therefore, black people are cursed to be the slaves of white people..." It is only rational, biblical and moral to say, "Um, that passage does NOT say that. You're reading into the text what the text does not say... AND even if the text SAID that, it's a bullshit, amoral crazy claim.""
Rather than your suggestion that this represents your issue with Stand, it is an incredibly perfect analogy of your "Scriptural" defense of SSM! Also wildly ironic is how the best analogy you've ever composed is one which indicts YOU rather than Stan! I LOVE IT!
"Just because it is so vulgar and misogynistic - this out of hand suggestion that someone is wrong for thinking D v. B could be called Rape, here are some more sources."
What's vulgar and misogynistic is your exploiting the term rape to attack and disparage better people. Rape means something specific. Women and girls have suffered greatly due to rape and you're vulgar in playing fast and loose with the word to push your anti-conservative narrative.
" And even if, at the time, this was not considered rape (because these were misogynistic and patriarchal societies where women were more like property/chattel than free humans), doesn't mean it wasn't rape."
The time period is neither here nor there. It wasn't considered rape because it wasn't a rape situation. If it had been, it would have been described as such, as it was in 2 Samuel chapter 13. David's son certainly had power and status, even over one of David's daughters. Tamar resisted and rebuked Amnon's advances as she was supposed to. He raped her and Scripture was not coy about calling his actions rape. So there is no legitimate argument for calling David's adultery with Bathsheba a rape situation.
Your captive girl opinions have no relevance to this story. It's wholly unrelated and not a parallel of any kind. Your desperation is showing.
" Perhaps you reacted out of gut panic and fear that I was being unfair to David and you didn't really think through."
I'm sure you'd like that to be true, and thus you're projecting onto me YOUR panic at once against being exposed as wrong in your understandings. I don't need to look again at the story because the words won't change. I've read plenty on this debate and those who call it a rape story are wrong. I didn't speak to quickly. I recognized another of your typical mischaracterizations of Scripture in suggesting the David/Bathsheba story could be a case of rape. It isn't and you've failed miserably to make it one. Once again, it's bad enough David sought to have sex with her and then did. Even if he didn't have Uriah killed it would still be bad enough. But David did make it worse by having him killed after his attempts to compel a cover story failed. There's no need for yokels like you to make it a rape case and you insult all actual victims of rape by doing so just to appease your hatred of the powerful.
"We now know that president Bill Clinton - who WAS a president (but not a king) with a lot of power (but not the power over his subjects that King David had) - had sex with a 21 year old intern. Do you consider THAT rape or at least rape-equivalent? I do."
Of course you do, but you're opinion on such things is always twisted. Again, why isn't adultery enough for you? And Lewinsky claims she was up for it. So it was totally consensual. If the woman is eager, then the level of the position of power means nothing, but that he had opportunity. She wasn't pressured in any way. No rape. Not really even an abuse of power with regard to his status over her.
"Why do so many conservative religionists seem so sympathetic to sexual predators?"
We aren't. That's just what you need to tell yourself due to your obvious shortcomings as a progressive who isn't devoted to God at all. So that's the answer. You need to project onto better people evil intent and actions where none exist just to pretend you're moral and morally superior. So you make wild and unsupportable accusations and don't even try to support such claims as you demand we support absolutely anything we say.
It is truly strange to me that someone like Dan could so regularly use various examples of rape of his most heinous human action, yet seems utterly uninterested in or concerned with the thousands of rapes (many of children) throughout the UK (and Europe). You'd think that this sort of rape on an industrial scale (along with the UK "justice system" often blaming or charging the victims, would outrage Dan. That he'd write volumes on the evil being perpetrated against innocent women, girls, and boys. Yet, he seems more upset by David's possible rape of Bathsheba than the rape gangs in the UK.
Marshal, your comments will soon be deleted. I've asked you to answer a question and you haven't. I'll repeat it below. But in the meantime, regarding the question of whether or not David raped Bathsheba, you claim, petulantly:
It's based on the fact that he didn't rape her. Nothing more, nothing less. It's only vulgar pissants who suggest conservatives view rape as you dishonestly suggest they do. Conservatives see rape as a violent act. The word denotes force, and it doesn't require slapping the chick around
The QUESTION is "Did David rape Bathsheba?" It's a logical question begging fallacy to just proclaim it, as if you were the final authority on the meaning of the text and the historical event that occurred. You're not.
Your answer is a logical fallacy, you lose.
YES, rape is violent and NO, it does not always require physical abuse (of course, beyond the rape itself, which IS a violent physical abuse.)
If a slave, if an underling, if a subject of the king is called to the king, brought there by his soldiers, and the king performs a sex act against her will, that is rape. Not all rapes involve direct threats or beatings or weapons.
How do you get to be an adult and NOT know this?
Jefferson RAPED his slave, Sally Hemings when she was FOURTEEN. As a child and a slave, she could give NO consent. It was, by definition, a forcible rape.
You aren't so evil as to think or say out loud, "Sometimes, when a man beds down a child of 14, it's not rape..." Are you?
But I think we know the answer to that. Aren't you one of the ones who have infamously, vulgarly said, "Some teenaged girls LOOK like women!" in defense of child rape?
Likewise, a king's subject, brought to the king's bedroom by his guards, is not in a place to say, "NO," whether or not the text points that out.
Now, as a rational person, I will allow that we can't tell from the text. Maybe there was more to the story. Maybe she DID want to sleep with David, the text does not say. But it likewise does not say gave consent. ALL we know, from the story, is that David (who confessed his awful sin in all of this quite clearly - he was NOT acting as a man of God in this whole endeavor) had his guards bring a subject to his bedroom where they had sex. We don't KNOW if it was consensual or not, the text does not say. Period.
Stop question begging.
Now, the question you still haven't answered... in the next comment.
Here's the question. Answer it:
NONE
of what Stan claims are in the texts that he's cited - those words and the intent are just literally NOT THERE. Admit that
OR,
show me where I'm wrong.
Your only close response was not an answer. You claimed, with no support and without answering the actual question:
Once again as always, nothing is required to be worded in a manner demanded by you in order for a claim or interpretation to be valid and accurate. Your opposition to Stan's position that "Sin is not small because God is not small", is because you need it to be false in order to allow for the sins you champion.
I've made clear multiple times that when I ask you to SHOW ME where it says that, I'm not looking for the exact quote. It could be stated in another way using other words. But the "Sin is not small because God is not small." idea is not expressed IN ANY words in that passage OR in any of the other passages he cited.
Now, all you have to do, if you want to comment here, is show me where YOU IMAGINE someone is using other words to convey that message. OR just admit that idea is not in any of those passages, and certainly not in Psalm 51.
You also appear to be trying to deal with that question here, but you do so by just repeating the same empty and unsupported claim that Stan is saying:
Scripture certainly presents sin as being quite a significant act of rebellion against God, while also presenting God as being far beyond mortal men to the extent that we can't know Him with perfect accuracy.
Yes, that IS what STAN is saying and then he cites Psalm 51.
Where in Psalm 51 does God say that all sin is large and that all sin is rebellion against God?
Here's a hint: WHO is talking in Psalm 51? David, or God? (Hint: It's David.)
WHICH sins is David speaking of? HIS personal atrocious sins in seducing/raping a woman and killing her husband OR is David speaking about all sin?
Where in Psalm 51 does God say that all sin is large and that all sin is rebellion against God?
Just go to your little magic Bible, find the verse(s) and copy them down here. That's all you have to do. And you'd do it, if you could. But you can't because it's just not there. That's why you're resorting, instead, to this obfuscation.
At the end of that last comment from you, you asked this question:
Is it your position that God is small or that sin is?
Neither. SEE how easy it is to directly answer a question?
My point, which should be clear, is that you all are fashioning a human theory about a salvation scheme that needs for any sin, even ONE SMALL sin, to be somehow worthy of eternal torment. And my point is that this is a human theory, not a teaching from God. AND that it is a morally and logically failed human theory, at that... not only NOT biblical, but a blasphemous slander of a perfectly loving, perfectly just god.
Do you think that even one sin - something small like stealing a cookie - requires eternal? Because you imagine/theorize that this cookie-taking is not just a small little sin, but it is, instead, a rebellion against God... a slapping of God in the face, if you will?
Or, if not that, is it that you think the small cookie stealing sin is pointing to a "sickness" in humanity, this "sin nature," you mythologize and having a "sin nature" is worthy of eternal torment?
Answer questions or move on.
Post a Comment