tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post3747178529676884673..comments2024-03-28T00:32:20.743-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: BlessedDan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-47409805654171293862015-11-22T16:26:59.762-08:002015-11-22T16:26:59.762-08:00[hint: the latter - no hard data exists - is the r...[hint: the latter - no hard data exists - is the right answer.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-15033390132759915102015-11-22T16:26:26.461-08:002015-11-22T16:26:26.461-08:00Here's what I asked... I repeat: Hard data, pl...Here's what I asked... <b>I repeat: Hard data, please. Your pointing to an ancient text and YOUR SPECIFIC HUNCHES about it do not qualify as hard data.</b><br /><br />Here's what you said in response (and in lieu of hard data or admitting you have none)...<br /><br /><i>From what other source can you name bring us understanding and knowledge regarding God's will for us, if not Scripture?</i><br /><br />It is my opinion that, as the Bible says, we can learn about God and God's will from holy texts, from creation, from God's Spirit, from God's law written upon our heart, from our God-given reason, even from an ass. There are many ways we might form opinions about God and gain understanding about God, even according to the Bible.<br /><br />Do you understand this?<br /><br />Carrying on then: If you are asking/suggesting, "Don't we have ONE WAY of knowing about God and that way is 'the Bible...'?" No, we have zero reason to presume we have only one way or one primary way of knowing about God.<br /><br />God has not told us this. Reason does not insist upon it. There is no hard data at all to support such a theory (and certainly not to support a belligerent demand). The Bible does not tell us this. Just as a point of fact.<br /><br />Do you understand this?<br /><br />Further, while we may learn about God's ways/will (in my opinion) in many ways (including but not limited to the Bible), we have no hard data to support any hunches/conclusions/interpretations we may form about God based upon any of these sources. Just as a point of fact.<br /><br />So, again I ask you: Provide hard data or admit none exists.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-17350552425175008922015-11-22T16:19:31.400-08:002015-11-22T16:19:31.400-08:00No, Marshall. I have told you in the past, after s...No, Marshall. I have told you in the past, after some time (2 weeks?), comments need to be approved. I have to do that to keep spam from appearing on old posts. After the time has passed, I have to personally approve of each message. I've been gone on vacation and now that I'm back, I've published these. (but not the one that said "Test," because there was no need).Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-75323489062157090422015-11-22T03:18:17.597-08:002015-11-22T03:18:17.597-08:00Have you turned off the comments on this thread?
Have you turned off the comments on this thread?<br />Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-8757030321163235462015-11-20T00:30:53.936-08:002015-11-20T00:30:53.936-08:00From what other source can you name bring us under...From what other source can you name bring us understanding and knowledge regarding God's will for us, if not Scripture? As we have been discussing that which is clearly addressed in Scripture, where else must I go to find and produce what passes in your fantasy world as "hard data"? <br /><br />The "ancient text" I reference is our only source for such knowledge regarding God's will for us and our behavior. I reference that text with the (very possibly unwise) assumption that you are a believer in God and a follower of His Only Begotten Son. I make that assumption based on your own insistence that you are such a believer and follower. Now I find (actually, now you confirm what was always quite clear) that you do not follow Scripture at all and all claims of serious and prayerful study are worthless if denying Scripture's teachings on human behavior are not "hard" enough "data" to support my position and expose your own as crap. <br /><br />Perhaps, then, what is required here is a clear and unambiguous explanation of what you mean by "hard data" necessary to argue for or against a behavior and its morality and/or relation to Christian living. You might want to provide such in supporting your unChristian position regarding human sexuality. In what way, without that apparently worthless "ancient text", can you prove or support the notions you prefer to believe are correct? Go ahead and release your methane. I'll do my best to suspend reality. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-81800884675015044682015-11-18T09:16:06.127-08:002015-11-18T09:16:06.127-08:00I repeat: Hard data, please. Your pointing to an a...I repeat: Hard data, please. Your pointing to an ancient text and YOUR SPECIFIC HUNCHES about it do not qualify as hard data.<br /><br />At this point, Marshall, it appears quite clear you have no hard data, you have your hunches that carry all the weight of swamp gas and stomach vapors. Which is fine, you're welcome to your swamp gas. Just don't expect us to accept your gas as sweet-smelling facts.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-21290538711748054112015-11-17T15:49:31.031-08:002015-11-17T15:49:31.031-08:00"Prove your hunch. Hard data please."
Y...<i>"Prove your hunch. Hard data please."</i><br /><br />Your dishonesty knows no bounds. Hard data includes Scripture itself and the many thousands of copies of the original manuscripts and teachings that have remained unchanged. Along with that, there is no record of God every altering His Will for us...EVER. So again, if YOU have "hard data" that even hints that anything of God's Will has changed, softened or otherwise allows you to perpetuate the lies you hold so dear, by all means, I'm ready, willing and eager to see it. I'll wait here. <br /><br /><i>"For instance, God (according to you) was willing to put up with polygamy..."</i><br /><br />Again you lie. Not "according to me", but according to Scripture, which you ignore to pretend He regarded it as an ideal for us to follow. In your cowardly way, you insist there must be clear language of which YOU approve to substantiate the position with which I agree, rather than man up and either submit to scholarly interpretations or provide "hard data" that renders it questionable. <br /><br />As far as David, we've dealt with this before without you offering anything akin to a reasonable alternative. God gave David EVERYTHING that was Saul's, including his wives. But there is no hint that David indulged himself. The classic response to you is with a nod to the times: what was to become of those wives of Saul if David did not support them? I suppose you would expect God to let them starve rather than to bring them under David's care and protection. What's more, while God gave David Saul's wives. There is nothing that states David took them as his own wives.<br /><br />That God tolerated some less than acceptable behaviors, such as divorce, does not in any way mean that those behaviors then became moral. That's idiotic, but typical of the desperation of one like yourself to deny reality.<br /><br />Your continued references to God commanding the killing of babies in wartime also confirms your dishonesty. His commands do make make the acts He commanded moral for us to do on our own. There is no command to kill babies in wartime, but only commands specific to a specific people in a specific time for a specific purpose of His. Thus, in the following battle after such a command was given, if God did not also command it for the following battle, it would have been immoral for the Israelites to seek out babies of the enemies to kill them. <br /><br />There is nothing that God could command that would render the action a "moral atrocity" if it furthered His own ends. It is a moral atrocity if we do it on our own without His direct command. God's Will and His commands are never immoral, never an atrocity. Abraham wouldn't have disobeyed. David wouldn't. No Biblical character considered righteous after having obeyed the strangest of commands of God would have. But Dan Trabue knows better than all those people. Dan Trabue dictates to God what is moral.<br /><br />You cannot prove any of my positions are evil. But obviously truth is evil to you if it counters your pro-immorality positions. You are of the world and unwilling as well as incapable of justifying your worldliness. You simply crap on those who defend truth and dismiss "hard data" that doesn't work for you, without ever presenting "hard data" of your own to defend your immoral and unChristian positions. Typical.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-17506843782259427542015-11-17T14:29:20.167-08:002015-11-17T14:29:20.167-08:00"Rules" for behavior, that which pleases...<i>"Rules" for behavior, that which pleases or displeases God has not changed, nor is it possible that you have any evidence to dare even hint at the contrary. </i><br /><br />Prove your hunch. Hard data please.<br /><br />But I don't think you really believe this at all. For instance, God (according to you) was willing to put up with polygamy back then. Never once is it condemned and many heroes of the faith engage in polygamy, including David who was "given" his "many wives" by God, according to your theory. <br /><br />But does that mean that you think polygamy is acceptable and a moral option (or at least not a sin) today? Or do you think it is wrong? You probably believe it to be a great moral sin, but it certainly was not in ancient times. What changed? The culture? God?<br /><br />Or how about killing the babies of our enemies? You believe God commanded it sometimes, so the act is not, in and of itself, immoral, or at least back then. I think that's what you would say. But presumably you would agree with all sane people and say that it is a GREAT moral atrocity to do it today, even in "God's name..." What changed? God? Culture?<br /><br />I don't think you think this yourself.<br /><br />But by all means, prove your hunches with hard data.<br /><br />In the meantime, if your hunches sound wildly evil to me, I will continue to ignore them and treat them as evil.<br /><br />Sorry. I can do naught else.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-39038511522538716042015-11-13T23:17:27.980-08:002015-11-13T23:17:27.980-08:00"Of course, no such verses exist, Marshall. T...<i>"Of course, no such verses exist, Marshall. That's the point."</i><br /><br />So, you're point is really that you're willing to make shit up and then argue against said shit. Is that what passes for "reason" in your fantasy world?<br /><br />What's more, to think that there is anything different about human nature today compared to human nature at the time Mosaic law was handed down from God is even worse. There is no difference. Nothing mankind has discovered has altered that. "Rules" for behavior, that which pleases or displeases God has not changed, nor is it possible that you have any evidence to dare even hint at the contrary. <br /><br />I have never merely "lifted a verse" to suppose something not actually supported by Biblical evidence. I do far better in putting together all that speaks in any way upon a subject to come to the only conclusion to which honest people truly concerned about God's will could possibly arrive. In other words, I do what you only claim to do with regards to understanding God's will as revealed in Scripture. And when I find that which is inconvenient for me personally, I don't then resort to "reason" or science to carve out loopholes through which I can force my personal preferences. I alter my preferences to align with God's will as clearly revealed in Scripture. <br /><br />And I certainly don't, and wouldn't, ignore "hard data", such as I have just provided, and pretend that such data does not exist, hasn't been brought forth and isn't clear. So to say that I am "entirely incapable of providing any hard data" is a conscious and malicious lie. I've just done so: <br /><br /><i><b>ALL</b></i> verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms. This is an absolute fact that you cannot rebut or about which you cannot provide the merest shadow of a doubt. There's no "hunch" involved here. <br />Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-40337738113114985602015-11-10T08:44:49.364-08:002015-11-10T08:44:49.364-08:00provide just one verse that renders this false. Yo...<i> provide just one verse that renders this false. You cannot because no such verse exists.</i><br /><br />I don't need to. YOU are the one saying that God has factually offered a rule about gay guys marrying. The burden is on you to support the claim.<br /><br />You can't. Thus, you are either a liar when you say you're speaking for God or you're just that deluded. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not deliberately lying, but that leaves us with a severely deluded man.<br /><br />Good luck, Marshall. I hope that your complete inability to support your claims will help to open your eyes to your delusion.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-61894678024722370462015-11-10T08:42:43.381-08:002015-11-10T08:42:43.381-08:00Of course, no such verses exist, Marshall. That...Of course, no such verses exist, Marshall. That's the point. This is not a rule book for modern living we are speaking about. There are no rules offered for how 21st century saints should live with regards to marriage, or driving cars, or smoking cigarettes or waging nuclear war or other topics. You can't just lift a verse and say, "Because it seems like (to me) that this might suggest (to me) a rule that would be good (or so it seems to me) for us today" and expect people to take it as a fact or as God's Word.<br /><br />So, seeing as how you are entirely incapable of providing any hard data to support your wild ass and immoral hunches, I will dismiss them as wild-ass and immoral.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-22906622766176407982015-11-09T15:52:06.170-08:002015-11-09T15:52:06.170-08:00Now for your lies, distortions and idiocy:
100% o...Now for your lies, distortions and idiocy:<br /><br /><i>100% of the verses addressing marriage between gay folk never ONE TIME condemn it.</i><br /><br />Submit just one verse addressing marriage between homosexuals. Just ONE, and this won't stand as rank idiocy and deceit. In my list, there ARE verses dealing with both marriage and family. <br /><br /><i>100% of the verses referencing Jesus and marriage between gay folk, he not one time condemns it.</i><br /><br />Again, no such verse exist, so your statement is idiotic and deceitful. But Jesus, who is God, DID mention the behavior in which homosexual "spouses" engage and clearly and unequivocally declared it an abomination, and He did so without regard to any context in which it might take place. Didn't He? Yes. He did. <br /><br />I could go on, but you would only ignore the truth of the point. You've got nothing in the way of "hard data" to support your immoral and unChristian position, and you have less that rebuts mine or exposes it as "mere opinion". <br /><br />I do NOT engage in cherry-picking or searching out that which supports a personal preference as you do. You're projecting and attempting to justify your own bad behavior (the distortion of Scripture). Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-34963543609036630442015-11-09T15:45:59.498-08:002015-11-09T15:45:59.498-08:00"It is opinion because there is no hard data ...<i>"It is opinion because there is no hard data to support your hunch. What about that is dishonest? What about that is mistaken?"</i><br /><br />That I've just provided hard data that I have not been dealing in mere opinion, or blatant eisegesis so typical of you. YOU, on the other hand deal in lies and distortion, as well as blatant idiocy. Let's review:<br /><br /><i>100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.</i><br /><br />This is neither cherry-picking nor opinion. It is a fact, and one easily rebutted with evidence to the contrary. It thus stands as hard data. So go ahead. Provide just one verse that renders the statement false.<br /><br /><i>100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.</i><br /><br />Again, provide just one verse that renders this false. You cannot because no such verse exists. Tales of polygamy do not satisfy due to the fact that none stand as God's ideal in the least, nor can you make it so.<br /><br /><i>100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).</i><br /><br />I know of no Biblical reference to same-sex parenting in Scripture. Do you? No, you don't. Another fact and thus more hard data.<br /><br /><i>0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.</i><br /><br />You must have tons of verses that render this statement as false. What? You don't? Thus it must be more hard data.<br /><br />Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-36304530455760429372015-11-09T12:30:47.162-08:002015-11-09T12:30:47.162-08:00In the meantime, I'll stand by the following:
...In the meantime, I'll stand by the following:<br /><br />* 100% of the verses addressing marriage between gay folk never ONE TIME condemn it.<br />* 100% of the verses referencing Jesus and marriage between gay folk, he not one time condemns it.<br />* 100% of the verses referencing polygamy never condemn it<br />* 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to polygamy in a bad or negative/condemning way.<br />* 0% of the verses dealing with nuclear bombs support using them to kill children, the way you do (with your support for actions like Hiroshima<br />* 100% of the verses in the Bible dealing with slavery accept it as a morally acceptable thing<br />* 0% of the verses of the Bible support the hair-brained and rationally self-defeating theory of Sola Scriptura<br />* 0% of the verses of the Bible support the notion that we must take Genesis as literal history<br /><br />I could go on, but hopefully, you get the point. Random cherry pickings of ancient texts do not equate with fact or "God's Word..."<br /><br />That is, the fact that polygamy or slavery are never ever ever not one time ever EVER condemned in the Bible does not mean that these are good, moral actions. The fact that polygamy and slavery is practiced by biblical heroes does not mean that they are good, moral behaviors. <br /><br />The Bible is not a rule book and you don't treat it that way when it's a behavior you are okay with. The problem is, when it comes to picking on a behavior that you hold a rather whimsical and baseless bias against, if you can find a verse that hints at support for your hunch, you're fine with citing it. But that does not make it a fact.<br /><br />It just doesn't. As a point of fact.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-12740024170138485712015-11-09T12:05:47.588-08:002015-11-09T12:05:47.588-08:00You regard any opposing position from yours as &qu...<i>You regard any opposing position from yours as "opinion" without providing any substantive alternative or reason why a given opposing position is only "opinion" and not factual. In short, it is opinion because you say it is</i><br /><br />It is opinion because there is no hard data to support your hunch. What about that is dishonest? What about that is mistaken?<br /><br />Again, and for the final time: IF you have hard data to support your wild-ass and immoral-sounding hunches, provide them.<br /><br />If you have no hard data, admit it.<br /><br />But don't get all pissy because YOU are unable to support your hunches with data. Be a man, fella.<br /><br />Given your response, though ("now you need to admit to the reality I've just presented, beginning with the reality that I've just now provided "hard data" from Scripture directly dealing with the issue at hand."), I still just don't think you understand what data is, or what reality is, or what logic is. Just because YOU PERSONALLY hold opinions about the meaning of an ancient text, does not make it a fact.<br /><br />Do you understand this?<br /><br />At this point, I think you just simply don't understand.<br /><br />Good luck with that, I don't know what to do with that level of confusion.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-44265558496754221892015-11-09T07:31:12.635-08:002015-11-09T07:31:12.635-08:00I find it sad and pathetic that you lack any shred...I find it sad and pathetic that you lack any shred of honesty and integrity. You regard any opposing position from yours as "opinion" without providing any substantive alternative or reason why a given opposing position is only "opinion" and not factual. In short, it is opinion because you say it is, not because you have proven it to be so, nor have you provided a more logical, rational or fact-based alternative. That makes things pretty easy for you to disregard opposing positions in favor of your preferred fantasies that provide for you all the room you need to believe that which is so blatantly counter to Christian teaching. How convenient. <br /><br />I've provided all sorts of "hard data", beginning with actual passages and verses that substantiate my position. Indeed, I've done so every time I've countered your ludicrous world worshiping nonsense. What's more, I'm more than mature enough to say so. <br /><br />So, if you have "hard data" to support your wish that a union of two homosexuals engaged with each other as would a husband and wife would ever, <i>could</i> ever be blessed by God, please present it. <br /><br />In the meantime, I'll stand by the following:<br /><br />* 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.<br />* 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.<br />* 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).<br />* 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.<br /><br />As God has described homosexual behavior as an abomination, without any reference to any context in which it might take place, we can then note that such behavior can also be regarded as evil and that as 1 Corinthians 13:6 notes: <i> Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth,</i> such as the truths just listed above. <br /><br />So now you need to admit to the reality I've just presented, beginning with the reality that I've just now provided "hard data" from Scripture directly dealing with the issue at hand. You won't because YOU are false, just as is your crap about my having stated opinion about what is absolute fact from Scripture. Go ahead. Point out the opinion and do so with "hard data" that refutes what I've presented. I dare you. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-13304742008593514752015-11-08T16:45:29.586-08:002015-11-08T16:45:29.586-08:00"Citing scripture" and then offering you..."Citing scripture" and then offering your opinion of its meaning IS offering your opinion. There is nothing false about it.<br /><br />Marshall, if you have ANY hard data to support ANY of your opinions we've talked about, please present them now.<br /><br />If you do not, please be mature enough to say so.<br /><br />If you have hard data to support your hunch that two gay folk loving and marrying one another, for instance, are not blessed, please present it.<br /><br />You won't because you can't. I'm just asking you to admit to reality.<br /><br />There is nothing false there, Marshall.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-70416635856172902852015-11-08T02:14:32.460-08:002015-11-08T02:14:32.460-08:00An incredibly false representation of the back and...An incredibly false representation of the back and forth between us, Dan. This is easily seen in a review of this very thread. If you want to argue anything about my position, why not stick to the topic rather than bring up something wholly unrelated to it? I have indeed supported my position by citing Scripture in rebutting your self-serving and nonsensical notion of love being "blessed". When you cannot even fathom the true and Christian concept of love, you are hardly in a position to argue that "all love" is blessed. THAT is the issue here, not anything about Genesis. <br /><br />But hey, if you need to divert from that which you cannot defend....Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-17417947562362367322015-11-07T13:14:56.889-08:002015-11-07T13:14:56.889-08:00I very specifically didn't say that Marshall w...I very specifically didn't say that Marshall wasn't allowed. I asked him to answer the question because I was asking him and because it would resolve and clarify. Do you think it is rational for him to say, "I do know that this is a fact because the Bible says so..." and me to respond, "no, Marshall, that's an opinion..." and him to say, "Nu uh! I DO know!" and me to respond, "No, Marshall, that's an opinion, not a fact..." and keep doing that? <br /><br />Marshall is claiming to be able to speak authoritatively on a topic, I'm simply asking him to do something more than assert his "facts" are facts, I'm asking him to provide the hard data. Something which obviously he can't do and hopefully, his inability to do so will kick off something in his head and he'll recognize, "Oh, it's an unprovable opinion, not a known fact," as I've been saying all along.<br /><br />Do you think this is unreasonable?<br /><br />And I've factually answered your questions, by and large, Craig. Directly, clearly, factually. That you can't see those answers does not mean they don't exist.<br /><br />So, there is no comparison. At all.<br /><br />I stand ready to answer questions and admit when I can't answer with more than an opinion. You all do not appear ready to do the same.<br /><br />But any time you think you have a question that I have not answered, by all means, ask it again. I can answer it again. Answering questions directly is a good thing, I say.<br /><br />You?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-36450075638838340612015-11-07T11:46:47.408-08:002015-11-07T11:46:47.408-08:00"No more responses, Marshall, until you prove..."No more responses, Marshall, until you prove God wants us to take Genesis as literal history. Hard data, not hunches or opinions."<br /><br />Interesting. When I told you that I wouldn't allow you any more comments until you hade answered numerous unanswered questions, you got all pissy and blamed me for not answering your questions. Now, you expect MA to do something that you clearly would not. I'm shocked, just shocked. Who would ever have remotely thought that you would be inconsistent. Demanding that others hold to a standard you refuse to hold yourself to.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-12685915464887628092015-11-03T19:52:34.562-08:002015-11-03T19:52:34.562-08:00By all means, Marshall, pick the claim of your cho...By all means, Marshall, pick the claim of your choice. Prove that there is a god that is something like the god you imagine and that this god does not want gay folk to marry, if that's the "fact" you want to support with actual data.<br /><br />The point is, you can't demonstrate Genesis is factually meant to be taken as literal history. And you can't demonstrate that there is a god similar to your imagined god that is opposed to gay folk marrying. You can not factually provide hard data for any of your fevered opinions and the reason for that is that they are mere human opinions, not demonstrable facts. And, as I have been saying, you are welcome to your own opinions, just not your own facts.<br /><br />Now, given that you can not provide any hard data for ANY of your hunches we've been speaking of, will you have the intellectual integrity and basic decency to admit that?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-46892484928092086722015-11-03T15:43:03.129-08:002015-11-03T15:43:03.129-08:00Boy. Talk about avoiding the issue!!! My initial...Boy. Talk about avoiding the issue!!! My initial objection is to your nonsensical and self-serving position on love, and after providing Scriptural support for my (and the TRUE) perspective on the issue, you now have danced so far away to demand I prove something entirely unrelated to the topic!!!! I've been deleted by you for just such an infraction. Of course this is due to your failure to respond to the Scriptural support for ANOTHER unrelated demand (Scripture inspired by God). <br /><br />So I tried to get you the proof you demand, but God isn't answering His phone right now. Do you have any alternative idiotic expectations to deflect your obligation to support your position? Or are you simply going to continue with your baseless assertions? I need to know before I continue (which will likely be a few days from now due to time concerns)?Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-90058454452603733882015-11-02T14:52:44.064-08:002015-11-02T14:52:44.064-08:00And that isn't a threat to delete or anything....And that isn't a threat to delete or anything. That's giving you a chance to settle this once and for all. Instead of you keep saying "yuh-huh, I AM telling you facts" and me pointing out, "Um, no..." over and over, just support your facts with data. That will end the back and forth.<br /><br />And, when you can't support it with hard data (and you can't), then be rational enough to acknowledge it and man enough to admit it.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-90495958694785747772015-11-02T09:52:27.011-08:002015-11-02T09:52:27.011-08:00No more responses, Marshall, until you prove God w...No more responses, Marshall, until you prove God wants us to take Genesis as literal history. Hard data, not hunches or opinions.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-34411640718678871862015-11-02T08:47:48.996-08:002015-11-02T08:47:48.996-08:00Wasn't actually finished responding to your co...Wasn't actually finished responding to your comments completely (can't wait to address the laughable Huck Finn bit---you're a hoot!), but seeing this most recent one in my email compels me to attack that first idiotic paragraph:<br /><br /><i>"You do not recognize the reality that not everyone accepts your human preconceptions and biases as a valid starting place to interpret."</i><br /><br />I most certainly and absolutely <i><b>DO</b></i> accept that. How could I not given your existence??!! You alone prove the point, but that point was never at issue. The issue is that you have yet to establish that there is anything wrong with what I infer from the clearly stated teachings over which we disagree. You offer no alternative that you've ever backed up with Scripture. Instead, you now attempt to pretend that it matters in the least that some might not believe in God at all and thus, somehow via dots you never connect, that means my position is mere opinion. Sorry pal. It doesn't work that way. <br /><br />I'll get to your most recent silly challenge when I have more time and after I've finished responding to your previous comments I've not yet had time to address.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.com