tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post3978881250120565876..comments2024-03-29T12:55:03.780-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: Age of ReasonDan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-72560892755085210092016-01-17T03:36:16.917-08:002016-01-17T03:36:16.917-08:00"You would not think so when someone says tha...<i>"You would not think so when someone says that about the Quran, why do you think you should be given a pass when you put forth some crazy-sounding hunch about the Bible?"</i><br /><br />Two problems here:<br /><br />1. I do not equate the Bible with any other alleged "holy book" of any other alleged religion. So if someone wants to cite the quran (which spelling do you want to use now?), they'd be lacking for having no evidence that their god is real. Basing beliefs on a falsehood is not compelling. But...<br /><br />2. There's nothing "crazy-sounding" about acknowledging what a verse is clearly teaching us. And here, I'm citing Scripture because I'm supposedly about what God does or doesn't oppose speaking to someone who claims to be a Christian. What's crazy is suggesting without the slightest shred of evidence, that the verse does NOT speak only of the act of homosexual behavior. You <i>want</i> it to mean "some form" of homosexual behavior, but you have no evidence, certainly no "hard data" to support that demonic wish. <br /><br /><i>"On what basis is your hunch more reliable than the other person's hunch?"</i>.<br /><br />Regardless of how badly you need it to be, it is not a hunch. It is an accurate and faithful representation of what the verse says and means.<br /><br /><i>"You have no hard data. Not any."</i><br /><br />At this point you likely know that isn't true, but you will still contend that all that has been offered is not hard data. This won't be because it actually isn't, but because you simply can't have any hard data that proves your unholy beliefs are wrong and directly in rebellion as regards Christian teaching on the subject of homosexuality. <br /><br />I will not be responding to your childish denials with regards to my hard data and evidences. I will respond to hard data of your own, if you can actually provide any.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-25585213970456752902016-01-17T03:35:31.099-08:002016-01-17T03:35:31.099-08:00"The point is, Marshall, you do not take ever...<i>"The point is, Marshall, you do not take every word in the Bible literally."</i><br /><br />You demonstrate once again that you have no idea what it means to "take the Bible literally". It does not require taking every metaphor, every rhetorical flourish, every bit of hyperbole (commonly used method of teaching back then) literally in order to take the Bible literally. What you're doing is not accidental. It is a willful attempt to be deceptive or to disparage those of us who are serious about abiding God's will.<br /><br /><i>"Jesus said to sell your belongings, give it to the poor and follow him, but you have not sold your belongings to give to the poor, have you?"</i><br /><br />Why would I? He was talking to the rich young man. You really should read the Bible sometime.<br /><br /><i>"Jesus literally said do not store up for yourself treasures here on earth, but you probably have no problems with bank accounts to store up your treasures, or with investing to store up treasures here on earth. "</i><br /><br />Because I actually read entire chapters, not just bits from some socialist playbook. In doing so, I know the point is, as He says, "but first store up treasures in heaven". This I strive to do, as imperfectly though I may. Thus, I am taking the lesson literally.<br /><br /><i>"The same goes for your favorite five-ish verses that seem to say something about some gay behaviors in some contexts."</i><br /><br />No. They don't talk about "some" homosexual behaviors. That's what YOU want and need it to mean. Those verses merely talk about homosexual behavior...PERIOD.<br /><br /><i>"You interpret it to mean something it does not say - that God opposes gay guys marrying."</i><br /><br />Again, no need to interpret what is crystal clear. And from that crystal clear teaching, we can know that God would not then bless, condone, celebrate or be happy about two homosexuals committing to each other in a manner common to normal people who marry each other. It would be, and is, illogical.<br /><br /><i>"As I pointed out, people can point to the Bible or the Quran and GUESS or SAY that "therefore, this means X" but that does not mean that it DOES mean it."</i><br /><br />As I stated in the other post, I <i>KNOW</i> what Scripture says and what I know is supported by thousands of years of scholarship. Therefore, I do not merely insist any verse means what it says merely because I say so (though in this case, there's nothing more that I need given how crystal clear the prohibition is).<br />Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-71969721581265457822016-01-16T08:36:21.331-08:002016-01-16T08:36:21.331-08:00don't worry about attaching meaning because th...<i> don't worry about attaching meaning because the meaning is so clear, based on the words used and the order in which they appear in the sentence, as well as how that sentence fits in with the context that surrounds it. </i><br /><br />The point is, Marshall, you do not take every word in the Bible literally. Jesus said to sell your belongings, give it to the poor and follow him, but you have not sold your belongings to give to the poor, have you? Jesus literally said do not store up for yourself treasures here on earth, but you probably have no problems with bank accounts to store up your treasures, or with investing to store up treasures here on earth. You do not take every line literally, not even when it's Jesus saying it. You INTERPRET.<br /><br />The same goes for your favorite five-ish verses that seem to say something about some gay behaviors in some contexts. You interpret it to mean something it does not say - that God opposes gay guys marrying. But you have no data other than your interpretation to support it. You and those who agree with you THINK - you GUESS, you SURMISE, you BELIEVE, you INTERPRET it to mean what you think it means, but that you all do that does not make it a fact, nor does it make those words you thus interpret to be hard data.<br /><br />As I pointed out, people can point to the Bible or the Quran and GUESS or SAY that "therefore, this means X" but that does not mean that it DOES mean it. You would not think so when someone says that about the Quran, why do you think you should be given a pass when you put forth some crazy-sounding hunch about the Bible? On what basis?<br /><br />It's a given that it's not the basis that "just because that line is there in the Bible, we can know my interpretation and extrapolation of that line is valid" because YOU DO NOT THINK THAT. If someone points to Jesus' "Do not store up treasures" and extrapolates, "no savings" YOU DO NOT THINK that is hard data to support the conclusion. On what basis is your hunch more reliable than the other person's hunch?<br /><br />You have no hard data. Not any. You do not appear to understand the meaning of hard data.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-23526944941626882982016-01-16T02:03:10.982-08:002016-01-16T02:03:10.982-08:00Well, we who strive to be honest and honorable peo...Well, we who strive to be honest and honorable people of character don't worry about attaching meaning because the meaning is so clear, based on the words used and the order in which they appear in the sentence, as well as how that sentence fits in with the context that surrounds it. In short, only one who does not like what it actually and truly means would dare suggest that anyone needs to wonder about what meaning should be attached to the text. <br /><br />Where is your hard data to prove the message the words convey is in any way in doubt? <br /><br />Your infantile argument is that while the text literally says one thing, it means something else. OK. Is the statement a metaphor for something else? Prove it. Is allegorical, hyperbolic, a figure of speech, all to put forth some meaning other than "do not engage in homosexual behavior"? Let's see your hard data. The verse says not to engage in a specific behavior because it is an abomination. What else could it mean if it doesn't mean that one shouldn't engage in that specific behavior?<br /><br />In typical Dan fashion, I provide hard data for which you want hard data. Perfect.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-53430142135064293002016-01-06T17:51:20.668-08:002016-01-06T17:51:20.668-08:00you say "absolutely it is if what it proves i...you say "absolutely it is if what it proves is what scripture says (or what God says);about a given point."<br /><br />And that's the problem. No one is disputing a text says what it literally says. What is in question is what meaning do we attach to the literal text. <br /><br />You say it means that God thinks one two or three. that is your claim that is not supported by data.<br /><br />Where is your hard data to prove that the text means what you think it means about what God's opinion is?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-26904397880153685882016-01-06T08:26:32.076-08:002016-01-06T08:26:32.076-08:00"Again, and for the last time, pointing to ve...<i>"Again, and for the last time, pointing to verses is not hard data."</i><br /><br />Of course and absolutely it is if the what it proves is what Scripture says (or what God says) about a given point. If you wish to rebut my hard data, you need to bring your own to demonstrate why the interpretation I know is accurate is actually not. You never do this, but merely assert that what I've presented is no more than my own opinion or hunch. But you've got nothing but your own assertions that what I present is only hunch or opinion. You're not only a liar, but a cowardly one at that. More so, a <i>childish</i> cowardly liar, defaulting to "Nyuh uh" rebuttal and simply denying that the hard data I present is hard data. Not nearly good enough for someone who claims he seriously and prayerfully studies Scripture and uses reason to figure it out. Let's see some of that reason upon which you rely so heavily to contradict God's clearly revealed teachings. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-4220171129559475702016-01-04T18:54:17.267-08:002016-01-04T18:54:17.267-08:00Again, and for the last time, pointing to verses i...Again, and for the last time, pointing to verses is not hard data. Further, pointing to your interpretations of passages is ONLY pointing to yourself.<br /><br />And you ain't god.<br /><br />And your hunches are not hard data.<br /><br />Goodbye.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-72689403017077902392016-01-04T16:03:06.871-08:002016-01-04T16:03:06.871-08:00"Prove your "fact" with data, pleas...<i>"Prove your "fact" with data, please."</i><br /><br />I just did that, Liar. Note again the verses to which I referred. They indicate that God's position on those behaviors was already in place. No later verses have ever so much as hinted that His position has ever changed. There's no "assumption" about His position when He had said that engaging in those behaviors even defiled the very land in which they lived. That's pretty severely sinful. Therefore, I demand that you present the verses that suggest that God has changed His mind on the severity of the sinfulness of any of the prohibited behaviors of Lev 18, particularly homosexual behavior. <br /><br />I also demand that you demonstrate anywhere in Scripture that even hints that "marriage" could possibly allow for any arrangement other than one man/one woman. I've presented facts that support my position. I can provide more, but really, why should I when you refuse to provide just one...EVER...for anything you wish was true regarding SSM. <br /><br />The true hateful-as-hell attitude and positions are yours by suggesting my positions are "dumb-as-a-brick and hateful-as-hell assumptions, presumptions, opinions and wild-ass guesses" simply because the truth is inconvenient for you. When will you demonstrate the grace you insist is so important by doing ANYTHING you demand of others? I don't see that ever happening because you cannot support any opinion you hold, and haven't the courage to simply admit that you reject the clear teachings of Scripture on this matter. <br /><br />Thus, I can only admit the truth: I've presented data hard enough as it is. You've done no more than simply, like a small child, denied, rather than like an adult, countered with ANY data, hard or soft, of your own. You're a clear and obvious liar and defender of sexual immorality, and thus not the least bit a devoted follower of Christ. And your own comments stand as "hard data" for that fact.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-21645555372244489722016-01-04T10:09:35.505-08:002016-01-04T10:09:35.505-08:00you ignore the fact that behavioral laws are unive...<i>you ignore the fact that behavioral laws are universal. </i><br /><br />Prove your "fact" with data, please.<br /><br />This is the hole in your reasoning, Marshall. You want to conflate your dumb-as-a-brick and hateful-as-hell assumptions, presumptions, opinions and wild-ass guesses with "fact." Stop it.<br /><br />Present hard data to support your hunches or, when you can't, admit as much.<br /><br />Failing that, move on. You're done here.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-56398391021888969712016-01-04T07:49:26.527-08:002016-01-04T07:49:26.527-08:00Your response is pathetically inane. While the pr...Your response is pathetically inane. While the prohibition was amongst that which was handed down to the people of Israel, you ignore the fact that behavioral laws are universal. We can see this in the very chapter this prohibition is found. Lev 18:3...<br /><br /><i>"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."</i><br /><br />Apparently, by your "logic and reasoning", the sexual behaviors prohibited Israel were just peachy for everyone NOT in Israel. Yeah. That makes perfect sense.<br /><br />This demonstration that God was not keen on the practice of homosexual behavior, as with all others listed in the chapter, is reiterated later in verse 24...<br /><br /><i>"Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled."</i><br /><br />Engaging in these behaviors defiled the people of the other nations. I guess, however, if your "reasoning" is to be trusted, that from this point on, it was A-OK for other nations, but <i>not</i> the tribes of Israel, to indulge themselves in these ways. Of this we can be absolutely certain based on all of the "hard data" you have yet to present, which will bear this out. So despite the fact that in verse 27 it says...<br /><br /><i>"...for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled."</i><br /><br />I see. Such behaviors only defiled Egypt and Canaan and other nations that God would drive out before the 12 tribes, yet somehow, it is OK for people today to get jiggy with the wife of one's father, or any of the other sexual behaviors forbidden Israel. <br /><br />Clearly, factually, literally, that rule is indeed a universal rule for all times and all people, according to the text. This is even more apparent than the prohibition against murder, as it does not refer to this behavior as a reason why God was driving people out of their lands, destroying them or that murdering defiled the people and the land itself. But the sexual sins of Leviticus 18 did just that. <br /><br />So you think marriage is good for reasons that are never listed anywhere in Scripture for why ANYONE should marry. Nothing in the text mentions the promotion of "healthier, stronger families and communities" as a reason for uniting. No "hard data" is provided for this fantasy wish. You assume it without Scriptural cause of any kind. <br /><br />But let's assume it is the case. Where in Scripture can we look to find any hint that "marriage" could possibly mean the union of merely any two people, rather than what the word actually means...the union of one man and one woman? Where's the "hard data"? <br /><br />Lacking, as you do, <i>that</i>, where's the "hard data" that suggests God's will for homosexuals today would be any different than it was back then? It's not "marriage" you support. It's sexual immorality. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-82683908295741947312016-01-03T19:50:27.949-08:002016-01-03T19:50:27.949-08:00That is to say, if marriage is the only appropriat...<i> That is to say, if marriage is the only appropriate context for "sexual expression", then what makes you think this prohibition concerns itself with any non-marital (or "non-marital-like") scenario?</i><br /><br />The rule (from God, if that's the case) specifically to the ancient Israel nation is what it says it is. It has absolutely nothing to say to us about what God's will is for gay folk today. I think marriage is good, for gay or straight, because it promotes healthier, stronger families and communities. On the face of it, healthy marriages are a good thing. I support marriage for that reason. I'm not sure what your question means, in relation to that. Clearly, factually, literally, that rule is not a universal rule for all times and all people, according to the text. <br /><br />"This prohibition" specifically, literally, only to ancient Israelis in their literal circumstances, appears on the face of it to be directed towards practices of surrounding pagan peoples. It appears, literally, factually, specifically, biblically NOT directed to instances of marriage relationships between modern gay or straight people. Would you mind, then, clarifying your question, because I don't know what you mean, other than it seems that you are pre-supposing that this is a literal rule for all people and all times and all situations. Clearly, it isn't.<br /><br />Take your time to address the problem of your missing hard data. If and when you ever find some (you won't, it doesn't exist) please let me know. Conversely, when you realize you can't provide hard data, please be man enough to admit it.<br /><br />Happy new year.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-50805789220408509412016-01-03T15:44:42.832-08:002016-01-03T15:44:42.832-08:00Something just occurred to me whilst checking for ...Something just occurred to me whilst checking for responses to my last comments. It's something on which you can chew as I formulate my response, and might actually mitigate the need to do so. <br /><br />You like to say that Lev 18:22 refers to "some form" of homosexual behavior, but not necessarily "committed, loving and monogamous" homosexual relationships. Why would you suppose it would refer to any other kind? That is to say, if marriage is the only appropriate context for "sexual expression", then what makes you think this prohibition concerns itself with any non-marital (or "non-marital-like") scenario? It would be like saying that God prohibits adultery if one is not married to the one with whom one engages in adultery. I don't know why this most obvious angle didn't occur to me before, as the prohibition does not make sense otherwise. <br /><br /><b>Thus, the context in which homosexual behavior might take place is totally irrelevant to the prohibition as there is only one possible context in which sexual behavior is ever appropriate.</b>Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-3609713394897331552016-01-03T03:14:26.214-08:002016-01-03T03:14:26.214-08:00"Marshall, your comments appear so full of ra...<i>"Marshall, your comments appear so full of rage and bile that it seems you are no longer able to converse reasonably with me."</i><br /><br />You're incredible...in a far less than charming and gracious way. There is no rage, no "bile" and no lack of reason in any of my comments that you've ever been able to expose or demonstrate. Indeed, I quite firmly believe I've demonstrated the ideal of gracious patience with you in continuing to engage with you after all these years of your tap-dancing and self-serving rules and regs, all of which you never follow yourself or impose upon yourself when visiting other blogs. That my comments do not make sense to you is not the result of my inability to make myself clear, but the consequence of trying to keep up with your consistent tactics of deflecting away from your own responsibilities to support your positions. <br /><br />As to providing "hard data" yet again for that to which I've responded so many times, I'm taking time to decide just how I feel best to answer. I may do it at my blog so that I can do so without being distracted by you asking the same old questions over and over while I'm still in the middle of it all. What's more, these comment boxes only allow for no more than a little over 4,000 characters, so starting a new one to carry on leaves you opportunity to jump in before I've finished. As if that isn't enough, there is all sorts of ways to provide "hard data" that requires some consideration about how much to bring to bear. REAL Christians only need Lev 18:22. REAL Christians don't presume it means more than it says in order to provide a loophole for personal friends. But since that isn't good enough for the likes of you, I need to consider how to tie together all the disparate data that leaves no doubt for normal, rational people. I fear, with very good reason, that the more I provide, the more I'll have wasted my time. Not because it won't do the job, but because you will simply, once again as per usual, disregard it without the least bit of counter data. <br /><br />Nonetheless, do not consider this question abandoned. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-30155037270686439342015-12-31T10:20:08.153-08:002015-12-31T10:20:08.153-08:00Marshall, your comments appear so full of rage and...Marshall, your comments appear so full of rage and bile that it seems you are no longer able to converse reasonably with me. Your comments no longer make any sense in the context of what was actually written. I don't know what to do with that. <br /><br />I hope you have a happy new year. Peace.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-69354249216144271892015-12-31T08:41:17.759-08:002015-12-31T08:41:17.759-08:00"There is not a single thing lacking in integ...<i>"There is not a single thing lacking in integrity, honesty or grace in THINKING that someone holds a position and asking them to verify."</i><br /><br />Sure there is. <br /><br />---I've stated on numerous occasions in a variety of places that I hold no definitive position on the Genesis stories regarding creation other than the fact that I believe God is fully capable of creating all things in any manner of His choosing. <br /><br />---I've also stated many times that I do not deal in "hunches" unless stating clearly and emphatically that I'm only offering a hunch or an opinion. So for you to constantly, routinely and with malice aforethought label every statement of fact I make as a "hunch" is insulting and graceless and is an indictment of your integrity and honesty. <br /><br />What's more, pretending that putting a question mark at the end of your utterance mitigates the clear implication is rank bullshit. Try this: <i>"You're just a dickhead, am I right?"</i> How does that sound to YOU, Dan. Like an honest question? <br /><br />And what makes you think I'm not calm? What's with you lefties that compels you to assume your opponent is ever more than calm? Is that gracious way to confront a firm correction?<br /><br />As regards your second "question", until you can provide something more than this feeble crap about Genesis not being literal and accurate record of the events it depicts, then you are rejecting it. To make matters worse, you've never provided a clear explanation for what it <i>IS</i> saying if not how all things were created. It is your "hunch" that it is metaphor, mythic writing, poetry...but you offer nothing substantive to back up the assertions. Why <i>shouldn't</i> we take it as a record of actual events? Because you think imperfect man has come up with a better explanation that is no more provable than the Genesis story itself? Because it doesn't sound sophisticated enough to impress your non-religious acquaintances, and thus you can't handle their reaction if they knew you totally believed it exactly as written? <br /><br />I'll get to your last comment later on. But until then, I must comment on one line in particular that is testament to your corruption:<br /><br /><i>"If you merely cite five verses in the Bible, you fail."</i><br /><br />Those five verses are the initial pieces of "hard data" and you disqualify them outright. Talk about irrational and delusional!!! They aren't the only verses or passages I can bring to bear, but truth begins with those verses...actually just one of them...But truth to you is like sunlight to a vampire, or water to the Wicked Witch of the West, or facts to a liberal. <br /><br />Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-40086777782808552402015-12-29T16:58:08.595-08:002015-12-29T16:58:08.595-08:00As to this...
I've done this thousands of tim...As to this...<br /><br /><i>I've done this thousands of times using Scripture's unambiguous teachings on the subject of human sexuality, marriage and family.</i><br /><br />No, Marshall. You haven't. If you have, by all means, present one bit of hard data again to me, so we can see what you mean by "hard data." I simply don't think you understand the term. What hard data do you have that demonstrates that God does not approve of two guys marrying?<br /><br />If you merely cite five verses in the Bible, you fail.<br /><br />So, three tasks before you, Marshall. Demonstrate to me that you are rational, not delusional.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-19612696827987395622015-12-29T16:56:09.032-08:002015-12-29T16:56:09.032-08:00this statement stands as hard data that you lack i...<i>this statement stands as hard data that you lack integrity, honesty and the grace you insist upon in others. My ACTUAL position is that I see no reason why one should reject outright the Genesis stories</i><br /><br />Marshall, if you're just looking to fight, move on. I very clearly asked that as a question, "I think this is your position... IS this your position..." There is not a single thing lacking in integrity, honesty or grace in THINKING that someone holds a position and asking them to verify.<br /><br />Now, before you do anything else, I need you to understand this and just calm down a little bit. Do you recognize that there is not a single thing in the world in what I just said that can be called dishonest or graceless? <br /><br />First answer that question.<br /><br />THEN, deal with this...<br /><br /><i> see no reason why one should reject outright the Genesis stories.</i><br /><br />Do you understand that either taking Adam and Eve as literal or taking them as metaphor/figurative... that NEITHER of these options is "rejecting outright" the Genesis stories? They are simply applying different understanding of the genre involved, which is not "rejecting" no matter which genre you think fits best.<br /><br />Do you understand that?<br /><br />Please answer those two questions. Thank you.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-52935660345746554762015-12-29T16:06:15.762-08:002015-12-29T16:06:15.762-08:00"You hold a hunch about Adam and Eve being li...<i>"You hold a hunch about Adam and Eve being literal people in a story that happens pretty much as it is literally portrayed in the Bible, am I right?"</i><br /><br />Not quite, but this statement stands as hard data that you lack integrity, honesty and the grace you insist upon in others. My ACTUAL position is that I see no reason why one should reject outright the Genesis stories. What those like yourself, who lack true conviction, cannot handle is the clash of certain interpretations of data with what Genesis says. You can't handle being regarded as unsophisticated before your peers, so you are quick to reject Genesis for fear of such regard. I'm not so easily pressured and influenced by such fears. <br /><br />At the same time, there is evidence, the hardness of such likely to fall way below what your "of the world" persona would accept. The work of Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana stand as evidence of an actual Adam and/or Eve. Conclusive proof? I wouldn't say that. But evidence?<br /><br /><i>"You hold a hunch that God would not approve of two gay guys or lesbian gals getting married (and, in that context, having sexual relations), am I right? Defend that hunch with hard data."</i><br /><br />I've done this thousands of times using Scripture's unambiguous teachings on the subject of human sexuality, marriage and family. YOU have done NOTHING to support your wild assertions of an alternative understanding. On THIS subject, the ball is clearly in your court and has been for years. You do NOTHING but fantasize about things like "some form" of homosexuality, without every having done a single thing to support the possibility that verses like Lev 18:22 don't speak about homosexuality...PERIOD. No. You pretend without evidence that it doesn't speak to "loving, committed, monogamous" relationships. IF this is so, there must be something that supports the notion. You've provided nothing but wishful thinking. Don't pretend the onus is on me to support the clear wording of Scripture. It is on you to support the notion that the words don't mean what they clearly do and have done since they were written down in the Old Testament. <br /><br />Go. <br /><br />Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-18097627075783341272015-12-29T13:06:30.130-08:002015-12-29T13:06:30.130-08:00ANY of your hunches, Marshall. You hold a hunch ab...ANY of your hunches, Marshall. You hold a hunch about Adam and Eve being literal people in a story that happens pretty much as it is literally portrayed in the Bible, am I right? Defend it with hard data.<br /><br />You hold a hunch that God would not approve of two gay guys or lesbian gals getting married (and, in that context, having sexual relations), am I right? Defend that hunch with hard data.<br /><br />Go.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-37741461185565354022015-12-27T15:42:56.601-08:002015-12-27T15:42:56.601-08:00You must have been great at dodge-ball.
I looke...You must have been great at dodge-ball. <br /><br />I looked at both of your links and nothing I've presented falls short of those definitions of hard versus soft data. YOU, on the other hand, seem to favor offering the softest of soft data while demanding an incredibly stringent standard of hard data from everyone else. <br /><br />And again, I need to know just what position you question and for which you demand "hard data". You can't even do that. When you can muster the spine to be specific (remembering that it must be something I actually have said, as opposed to your corrupted version of what I have said), then we can move forward. At this point, you've so muddied the conversation that we must start from the beginning. You seem much too cowardly to truly engage. But I have patience. Anytime you can find that spine, you let me know.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-70163215912159783002015-12-27T06:14:55.637-08:002015-12-27T06:14:55.637-08:00Then perhaps you will understand how, say, a verse...<i> Then perhaps you will understand how, say, a verse of Scripture can be hard data to support a position. </i><br /><br />Well there you go. You got no hard data, Marshall. You just don't.<br /><br />It appears, Marshall, that you do not understand the concept of hard data. Of fact vs opinion. Let me know when you do. Until then, there's no point in continuing. You can not and have not and will not (because you factually can not) provide any hard data to support your immoral and irrational hunches and I can not change my position without some hard data.<br /><br />So, lacking any hard data, this conversation is over.<br /><br />Go read and understand more about hard data. When you realize you have none, you can come back and admit as much. Then we can talk about your hunches more, recognizing them AS hunches, if you want. But don't come back without that acknowledgment or without hard data (which again, you can't).<br /><br />http://www.objectivity.com/hard-data-vs-soft-data/<br /><br />https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070802112225AAopoxw<br /><br />Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-63132333539798155712015-12-27T04:12:19.813-08:002015-12-27T04:12:19.813-08:00"Hard data to support your hunch that two ver...<i>"Hard data to support your hunch that two verses in the OT that say, "men shouldn't lie with men" mean that God is opposed to two guys marrying."</i><br /><br />Well there ya go. More evidence that your comprehension skills are poor, as you once again see what you want to see. I've never said that those two verses mean that God opposes two homosexuals from marrying each other. I've said that those two verses are hard data for my position that God would and could not approve. Those verses mean that men should not lie with men as men typically lie with women. Those verses refer to the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. As such, since God does not approve of sinful behavior, He could not possibly approve of relationships that involve sinful behavior. See how this "hard data" and evidence thing works? <br /><br />For YOU, you need to actually understand the arguments put forth. Then perhaps you will understand how, say, a verse of Scripture can be hard data to support a position. When you assert that I've said something I haven't said, and argue against it, you're pissing in the wind. <br /><br />Now your response is that the two verses in question only speak of "some form" of homosexual behavior. What "hard data" can YOU provide to support that purely speculative and subjective personal preference? An opinion requires <i>something</i> to validate it as an actual possibility, even to one's self. You've provided nothing but your own desperate hope that the verses <i>might</i> mean that, if we only hold our breath and cross our fingers. Until you can provide ANYTHING, to pretend it means more than simply a prohibition against a particular behavior...homosexual relations...you are inserting meaning that the text itself does not and cannot imply. Go ahead. Bring something.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-21133544744180263712015-12-26T21:08:04.812-08:002015-12-26T21:08:04.812-08:00Hard data to support your hunch that two verses in...Hard data to support your hunch that two verses in the OT that say, "men shouldn't lie with men" mean that God is opposed to two guys marrying. Something that demonstrates with evidence that this is God's opinion and does so authoritatively. Not merely pointing to the text and a few others and saying, "Therefore, I think this indicates that God is opposed to guys marrying..."<br /><br />Hard data. A sworn affidavit from God. Personal testimony directly from God. A letter from God to a friend where God states unequivocally that God is opposed to guys marrying.<br /><br />Hard data. Not mere subjective and unproven opinions.<br /><br />Go.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-80330663634861254152015-12-26T15:25:00.580-08:002015-12-26T15:25:00.580-08:00"No, Marshall. They are not."
From this...<i>"No, Marshall. They are not."</i><br /><br />From this point on it is clear that you have successfully muddied the discussion. What exactly do you feel requires "hard data"? If it is a teaching of Scripture, then chapter and verse <i>IS</i> hard data. If it the meaning of said chapter and verse, then "hard data" comes from all manner of commentary regarding the original language, how it was perceived by those who regulated their behaviors by that original language (customs, practices and the like) as far as archaeology and scholastic study has ascertained. To date, you've provided nothing that contradicts any of this beyond your own subjective preferences. Thus, I've totally supported my positions. You've simply employed the childish "nyuh uh" defense, but no legitimate "hard data" of your own. <br /><br />So from this point, we'll need to pick one or two positions of mine (actual positions, not imagined positions you need to believe I hold) in order to move this along properly and truthfully. As I said, at this point, you've muddied things up so expertly that I'm no longer sure where you believe I've failed to provide "hard data". Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-39185313051000420472015-12-22T18:34:00.590-08:002015-12-22T18:34:00.590-08:00All the verses and passages I cite ARE "hard ...<i>All the verses and passages I cite ARE "hard data" for supporting the truth I defend regarding God's will for human sexuality.</i><br /><br />No, Marshall. They are not. They are lines from an ancient text that you put your spin on, telling us, based on YOUR interpretation of those ancient texts, what YOU THINK God's "will" is for human sexuality. That is ALL subjective opinion, start to stop. There is not one single word in all of your hunch that is anything BUT human opinion.<br /><br />Repeating "but the Bible says..." won't ever make your hunches anything more than candy ass, evil, ugly, hateful and grade-school ignorant hunches and it won't ever make it a fact or "God said." It just won't.<br /><br />Sorry to break it to you so brutally, but facts are hard things, Marshall. If I were factually mistaken, you could easily disprove me with actual facts. You can't. You just can't.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.com