Yer killin' me! Some comic politicians in the news...
"Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there, ...if you read the read the report you will see that there was nothing unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member..."
~Sarah Palin
[The report actually said that "Palin had the authority to fire Monegan, but the report by former Anchorage prosecutor Stephen Branchflower concluded that she abused her power as Alaska's governor, and violated state ethics law by trying to get Wooten fired from the state police."]
source
"Let me give you the state of the race today. We have 22 days to go. We’re 6 points down. The national media has written us off. Senator Obama is measuring the drapes, and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to raise taxes, increase spending, take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections, and concede defeat in Iraq. But they forgot to let you decide.
My friends, we’ve got them just where we want them."
~John McCain
source
=======
Bwa ha ha ha! Phew... great stuff.
They're not serious, are they?
On a more serious and uplifting note, check out an excerpt from a recent sermon at Jeff Street.
38 comments:
You know, many charismatics are of the "Name it and Claim it" sort...
"The Theology of the Spoken Word (Rhematology), or thought actualization, is commonly known as positive confession. It stresses the inherent power of words and thoughts. Each person predestines his own future by what he says verbally and by how well he uses spiritual laws."
I wonder if Palin comes from such stock?
"The allegations aren't true because there never was any unethical thing done and this report, I SAY, only has good stuff to say about how ethical and legal my actions were..."
Hmmm...
Dan,
Of course you wouldn't want to actually research Palin's view on the prosperity gospel folks, it's easier to just presume that she is guilty by her associations.
BTW, the person in question served at the pleasure of the Gov, she didn't need a reason to fire him. In the buisness world that is known as at will employment. What's the bi deal.
"Of course you wouldn't want to actually research Palin's view on the prosperity gospel folks, it's easier to just presume that she is guilty by her associations."
In this election, the right wing has made it clear that everyone is guilty by their associations. ROFL.
Only 2 elections in the last 50 years have come back from a 7 point poll deficit (McCain's avge.) this late in the election--and McCain would have to do that just to draw EVEN with Obama. Further, he has exactly ONE electoral path to victory (Obama has 7) and that includes getting ALL of the following: OH, FL, VA, NC, CO, NC, IN, MO, and NV. Obama is way ahead in VA, ahead in CO, NV, MO, OH, & FL and virtually tied in NC and IN. To think that McCain will claim ALL of them is a real stretch. In fact, McCain's lead in WV, MT, and GA have just come close enough that he needs to shore them up! There is a 54% chance that Obama can lose BOTH OH and FL and still win (and I think he'll win both by narrow margins).
So, whatever else is true about McCain's campaign--which has seemed dead before and can make a comeback, he DEFINITELY doesn't have Obama "right where he wants him."
Dan,
You've, of course, left out the most important factor. Other than the possibility of tarring Palin with this, on what basis do you determine that there is a problem with this sort of theology.
With "positive confession?" "Name it and claim it"-ism?
The main problem is that it's not biblical.
Perhaps just as large a problem is that it distorts how God works nor how the universe works. We can't speak things into being.
If it were the case in this particular scenario (and I don't really think it is, I was just puzzling over her bizarre response) that she were trying to "speak her wishes into being," is that it would be a way of denying personal responsibility.
Palin has apparently broken some ethics laws, according to this report. If she is in denial about this and instead believing that the report says the opposite of what it says, she damages herself and truth. One has to own up to one's mistakes in order to repent and become a whole person. Right?
Ah yes... God as a giant heavenly gumball machine.
Yeah, not much Biblical support for that one.
If that worked we wouldn't have had our current President for 8 years. :)
Dan,
I understand what the prosperity folks are teaching, (did a significant amount of research a decade or go when the phenomenon was starting) what I don't understand how your view of scripture allows you to make claims that it is "not biblical". This seems to be at odds with much of your previous postings. Specifically, why is this particular teaching unbiblical. What can you offer beyond your opinion? Specifically, do you have evidence that the church she attends teaches prosperity? Audio if sermons? Writings by her pastor? Anything written or recorded that would provide any sort of "evidence" that Palin or anyone at her church believes this?
No the best you have is se used the phrase "speak her wishes into being" sounds like something you'd hear on Oprah.
If you'd like you could adress the real issue which was the official in question served at the plesure of the governor and could be fired for any (or no) reason at all.
Broad brush away.
Craig, does it matter to you if politicians break ethics law?
Dan,
I regret to inform you that I am unwilling to answer your question without getting some kind of answer to the questions I have posed to you.
What questions?
This?
Specifically, why is this particular teaching unbiblical. What can you offer beyond your opinion?
I offer only my humble opinion of what the Bible says, as you do. Do you have something other than your opinion? Scientific testing? A letter from God?
Or this:
Specifically, do you have evidence that the church she attends teaches prosperity? Audio if sermons?
I have not SAID that Palin's church believes that. I asked, and I quote, "I WONDER IF PALIN COMES FROM SUCH STOCK?"
If you'll note, it was a question, not a claim. Given her statement that I referenced, I honestly wondered if it were the case that she came from that tradition. Is that okay if I wonder that?
Are those the questions you want answered? I apologize for not answering. I thought they were questions with obvious answers, but there you go. Some answers.
Now, I wonder if it matters to you if politicians break ethics law?
Dan,
On a previous thread, you got all testy because and wouldn't answer questions until I answered yours. I did, you didn't. About two posts ago I asked if you supported certain things BHO claims he will do if elected. You asked for a source, I gave you one, no further response. So, there you go.
As to your unbiblical line, you made a definative statement. "The main problem is that it's not biblical." This is not stated as an opinion, it is stated as fact. I would like some actual support for your assertion. I contend that given your stance on things biblical, it is incredibly difficult for you to sustain your contention. However, go for it.
Now, since I'm a good guy, I'll answer your question. The answer is a qualified yes. The qualification is, the ethics process has become one more way for partisans to trap those on the other side of the aisle and is too easily abused.
I am much mure concerned when public officials break the law. I seem to remember a congressman Jefferson(I think) (D LA) who was found with bribe money in his freezer, and yet his fellow dems were willing to give him a pass. We just recently learned that the "family values" candidate who replaced Mark Foley, (who was hammered for sending innapropriate text messages to pages. For which he should have been subject to some disciplinary action.) has admitted to having an affair and paying off the woman. John Edwards, has an affair while his wife is suffering from cancer. BHO paying ACORN $800,000 to register voters, when his only contact with them was years ago. ACORN being investigated by the FBI. It goes on, this is all unethical. All have sinned, none of us is perfect. What ticks me off is the folks who won't admit they're wrong, take their licks and move on. So that's along answer to a short question. But,it is an answer.
Craig said:
I asked if you supported certain things BHO claims he will do if elected. You asked for a source, I gave you one, no further response.
What you did was provide a list of things that you think Obama said he'd do:
a) Provide funding for automakers to retool their plants to build different types of vehicles
b) Fund R&D for automakers and other private (publicly owned) businesses...
etc.
I had no great opinion on them and so did not respond. Bush and others have provided gov't assistance to help the auto industry and help target new technologies.
In general, I'm opposed to gov't giving moneys to corporations but there may be some times when encouraging new, cleaner, better technologies might justify it. In these cases, I'd have to know the specifics in order to have a stronger opinion.
For instance, a few years back, in order to provide support for our nation's farmers (a notion I generally agree with), Congress and the White House provided a tax cut intended to help farmers get larger tractors and machines for their work.
Now, first of all, I'm not at all sure that this is the sort of support our farmers need. But aside from that, what happened in the real world was that all sorts of businesses used that tax loophole to purchase Hummers and other SUVs at greatly reduced prices with gov't support. That was a crime and the utmost in insidious stupidity!
So, I did not respond further to your comment because it was written in the general and I would have to know more details to form a more well-informed position.
Craig also said:
As to your unbiblical line, you made a definative statement. "The main problem is that it's not biblical." This is not stated as an opinion, it is stated as fact.
It is my opinion that the Name it and Claim it Gospel is not to be found in the pages of the Bible. Now I suppose you know enough about conversations and debate to know that one can't prove a negative.
I can't point to a place in the Bible and say, "SEE? It's not there!" Or, perhaps better stated, I guess that's what I'm saying. I am pointing to every point in the Bible and I'm saying, "See? It's not there."
Nowhere in the Bible is there support for the notion the Theology of the Spoken Word. Are you falling on the side of saying that there IS support for this sort of theology? If so, then the ball is in your court to provide proof that there is support for such thinking.
I'm just saying that it's not there. I know that one could cherry pick a verse here or there and say, "See? Jesus said, 'if you say to this mountain, jump into the sea, it will!' therefore, Jesus supports 'Positive Confession.'" But that would not be a position that one could support in a more complete look at the Bible.
Feel free to make a case for it if you wish.
Dan,
First, I provided you with a list of things BHO said he would do, using very plain clear language. If you didn't want to check it out, that's fine, but don't chalk this up to my imagination. Where I used quotes, that indicates something BHO said word for word. Where I didn't use quotes, I couldn't write fast enough to get every word down, but they accurately represent what he said. They are specific things BHO says the HE will do if elected. Equivocate all you want, but even doring FDR we never came this close to nationalizing our industry. So, blow it off that's fine, I did what you asked and gave specifics and a source.
I really didn't expect an answer, and didn't really get one. So it's all good. I realize you aren't going to have anything negative to say about BHO, no matter what he says.
As to the prosperity folks, I would argue that they can make an arguement that is at least as good as many you've made. (not that I agree with either of you) The thing I find so amusing is that you have backed off from "it's unbiblical" to in my opinion it's unbiblical. More so given your elastic approach to interpreting the bible, I don't understand how you can credibly make that claim in the first place, given the approach you have taken elsewhere. I believe what you are trying to engage in is what is called an arguement from silence. Most people don't find this particularly pursuasive.
Craig said:
First, I provided you with a list of things BHO said he would do, using very plain clear language. If you didn't want to check it out, that's fine, but don't chalk this up to my imagination. Where I used quotes, that indicates something BHO said word for word.
Craig, the only place I see where you used quotes is when you said that Obama planned:
To "pick up the tab" for people with serious illness.
That is a general idea that Obama has expressed and I have no opinion on general ideas of this nature, I'd have to see more specifics. I am sorry if I don't have enough of an opinion to answer your question, but I'm not at all sure of what you're talking about here.
In general terms, I am in favor of smart gov't. If NOT picking up the tab for medical crises ends up costing the US MORE in the long run, than I favor approaches to save money. That seems only wise to me. I'll let you know that health care is not an area where I'm especially well-versed, though, but that's my general thought for gov't programs and policies.
Craig said:
The thing I find so amusing is that you have backed off from "it's unbiblical" to in my opinion it's unbiblical.
Well, I'll have to be honest here and say that just about any thoughts I have about the nature of God is my opinion. I can't "measure" or "weigh" God or even directly ask God's opinion and tell you objectively, "Yes, this is God's view on this subject."
So, when I say, "Positive Confession" is not found in the Bible, it is my opinion. When others say that "Gay marriage is opposed in the Bible," it is their opinion. The Bible says so much in so many ways about so many topics (and on general themes, too) that most of the time when anyone is talking about what is in the bible, they are offering their opinion.
Having said that, the terms "positive confession," "name it and claim it," "thought actualization" or "rhematology" are not used in the Bible. The notion that positive confession is supported in the Bible does not fall within the parameters of most orthodox evangelical circles.
I don't think it is a biblically supported position. If you'd like to make an argument in support of it, please do so. Otherwise, it sounds as if you're just trying to be divisive and making arguments for argument's sake and we get enough of that in religious circles.
[The report actually said that "Palin had the authority to fire Monegan, but the report by former Anchorage prosecutor Stephen Branchflower concluded that she abused her power as Alaska's governor, and violated state ethics law by trying to get Wooten fired from the state police."]
Not quite. Despite media reports, the Branchflower report was not written by the Alaska state legislature, but by one investigator hired by a Democratic legislator who specifically promised to provide an "October surprise" to help the Obama/Biden campaign. And even Branchflower concluded that Palin broke no law.
Dan,
After re reading your first comment, I have to ask. When BHO or BHOB, talks about the next 8 years (or when O'B guarantees that the US will be the target of some horrible act within 6 months of BHO assuming office, and that the BHO administration will handle it in a way that will potentially dishearten their supporters) are they engaging in, "...positive confession. It stresses the inherent power of words and thoughts. Each person predestines his own future by what he says verbally...", or are they just confused as to the length of presidential terms.
Brother Craig, it sure feels like you're making more of this than there is.
1. My original point in this post was to ASK A QUESTION: Does Palin believe in positive confession? It was a question asked half in jest and half seriously wondering, given that she had just said that reality was the opposite of what is found in the real world.
2. Where you said:
Seem's like your definition of "Biblical" would include the words "in Dan's opinion"....
I have to wonder, In WHOSE opinion should I form my biblical ideas? We can state certain things objectively (The Bible never addresses gay marriage, the bible never uses the term positive confession) but beyond that, we ALL have to use our own God-given reasoning to form OUR opinions. What else is there beyond our opinion?
It is YOUR opinion that the absence of a mention of gay marriage means that gay marriage is wrong. It is my opinion that God is okay with gay marriage, as it is a wonderful and blessed thing which happens not to be addressed in biblical times because such an idea was inconceivable at the time - sort of like treating women as something other than chattel.
We all have our opinions on what the Bible means. What of it?
As to this (although it is a bit off topic):
No problems with the taxpayers funding r/d for corperations?
I've already stated my opinion. I'll repeat it for your benefit:
I had no great opinion on them and so did not respond. Bush and others have provided gov't assistance to help the auto industry and help target new technologies.
In general, I'm opposed to gov't giving moneys to corporations but there may be some times when encouraging new, cleaner, better technologies might justify it. In these cases, I'd have to know the specifics in order to have a stronger opinion.
Bush and other presidents have given money to corporations to encourage certain areas of growth or changes in policy. In general, I'm opposed to it, but there may be times when it may be a good thing.
THAT is my opinion. I'll repeat: In general, I'm opposed to it, but there are times when it may be a good thing.
But since this is off topic, let's save that discussion for another time.
Dan,
I am beginning to like your reasoning. The fact that it is possible to pronounce something Biblical despite Biblical writings to the contrary is great. To be able to take the silence of the Bible as enthuesiastic approval on the one hand, and disapproval on the other is so liberating. To be able to develop ones "opinions" in such a way, my mind boggles at the possibilities. So, Dan, thank you for opening up this new vista in Biblical interpretation. A new day is dawning.
Dan,
If I may be so bold, the only reason the BHO stuiff is off topic is that you brought it over here from your other post (I assumed for convienience).
The fact that you appear to be saying, even though I sometimes disagree with these things since BHO is saying them I'm sure they will be good this time. The fact that you have no opinion on what appears to be a serious overreach of the power of the executive branch, as well as a step toward nationalizing industry is disconcerting.
What is even more troublesome (my opinion here), is this sense that BHO can do no wrong. I hear McC supporters who disagree with him on various issues, but never BHO's supporters.
My humble suggestion is that you more fully inform yourself about everything BHO wants to do, and how he is going to fund it. It's not too late.
If you read through my posts you will find places where I criticize Obama's position (on compromising on the offshore drilling, for instance) and where I criticize the Dems in general. You will also find places where I praise McCain (for his classy congratulatory ad to Obama during the DNC), as well as other Republicans.
I have said in various places that Obama is a politician and, like all politicians, you have to be wary of what he says and be prepared to hold him accountable for bad policy or indiscretions.
I have informed myself fairly well on Obama's positions, as well as McCain's. Obama is a candidate that I might agree with 50-60% of the time. But, having just finished eight years of Bush, where I agreed with him maybe 10% of the time, preceded by Clinton where I agreed with him some 20-30% of the time, preceded by Reagan/Bush which I agreed with some 10% of the time, having a candidate that I agree with as much as Obama is pretty exciting and new for me.
But don't mistake my excitement on having a candidate that more closely resembles my own positions for full and blind support. And, as is true for me, I'm sure it's true for most of Obama's supporters.
The fact that it is possible to pronounce something Biblical despite Biblical writings to the contrary is great. To be able to take the silence of the Bible as enthuesiastic approval on the one hand, and disapproval on the other is so liberating.
Craig, your sarcasm is misplaced. I have not said any of the above, as it is not my position that one can pronounce something biblical despite biblical writings to the contrary. In your attempt to mock me, you slander a brother in Christ and that IS condemned in the pages of the Bible.
Behave, brother. Or go away, if you merely wish to be an ill-mannered troll.
Dan,
What you have said (unless I have grossly misinterpretd you) is that all Biblical interpretation comes down to opinion. In the case of "gay marriage" you seem to have reached your opinion by dismissing all that the Bible actually says about both marriage and homosexuality. Given that, it is certainly a reasonable conclusion to draw that you do indeed pronounce something (if not Biblical) then at least something that should be celebrated within the Body of Christ. That seems (in the context of this discussion) to be a distinction without a difference. So, you are, of course, free to split hairs and define things away, but don't get cheesed when someone calls you on it. The fact that you don't see the inherent contradiction in your position is hard to understand, but to each his own.
As far as your (predictable) charges I plead guilty to sarcasm (in my opinion, it got left out of Romans 12, and I've certainly never seen the word sarcasm in the Bible, or any kind of prohibition of sarcasm), I'm maybe a little guilty of mocking (but it's light hearted and better than the alternative), you've got to be kidding about the slander, really.
In my opinion what I was doing was trying to gently correct what appears to be an error on the part of a brother. I chose to attempt to do that in a more lighthearted manner than I could have. You can't deny that correcting a brother is in the Bible, and since there is no set pattern for such correction, the approach should surely be a matter of spiritual freedom.
I have not mis-behaved, in fact we have disagreed in a fairly civil manner. If you feel it is appropriate to call a brother names, then I can't disagree with you.
What you have said (unless I have grossly misinterpretd you) is that all Biblical interpretation comes down to opinion.
I have not said that, nor do I believe it.
I have suggested (as I have already said)...
We can state certain things objectively (The Bible never addresses gay marriage, the bible never uses the term positive confession) but beyond that, we ALL have to use our own God-given reasoning to form OUR opinions. What else is there beyond our opinion?
So, when you say that gay marriage is wrong, are you saying that - beyond your opinion on the matter - that gay marriage is objectively wrong? That you have some sort of hard evidence that it is wrong?
Is it not true that it is YOUR OPINION, which you are trying to base upon biblical teachings, that gay marriage is wrong? Or are you suggesting that somehow it's beyond your opinion? That you speak for God on this issue or scientifically-speaking, it is wrong?
If the latter, how is it NOT your opinion?
Dan,
What I am saying is that the Bible adequately defines marriage. Further, the Bible refers to homosexuality in enough cases for one to reach a conclusion as to what would be "Biblical". You cannot point to one place in the Bible where anything that could be remotely defined as "gay marriage" is addressed, let alone in a positive manner.
Now, to address what you said. You suggest that I said "gay marriage" is wrong. I don't believe I did. I said' it's not Biblical,(remember this all started when you pronounced "prosperity" unbiblical" which is significantly different. Therefore, I am not necessarily asserting that "gay marriage" is objectively. I am asserting that since the Bible condemns the "gay" part of "gay marriage" it is reasonable to conclude that from a Biblical standpoint "gay marriage" is wrong. There is as much "hard evidence" that "gay marriage" is wrong as that "prospertity" is wrong.
Finally, I would never suggest that I speak for God. I would suggest that the Bible speaks for God, and that all are capable or reading and understanding the text.
I suspect that, you could, (if you were to look at some of the health risks posed by homosexual sex, and some of the information that compares mental health of Homo. v. Hetro. etc) come up with some sort of scientific consensus or answer. But I have not done this, nor claimed to. If you would address what I actually said, this would probably go better.
Finally, I would never suggest that I speak for God. I would suggest that the Bible speaks for God, and that all are capable or reading and understanding the text.
Then, on this we agree. We don't speak for God. And the Bible is clear enough that we are all capable of reading it and understanding the text. Unfortunately, sometimes, we simply are going to understand it differently.
If we all were perfect and knew God's wishes on every point perfectly, we'd never disagree. And yet, we're not perfect, we don't understand perfectly and sometimes, Craig, you get it wrong. Sometimes, I get it wrong.
That's just the way it is in this imperfect world.
Dan,
you are correct in saying that people sometimes mis-interpret the text. What seems to be happening is that people use this reasoning to justify positions that are clearly not supported by the text. I am always willing (and in fact seek out people who come at the text differently than I. In some cases I have modified my interpretation. However, when there is no reason/evidence/scripture to back up any particular position the question "why ?" must be raised. In the absence of any sort of a "why" beyond a subjective personal experience it becomes difficult to understand.
What seems to be happening is that people use this reasoning to justify positions that are clearly not supported by the text.
And I'm agreeing that we all have a tendency to do this. I think it is pretty clearly what you're doing when you're arguing against homosexuality. Too bad.
Dan,
I know you've been asked this before, but I'll try again.
Please cite one Biblical reference that in any does the following.
1. Positively shows any marriage arrangement other than male female.
2. Refers to homosexuality in a manner that is either positive or neutral.
If you can do that I might take you more seriously. I've read your account of your conversion on this issue, as well as numerous similar exchanges elsewhere, and it seems to come back to a subjective personal experience on your part.
I will grant that it is possible that I (and numerous others) may have misinterpreted passeges that refer to homosexuality as detestable or an abomination. I'm open to correction if there is some conflicting Biblical reference. The problem from what I have read, is that you appear to be reading into the text something that is not there.
I think you are doing the same thing when you pronounce the "prosperity" gospel unbiblical.
Please cite one Biblical reference that in any does the following.
1. Positively shows any marriage arrangement other than male female.
2. Refers to homosexuality in a manner that is either positive or neutral.
I've replied to this before. There was no concept of healthy gay relationships back then, no concept of gay marriages. Likewise, there was no concept of crack cocaine, of abortion as a medical procedure, of women being regarded as equal human beings, etc.
And so, none of these ideas which they did not think of back in those days are not mentioned. But to argue from silence that because they're not mentioned, they must be wrong, is simply wrong. Similarly, to argue that because they're not mentioned they must be right would be bad biblical exegesis, too.
My point in THIS post is that there is plenty of biblical evidence to make the orthodox claim that "positive confession," is a distortion of biblical teaching.
I don't think you disagree (although maybe you do, as you have declined to defend or condemn that theology), so enough said. I don't need you to play devil's advocate for a system of belief you don't accept.
Dan,
Could you please give some kind of a source (I will not hold you to your standard of scientific evidence, just a source, and source from the same historical time period of course) that remotely demonstrates your contention. Just one.
I have this redical notion that when the God who spoke and the universe came into existance, and who created us all male and female, is completely capable of definig and communicating his ideal for healthy human relationships. I feel confident that he has. But I hold out hope that you will provide some sort of evidence.
You are correct, that I don't buy the Prosperity gospel. You are wrong that they don't have ample prooftexts to support their position. While I believe both to be Biblicaly unsound, the prospertiy folks can make a much better case from the Bible than you have, or could.
You want me to provide a source for what? That gay marriage didn't exist back in BCE?
You want me to provide a source for something that didn't exist? A document from that time period that says, "You know, gay marriage simply does not exist in these here parts..."?
I don't know that I can do that.
I can't provide a source for the non-existence of dragons or unicorns, either.
Dan,
No I want you to support your assertion. You assert "there was no concept of healthy gay relationships, no concept of gay marriage". Demonstrate some evidence for your assertion. I am not asking you to prove that "gay marriage" did not exist, I am asking you to provide evidence for your assertion that it did not exist. You have made what appears to be a statement of fact, as such it should be verifiable. The fact is you have no idea whether "gay marriage" existed prior to any given point in time. You have decided that it didn't exist with no evidence. Let's try this. When did "gay marriage" begin?
Beyond all of this, what originally prompted this is your assertion of Biblicality, not right or wrong. You asserted that the prosperity gospel was not Biblical. (again as a statement of fact, not opinion) Therefore the question about "gay marriage", in this context, is whether it is Biblical. You have not/can not provide any evidence to demonstrate that it is Biblical. In fact your previous assertion ("there was no concept of healthy gay relationships, no concept of gay marriage") demonstrates quite clearly that "gay marriage" is not Biblical. We certainly disagree on the rightness of "gay marriage" but until you moved the target, that wasn't the issue. I have no problem with you asserting "I think gay marriage is wonderful". That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Once you say something is Biblical you raise the bar. For something to be Biblical it would have to actually be in the Bible (either specifically as in "thou shalt not steal, a man shall leavehis...and shall cleave unto his wife...become one flesh), or in principle (such as the concept of the trinity etc). Since you have condeded that "gay marriage" is not in the Bible (either specifically or in principal)then that part of the discussion seems concluded. As far as your opinion, if you want to continue feel free.
I'll "prove" gay marriage didn't exist thousands of years ago as soon as you "prove" that unicorns and dragons don't exist.
You can't prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist.
source
Dan,
The difference is, no one is asserting (and basing their arguement on) the exixtence, or not, of unicorns. You have made a statement of fact, you cannot/will not back it up. But it's ok, if this keeps going, you will be back to "it's really my opinion, because it all just about opinions anyway". It's not that hard, support your claims of what is Biblical from the Bible.
"Gay Marriage" is not Biblical, and no amount of appeals to unicorns will make it so.
Post a Comment