Or: The Bible on the Bible...
Or: Why I Dig the Bible...
I was recently criticized (imagine that) at another blogsite for lacking an appreciation for the Bible. I offered to bring that conversation here, allowing folk to talk about the broad topic of how we read the Bible. In offering this conversation, I hope to try to also deal with How we disagree with one another. So many times, it is difficult for us to understand those on "the other side" of issues. As a result, it becomes easy to demonize a strawman position that the Other doesn't actually hold.
So, as we consider this topic, I'd like to ask for us all to strive for understanding. That is, don't merely say, "Aha! You said X so clearly you mean Z and Z is disgusting! How dare you?!!!" Rather, let's take it slowly. Express disagreements like this: "Dan, when you say X, it sounds like you're saying Z, do you really mean that?" which will allow me (or others) the chance to clarify. More often than not, when someone of a more Rightish nature accuses me or my comrades of something, it is not even something we think (and I'm sure it happens the other way around, too).
We may still disagree, but let's at least disagree about the Other's actual position instead of a strawman. Having said that, below are a few thoughts on reading the Bible. This is something I have posted before and we had a good bit of conversation on it then, but there still seems to be much misunderstanding, so I offer it again, for those who wish to discuss this further.
I reckon my main point would be that just because somebody doesn't interpret the Bible the same way you do does not mean they hate the Bible, nor that they reject the Bible's authority. I DO reject the notion that I must interpret the Bible the same way as any other mortal, just because they say I ought to, but that is clearly not the same as rejecting God's Word.
Prayerfully offered for your consideration, then...
37 comments:
The simple point is that there is a difference between the Word of God and the words of human interpretations. Some folks get that, others seem not to.
No one would engage in these discussions and debates about the Bible if they didn't take the Bible seriously. The insults and arguments regarding Biblical authority are simply a smokescreen, a complaint by one group of people that another group of people simply won't do as *they* tell them.
The Bible says! The Bible says!
Meh. I know what's written in the Bible, and I know how it differs from what people say is written there. The fact that I don't respect, or see as authoritative, a human interpretation, doesn't mean that I don't think the Bible is authoritative.
There's nothing wrong with saying that the interpretation of another is flat out wrong, particularly when it is. It's understandable when such causes emotions to rise, but it's not like anyone shot your dog. It's just a conversation. You think I'm wrong? Fine. Prove it. Bring it on. I would love to have a better understanding, and I could not be more sincere when I say so.
The problem that I encounter, when dealing with those who disagree with me, is that at some point, I must differ to sources I consider credible and scholarly and instead of showing why those sources are wrong, they are instead simply dismissed on the thinnest of reasons, most never having relevance to the point whatsoever.
Case in point: in a recent discussion a few posts down (one I had dropped out of and never got back to---it had moved to another tangent so I opted to move on), I had noticed a comment by Alan regarding Rob't Gagnon that was along the lines of "He thinks that God thinks homosex behavior is worse than adultery" or words to that effect. The exact complaint doesn't matter. My point is that that type of response doesn't dismiss the guy's entire body of work, even if he said it. (Frankly, I think a case could be made for that, but never mind).
So at this point in the discussion, I am now forced to accept whatever sources are used against my arugment, but without any real basis, been prevented from using mine. The effect is that my whole argument is then likely to be considered, by those reading both sides to gain insight to form their own opinions, to be unfairly lessened. Unfairly on the level of being a falsehood, a false teaching, and definitely a slanted view that is not necessarily close to the truth. (As far as Gagnon, Dan's friend from Levelers has also dismissed him without any serious reasoning behind it. We're simply to forget him because we're told to by those who don't like his conclusions. That's not cricket.)
Another problem is that in debating Scripture with Dan, for example, rules are applied that are never applied elsewhere in non-Biblical discussions. The old "the Bible never mentions" gambit, when evidence is given by the barrel full for why the conclusion opposite of Dan's makes far more sense and is far more likely.
I don't deny, nor would I ever, that there are some areas where there are subjective aspects to how one reads the Bible. Unfortunately, most of the issues in which we all find ourselves going at it don't include such. And of course saying so don't make is so, but you don't respond to that argument at all. An example would be to say that because God told the Hebrews to wipe out a village that anyone could be justified in reading that as a mandate for us today. That's goofy and can't be supported. But I have to trip over that one far too often.
I've offered some fine pieces of support for postions I've taken, by some good scholars and the response I get is "well I don't buy it"!!! Well sh*t! Why not? How about a real counter for a change? I KNOW you don't buy it!
These are examples of what I see as impediments to good civil discussions with Dan, Alan, Geoffrey and some others to one degree or another. Nonetheless, I press on and enjoy the exchange, even when Alan's in full-on jackassery mode, which I actually find mostly enjoyable.
BTW, Alan, I'm working through an online course regarding the Institutes (yawn). Amphetamines are required. The dudes running a snooze-fest,(no wonder it's free) but he does seem to dig Calvin. I just have to see if I can find the book he uses to keep up.
If it is your impression that I have a problem with some complete stranger, whom I'm likely never to meet, telling me that my interpretation is wrong, you're mistaken. I don't even have a problem with those of you who have God complexes, believing your words to be God's words. I don't, as I've said many times, actually care what you or your cronies think. Your opinions don't make me angry, hateful, or even mildly irritated, though I do find them amusing most of the time.
I simply don't attach the same level of importance to these "conversations" that some do. I don't think that's a good or a bad thing, it simply is.
Just to be clear.
"My point is that that type of response doesn't dismiss the guy's entire body of work, even if he said it."
Yeah, it does.
Now if I'd said, "Who cares what he thinks, he wears glasses." Obviously that would be ridiculous since wearing glasses has nothing to do with making a reasonable argument.
However, when the whole subject of his body of work is "homosex" as you put it, I think his misunderstanding of the topic itself, indicated clearly by his statements regarding adultery (not to mention his misunderstandings of the nature of sin, which are inherent assumptions in his statements regarding adultery) pretty much discount his point of view from being valid. That would be the reason I chose that specific example. (And frankly, if you've never seen where he makes that argument, I doubt your familiarity with his work, since he's written about it in several places.)
You do this too, BTW. For example, when a poll is presented from the NYT you dismiss it out of hand rather than arguing against the particular sampling methods, statistical methods, questions asked, etc. I'm not sure I could count the number of times I've seen you dismiss studies you've never read. And, you regularly dismiss those mechanisms that, while imperfect, do generally work toward making sure quality work is done, such as peer review in professional publications.
I've seen all this innumerable times, so forgive me if I doubt your sincerity.
Anyway, ou have my sympathies on your Calvin study. He isn't the most exciting read, but it's worth it. I'm sure I never attended a religion class at Calvin in which I didn't have an enormous coffee mug bolted to my hand. And that's saying something, given that I'm a chemist, a crowd generally not really known for it's scintillating repartee either. :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
And while men debate, analyze and theorize…
Gentlemen, while I’m sure all of you do good works and consider yourselves “good” Christians, there is a danger in getting to caught up in the debate of dogma and edicts and Biblical interpretations, etc.
It is so easy to get off track with lengthy debates so that each can “prove” why his way is “the” way and yet everything we really need to know is written on our hearts – and you know that’s true because every time you do God’s will does not your spirit feel lighter and freer?
What MUST we do?
Matthew 25:41-45 – care for those less fortunate.
John 15:12 – love one another.
John 15:13 – no greater love than to give up one’s life for others.
He healed the sick, the mentally tortured, broke bread with criminals and outcasts, all the while bringing them a message of hope and love and peace. And then He died to save us.
If you WANT to have this endless debate, by all means; it’s a free country, but try to be mindful of what is important to GOD.
FOUND IT!! Here is the Unitarian Jihad link. Have I redeemed myself?
Fellas, I'm tied up with weather-related duties right now. Thanks for comments, I'll get back when I have a chance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"We almost never get there, instead still scrimmage over opening shots without resolution."
Almost never? I'd say it rounds to zero.
Sorry, MA, I do not believe there's much honest introspection in your comment. Concede points? Admit error? From you folks!? Perhaps you see it that way, and/or perhaps such things happen on all the other blogs where I don't hang out, but I've found no evidence of it on the ones I peruse regularly.
"I once had a post at my blog very early on where I questioned the whole point of blogging at all. Lots of wheel spinning takes place without any traction attained no matter how much sand I throw under the tires. It would be nice to advance at some point."
Ah, well, in addition to our differences about whether or not we care what the other person thinks, we also appear to differ on whether or not these conversations can advance.
As I have stated many times, in my opinion, debate has never changed anyone's mind about anything ever. I have never met one person who, through debate on a blog, has changed their minds on abortion, sexual orientation, evolution, biblical inerrancy, or any of the other frequent topics covered here and elsewhere. Never. We all know the points, the counter points, the counter points to those counter points. We know the evidence and the warrants for the conclusions. The debates have become a script. So why bother?
Even if these debates weren't already a parody, people, for the most part, simply do not base their beliefs on data, rational argument, and debate. If they did, there would be no overweight doctors who smoke.
And, while for a long time I used to think the discussions might be useful, even if the debate wasn't, as a means to foster understanding, I don't really believe that any more either. Arguments here and elsewhere have mostly disabused me of that naive notion. The overwhelming evidence shows that's simply not possible, and that any understanding is likely just phony feelings of either familiarity or enmity fostered simply by the immediacy of the medium, but not anchored in any reality.
That is, I don't have a clue who you really are as a person, and I'm not going to pretend that I do, simply because I've read a few words you've written in a few blog comments.
From Alan: "I don't have a clue who you really are as a person, and I'm not going to pretend that I do, simply because I've read a few words you've written in a few blog comments."
More than any other point, that is central. There is an odd kind of pseudo-familiarity that blogging and commenting create; we assume that we have come to know another person because of things that person has typed. I find it fascinating that all sorts of motivations, thoughts, even whole personality traits are attributed to me based solely on responses to various things posted on blogs! Indeed, a recent comment at American Descent managed to sum up this approach in a jaw-droppingly stupid way. There is no response to this kind of thing, beyond shaking one's head, as I did, and dismissing the person who made the comment, as I have.
Unfortunately, as Alan also points out, far too often our sources are questioned - or even demanded. I have stated that I refuse to do others' research for them; if they are either too lazy or too ignorant to figure out how to use Google, I just don't have the time to do it for them; then, I get criticized for that, too. Sorry, but I have a whole list of links at my blog, and all you have to do is click on them and read down. Dismissing this or that source because it's "liberal" is nonsensical, just as dismissing another because it is "conservative" is equally nonsensical.
Part of having a conversation is the assumption those involved are dealing (a) in some kind of good faith, trusting that one's interlocutors accept that one is dealing honestly as possible; and (b) that what one says is what one means, not the opposite. Like Alan, I, too, have been disabused of the naive notion of dealing fairly with various folks because they have no concept of (a) and routinely do the opposite of (b). The linked comment is a perfect example.
I have done many posts in which I engage in Biblical interpretation; just this past weekend I did one on a passage from Hebrews. If you want to know how I interpret Scripture, I think it far better to just go read these kinds of things, rather than for me to sit down and explain what goes on in my head when I read and try to figure out what's going on in the Bible. If you don't like what I have to say, tell me why. Don't tell me I'm some kind of neo-pagan false teacher whose opinions are out of bounds because I'm a liberal. That's meaningless, really. And, yes, Marshall, before you get all het up about it, I've received that kind of treatment, including those dismissive comments, innumerable times, even at your blog.
So, if you want my take on reading the Bible, check my blog, read what I've written about the Bible, including my extended ruminations on various passages.
"(a) in some kind of good faith, trusting that one's interlocutors accept that one is dealing honestly as possible; and (b) that what one says is what one means, not the opposite."
Indeed.
And in spite of MA's protestations to the contrary, I rarely find he does either one, and his cronies even less frequently. I'm sure he'd say that we don't either. So, what's the point? The debates then simply become whine-fests about who is treating whom the most unfairly.
I'd rather chew glass.
OK, against my better judgement, I clicked over there, Geoffrey...
Oh good lord what a train wreck. My eyes! My eyes!
MA, do you really think that someone has to actually pretend to have a reasoned argument with some moronic twit for whom the height of wit and intelligence is to make fun of someone else's name? Really?!? See, to me, calling someone a name is not actually an argument. It's just plain idiotic, childish, pedantic, and the biggest sin of all ... it isn't even funny, not even a little, which is inexcusable. I don't need citations, quotations, statistics, evidence, or photographic proof to demonstrate that such behavior is stupid because it Simply. Is. Stupid.
Last time Geoffrey made me click onto one of your cronies' sites, or maybe it was yours, from a link on his blog, one of your buddies was expounding about fags, queers and homos. It was a back-slappin' good time with the KKK set. Those are the folks you hang out with in the blog-o-sphere, MA, so I simply assume you're no better. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.
So you'll have to pardon me if I don't always take your stuff all that seriously, nor do I care what you think. And you'll also have to pardon me if I don't believe that your desire for real dialogue and understanding and peace and hearts and hugs and teddy bears is all that honest. There's simply no evidence to support the assertion.
BTW, if you want my take on reading the Bible, I'd suggest starting with the Westminster Confession. It's a better summary than you'd get in a blog comment.
Alan, send me the ophthalmologist bill for your eyes. I'll pass it on to Marshall.
First, on the name thing. The person who uses that "nickname" for me apparently finds it funny, even though my name begins with a "G", and I don't mind a reference to masturbation, since I adopt Woody Allen's philosophy on that subject anyway.
My real point was how stupid it was to actually think this person knows how I feel about either God or Barack Obama based on a couple comments on blogs. You can't possibly respond to that kind of thing, unless it's a dope slap which you can't do over the internet.
That get's back to the whole pseudo-familiarity thing. My whole life is so much bigger than blogging; there's my wife and family, of course. There are my friends, my work, my interests that have nothing to do with computers. I give hints of these, of course, but hints are all they are.
I once had someone (Mom2) wonder, in an offhand, rhetorical way, how any woman could be attracted to me. I actually answered her that, for the most part, I have rarely had any problem with women, because I am a funny, romantic, silly guy. Not dashing, but certainly good-looking enough to keep loneliness at bay. I'm intelligent enough to have a conversation on all sorts of topics, and I rarely bore people (no one has ever called me boring). Yet, this really stupid, insulting comment was made based on . . . a few blog comments she read. As if any person can have any idea who another person is. I could blog for the rest of my life, and it wouldn't catch a tenth of a percent of my personality, or who I am as a person. Even the most personal posts I have done - usually on topics around the Bible, ironically enough - really only scratch the surface of my life.
Far better, to deal with issues than persons or personalities. Yet, since "debates" and "discussions" usually involve an imbalance of understanding, or a simple refusal to accept what another person says, it devolves in to personal insults, name calling, etc. Which is why, for example, my visits to American Descent are not about reasoned debate. There is no reasoning with someone like Mark, or al Ozarka, who have demonstrated a lack of any interest in anything other than insult and nonsense.
To prove my point, I just posted this on today's daily lectionary reading from the Gospel of St. Mark.
Again, if you have a question, that's how I prefer to deal with it - address an actual experience of reading how I interpret the Bible.
Indeed, Geoffrey.
I think that, not only is it impossible to understand someone through blog comments and/or blog posts alone (people don't really assume that bloggers always tell the whole truth, on their blogs do they?!), I think it is also odd to suppose that through argument and debate with people whose primary means of expression is name calling is somehow going to increase understanding, which was my point about that.
I can't think of a single friend that I have in real life that I came to know and understand because we started out arguing first. Typically friendship comes first, and then you've built a basis of mutual respect that allows for vigorous discussion and debate. I've never seen it happen the other way around.
Thanks folk, for the commentary. As noted on the next entry, I've been busy dealing with the weather, but I sure appreciate the comments.
I'm mostly making my responses in the next comment series, but I do think Alan and Geoffrey are on to something here. We may be better off not talking so much about whether or not we take THE BIBLE as inerrant or factual or infallible, etc. We'd be better off dealing with it on the passage by passage level.
Don't condemn or praise me because I call the Bible "inerrant" or not. Rather, tell me what you think of my interpretation HERE on this particular passage...
Good point.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that we go for more micro rather than macro discussions. I have no doubt that will be fruitless too, since then they will just prooftext.
Alan and Geoffrey,
You both paint with an incredibly broad brush. I'm not going to answer for the comments of a few that you find most egregious. I've taken nasty shots on blogs of my opponents and return in kind if I feel so inclined without regarding every opponent in the same light. Indeed, I tend to focus only on substantive comments, discuss and debate points found therein, and enjoy returning fire on the snarky ones for my own amusement.
To suggest that there is some equal dismissal of opponents sources is a charge to which I am not guilty except where the source, which I almost always check out, is a known waste of time. I can say boldly that I take time to read most links, and respond to the points made honestly even when they are as best I can. But to concede where no concession is justified? Why would I? I don't just say, "That's crap because the source is racist and poorly written" and then offer no substantive response. Good gosh, even if a source I used was indeed racist and poorly written, there is still a point being presented and it is that point upon which the post is based. Thus, if one is incapable of arguing the point, why bother with a lame and cowardly comment that merely lambasts the author or his writing ability? If Hitler states that 2+2=4, are you going to dismiss that point because he's an asshole?
Regarding "doing the research for you", this, too is a lame dodge. Why bother typing out that you disagree if you have no intention of even trying to give reason why? OK, don't give a link to support, but you don't (Geoffrey) even give a good counter argument. If you have a list of links on your blog, how hard is it to go create a link to it and put it in with the comment if you think it supports your argument?
No. Rather, you make noise about doing one's own research and I suspect it's a ploy in which you hope your opponent tires of the search and gives it up, relieving you of the task of defending your unsupportable position. Clever, but I don't buy it.
So, what I suspect, and what neither of you are likely to much care about, is that number one, I believe it isn't a stretch to say that each of you has far more reading and study under your belts on most of the topics we've discussed. How's that for conceding so far? But for all that reading and study, neither of you have real support for your positions, but rather have simply chosen to believe from what you'd prefer to be true or likely as opposed to anything you can support as true or likely. Of course, you are as always, perfectly free to believe whatever you want at any time. But if you think anyone's going to concede a point simply because you can cite a few more books, without showing why they're relevant or worth my time of day, then your vast stores of materials have been worthless to you. One would think that to have studied so that somewhere in there might be a deal breaker. Still waiting for one. The deal breakers are where the real understanding resides. And the only understanding I seek, or can hope to find through this medium is, "how the hell to you guys come to believe what you do?" What is it the Bible says about being prepared to answer for your faith? For all you both claim as far as your background of study, you are woefully unprepared. Hence our deadlock.
I hate all this double posting, but one last thing. On the matter of pseudo-familiarity, I would note that I, for one, do not believe for one instant that even our long interaction on the internet provides me with any clue as to the type of person you are in life, Marshall. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that like me, you spend the vast amount of time away from the computer dealing with simple life things - laughing with your kids, taking care of business with your wife, watching football or whatever - and even at your gruffest presentation on the internet, this doesn't represent who you are on a casual level of interaction.
This is to say that none of my own criticisms (except for your occasional forays in to gay bashing) are personal. They deal only with the words that you have written and I have read. I have yet to be criticized by some of your conservative colleagues at some point that didn't end up being nothing more than personal insults (and, yes, I will call out Mark and that guy who uses the name al Ozarka; Eric Ashley, on the other hand, has always impressed me with his ability to deal substantively with those with whom he disagrees, and it's too bad he acts all wounded when disagreements arise because petulance is very unbecoming).
I will only say one thing about your comment, Marshall. To say that a link to a scientific journal doesn't support a scientific argument is . . . odd. To be generous.
It's not only not odd, Geoffrey, it's not uncommon.
I recently responded to a woman who wrote a letter to the editor in my local paper regarding abortion. She's for it. She referred to a Discover magazine article of May 2004 (I believe it was) wherein she thought it gave credence to the notion that a zygote or embryo isn't necessarily a person. Well, (I'll try to be brief), the article spoke of a researcher of fertility who has found that viability is predictable by looking at the ovum before fertilization. As the article begins, he's predicted that a particular woman looking to get pregnant has no real chance based on what his expertise tells him about the quality of the ovum being used. It then goes on to discuss his work, yet though even though the researcher holds the same sad opinion regarding the personhood of the zygote, there's nothing that states that one can determine when a zygote or blastocyst or embryo or whatever magically becomes what rational people already know it is. Worse, at the end of the article, the woman is pregnant anyhow, praise God.
So, obviously, simply referring to a scientific periodical or even research paper doesn't mean jack if it isn't relevant to the point argued in the debate. It's just that simple.
In a similar manner, most that I've read regarding AGW, only supports the claim of the author regarding his own experiments based on the models he uses, but doesn't back the overall claim of AGW, particularly when opponents have shown the flaws in his model.
But then, I likely haven't read the papers or journals with the ultimate proof like you have.
Sorry all, I've been pretty busy and I'm trying to deal mainly with the next posting, so I may not have a lot to contribute here.
In the meantime, everyone play nice. Don't make unfounded accusations, anyone - I have that happen enough to me that I'd prefer that we avoid it altogether. Some of our visitors here make enough offensive remarks on their own without attributing remarks to them that they haven't said.
As far as I know, Marshall has never used the term fags, preferring, instead, the other offensive term, homos.
Others of Marshall's pals have used those terms, but I don't believe Marshall has. So, let's not accuse him of something he hasn't said, please.
Just to clarify, I use the "contraction" homo, but mostly homosex because I neither care to type out the full word every time I use it, nor do I choose to use words that mean something else, such as gay. To make it easier in the future, I'm considering adding a period after the contraction as is done with the words "Dr." and "Mr." so that it will read "homo." and all will know what I mean.
Marshall, you could call "FAG" a contraction for "friendly and gay," but it wouldn't make it any less offensive.
If you'd like a shorthand way to refer to homosexual, I'd suggest using the word, "gay."
You might be right, MA, perhaps you haven't used the word fag. Homo is *so* much better.
LOL
Thanks. I rest my case now.
I'm offended that perfectly good words like "gay", "fairy", "queer", as well as others, have been redefined for the benefit of such a small segment of the population. Now, of course, they want to redefine "marriage". So I use "marriage" as it is meant to, and I don't use the others because of the taint placed upon them by their misuse. In addition, I don't much care that that same small percentage can dictate that a perfectly good word, accurately descriptive for the context, as well as its contracted form, must be considered offensive on their say so alone. And from one who whines about people attempting to be mind-readers, it seems a bit dishonest and hypocritical to assume I mean ill when I've repeatedly explained myself on this issue.
Is it your opinion, Marshall, that it it okay for you to go downtown and talk about the "niggas" (sorry, I hate even typing that word) around as long as you don't say it with the intention of being offensive? Good luck with that.
And gay, fairy, queer are all still real words. No one has redefined them for the benefit of a small segment of society. Words change meaning all the time, through usage. Still, one can certainly talk about having a gay old time (I use that word in that context, still) or talk about fairies or something being queer. No one is stopping you.
Are you opposed to other words being used in ways they weren't initially used?
From an etymology website:
"Silly meant blessed or happy in the 11th century and went through pious, innocent, harmless, pitiable and feeble minded before ending up as foolish or stupid."
Are you "offended" that the meaning of silly has evolved over time, too?
Yes, Marshall, you hate homonyms. I can't imagine why. You know, the "homo" prefix of that word doesn't mean what you think it means. That is, the concept of homonyms, including homographs and homophones were not invented by the queers you hate, and homonyms were not condemned by Scripture. I'm sure the prefix "homo" threw you.
So what we've heard here is that MA is sad because he can't proclaim, "I feel so gay today!" when he really wants to, without people getting the "wrong" idea. LOL
Color me surprised.
This homonym-phobia, or let's just contract that to "homophobia", is odd considering that, in your last few comments alone, you used half a dozen homonyms ("contracted", "period", "type", "contraction", etc.)
BTW, I'd prefer if you'd reserve the use of the word "art" for their correct meanings. Many people can't even go to a gallery opening any more because you've ruined the use of the word "art" for anyone too blindingly stupid to be able to use a word for more than one meaning.
I'm not sure what's worse, your consistent hypocrisy in using all sorts of other homonyms thereby rendering your "argument" clearly a lie, or the fact that you make such an outrageously obvious, pathetic and ridiculous excuse just to rationalize your continued use of insults and slurs.
Yeah, we get it. You don't use those words, not because you hate gay people, but because you so dearly love gay people. And in order to show your love, you want to use slurs and epithets. Gotcha.
BTW, Marshall, it isn't LGBT people who redefined the word "fag" or "fairy" or "queer", it was homophobes like you, in order to use them as insults, long before there was anything like an LGBT community.
(Also, does anyone really believe that Marshall has occasion or need to use the word "fairy" so much in his everyday life to refer to small fantastical creatures with wings that the original meaning must be sacrosanct? Yeah, me neither. My guess is that he, like most homophobes, has however used these words as insults far more than he's ever used them for their "original" meanings. And my guess is that he didn't have any problem using those words then.
How does he refer to Queen Elizabeth?
LOL.
Just to clarify, "Queen" is different than "queen". OK? Good.
Now, you may call me whatever makes you feel better. Homophobe? You see, you use the term "homo" in order to create that "silly" word which is meaningless since no one is truly in fear of homosexuals, or homos. In other words, to be consistent, I would suppose "homosexualphobe", or "homosexualityphobe" would be better choices. But they are long and clumsy, right? Sorta like homosexual as opposed to homo.
So you can pretend I mean to insult when I insist I don't and use a smaller version for ease only. As petty and childish as that is, you are free to do so. I always consider the source.
It is true that many of our words have changed in meaning over the course of hundreds of years or several generation. Not the words I've mentioned. It doesn't mean I have to "go along" just because it pleases such a small segment of society. Frankly, I don't care who initially used the words in this manner, only that I don't care for the change. Nor does it matter how often I personally use the words. That's totally irrelevant. So is whether or not I've ever used them as slurs against anyone. There are better words that more accurately describe what I think of this small group of people who are gone astray.
For Dan, no, I don't think using the word "nigga" is ever appropriate, but if I did, I'd use the more midwestern dialect of "nigger". But in truth, I call them "people" as I am not bigoted or racist. If I must use any term to distinguish them as a group, for purposes of discussion, I use the word "black".
To use any word with the prefix "homo" is not a troubling thing in the least. What pathetic simpletons would suspect such a thing? I can plainly see that not every word with such a prefix refers to sexual immorality. Why would I think otherwise? You see, unlike you and yours, I try to be honest in supporting my position. It's unfortunate that such isn't possible for your position. I pray you'll all understand that someday while you're still breathing and able to do so.
Now if it's all right with you guys, I'm more than happy to return to the point of the thread. Unless you have more "silliness" to spew.
For what it's worth, I know Dan. He teaches the Bible to young people at our church (or did). He is a layperson. He does not read Greek or Hebrew and has had no classes in critical biblical study, but he is a close and careful student of Scripture. As an author and storyteller, Dan reads closely with an artist's eye for how things fit together.
It has been my experience for decades that most of those who CLAIM to have the highest views of Scripture are actually quite poor at reading it closely. (There are exceptions.) One of my favorite examples is the late Carl F. H. Henry, a favorite theologian of conservative Christians. Henry wrote 8 volumes (!) defending his version of biblical "inerrancy." But I heard him preach on more than one occasion and he was a really poor exegete. He spent all his time defending a particular view of the Bible's authority--instead of more time actually learning how to read the Bible (and let it read him).
On the other hand there are folks like Dan. Dan's reading of Scripture is informed by others: by the reading of Clarence Jordan and Dorothy Day, for instance. It is doubtless also influenced by his preacher wife, Donna and I know it is influenced by our pastor, Rev. Cindy Weber. But Dan's close reader's eye pays attention to what is THERE--and not to what titles of authority say is supposed to be there.
Now, that doesn't mean he is always right. Who is? But I think he is a much better reader of Scripture than opponents like Marshall Art (what a stupid fake name).
Thanks, Michael.
I happen to LIKE Marshall Art as a name, though. But, as you note, I'm not always right...
"That's totally irrelevant. So is whether or not I've ever used them as slurs against anyone. "
No, MA, it really isn't. And it's sad that you apparently think so. Sad, but not surprising.
Marshall also said:
I don't care who initially used the words in this manner, only that I don't care for the change.
I must say (off topic) that this is an interesting position to take. You have an opinion about how the words have changed meanings? Why? Why this particular words and how they've been adapted?
I mean, "faggot" used to mean: "A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together." Is it the case that you "don't care for the change" in meaning on this word, too? Or is it just fairy, queer and gay? Why?
I just find that odd.
I also find it odd that you use phrases like saying words "have been redefined for the benefit of such a small segment of the population..." As Alan rightly pointed out, those words were used as pejoratives not "for the benefit" of some group. If you wish to lay blame on some group for assigning those hurtful words to a group, assign the blame to the bigots and idiots. Is that what you're doing?
It rather sounds like you're blaming "the gays" for "demanding" that those words be changed, which is just a nonsensical position, if that were your position.
Otherwise, to complain about the change of meaning of words is ultimately an exercise in futility.
Aw geez, Michael Westmoreland-White, you think my name is stoopid? My feelinz is all hoit.
Forgive me if I don't put much stock into your opinions of my name or who you think interprets Scripture well. I'm goin' out on a limb and stating that you likely pick your position first and then adhere to interpretations that support it. Considering some of your posts of the past, your ability to read the Bible leaves much to be desired.
For Alan,
"No, MA, it really isn't. And it's sad that you apparently think so. Sad, but not surprising."
But you assume that I DO use them and in a nasty manner. Aren't you big on not mind-reading? Have you seen any posts where I use such terms in a nasty manner? Oh, I use the terms, but only with their original meaning. Have I ever used such terms dispargingly? I've done a lot in my younger years which I've since rejected (and for the right reasons). But then again, none of this matters to one such as you who can divine the truth through blog comments, you mind-reader you. To you, any argument against your position is hate, and that's every bit as nasty as hateful comments directed to you.
For Dan,
"Why this particular words and how they've been adapted?"
Because I don't wish to enable those who rebel against God's Will by using these terms improperly. Like blacks who think they're reducing the power of the word when they refer to each other as "nigger", some in the homosexual community seek to do the same by using these terms to describe themselves (I'm guessing this to be the case. I can't see any other reason for them to use the terms.). But I don't use the word "nigger", either.
To be more clear, I prefer to call people "people". I call a man a man and a woman a woman, but when it comes to speaking about particular groups for whatever purpose, I choose "black" for one group (I don't care for the hyphenated American alternatives) and "homosexual" for another, with the abreviated version for the sake of being concise and saving time and keystrokes. I don't much care what people call me, being a sticks and stones kinda guy. I can tell when someone's being a jerk (Alan) or when someone's just looking to goof around. I consider the source and the context and am willing to trade insults for the fun of it. I can take it, but I rarely start it and then only out of frustration because I'm not Christ, only Christian.
OK, I can't be more clear on that off-topic subject, but I hope it explains my position.
Post a Comment