Crazy, in the news...
“The country can be no stronger than its families... I really believe if what the Supreme Court is about to do is carried through with, and it looks like it will be, then we’re going to see a general collapse in the next decade or two. I just am convinced of that. So we need to do everything we can to try to hold it back and to preserve the institution of marriage.”
“Talk about a Civil War, we could have another one over this.”
~James Dobson
An Open Letter to the Desperate and Emotionally Fragile Religious Right:
I trace the roots of my faith tradition to the great
defenders of religious liberty, the Anabaptists. I trace my family roots to the
French Huguenots. Both of these groups faced actual religious oppression.
Because of their religious beliefs, the Huguenots and
Anabaptists were jailed, tortured and killed by the tens of thousands by other Christian
groups. Actual oppression for their beliefs.
I contrast that with the religious conservatives of today in
light of the recent discussion of marriage equity. These conservatives are
sounding emotionally desperate and speaking in the most drastic of terms, as if
a simple marriage ceremony were the End of Times and the Devil, himself, was
out stealing souls and spreading pestilence.
This is NOT religious oppression, people. You are NOT being
oppressed for your religious beliefs. You are still free to believe what you
wish.
When the Huguenots were told, "Abandon your faith tradition and embrace Catholicism or we will rip out your tongue and burn you alive!" ...that is oppression and a denial of religious liberty. This is not comparable in any way to "If you're in the flower business, you will be expected to sell flowers, even if you disagree with the event or people."
When the Huguenots were told, "Abandon your faith tradition and embrace Catholicism or we will rip out your tongue and burn you alive!" ...that is oppression and a denial of religious liberty. This is not comparable in any way to "If you're in the flower business, you will be expected to sell flowers, even if you disagree with the event or people."
No, we are simply saying that if you are a business owner,
we expect you to not discriminate against one bloc of people. That's all. We
are not asking you to endorse certain marriages. We are not demanding that you
change your religion. We are not demanding that you marry someone you don't
want to marry. We're just expecting that business owners should not
discriminate, that's all.
Don't want to endorse a loving marriage between two people?
Fine, don't endorse it. But if you're in business in the public marketplace,
you can't discriminate. IF your religious beliefs demand that you discriminate
against some perceived “sinners,” then THAT part of your belief will not be
allowed, just like if your religious beliefs demanded that you kill infidels,
THAT part would not be allowed. Otherwise, believe as you wish.
Your religious liberty ends where another's rights begins.
This is not oppression or the end of the age. Lighten up.
You just sound ridiculous and you are an embarrassment to your faith and the many people who have
actually faced oppression and injustice.
46 comments:
“Talk about a Civil War, we could have another one over this.” ~James Dobson
We had a Civil War in the 19th Century to free people who were owned, forced into labor, beaten and killed by other people.
James Dobson speaks of a "civil war" in this century so he doesn't have to sell flowers to gay people who are getting married.
Yeah, that's comparable.
Or not.
Is it just me, or is that insane and actually dangerous to life and liberty (as opposed to expecting business who sell flowers to actually sell flowers without discriminating)?
You are just as extreme in dismissing the concerns of true Christians as you think people like Dobson is for his righteous concern about the consequences of legal enabling of mental disorder.
You believe that if one isn't persecuted harshly enough, that persecution isn't happening. What's insane and actually dangerous to life and liberty is to ignore the signs that point to the marginalization of people of faith who try to live out their faith openly in their personal and public lives, socially and in business. How much condescension and forced compliance will it take for you to acknowledge what is beginning to happen? Will it reach the stage of tongues being ripped out? Does it have to?
It IS just you. It is just you being another celebrant of sexual immorality condemning yourself to one who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
You believe that if one isn't persecuted harshly enough, that persecution isn't happening.
Saying, "You can't discriminate against groups of people..." is not persecution. It's protecting liberty. Your right to swing your fist ends at another's nose.
Agreed?
And can you also agree that making suggestions of actual civil war is incredibly dangerous, actually dangerous?
We Christians are not being marginalized. People demanding their rights and conservatives having to give up oppressing others is not a loss of rights on your part - you didn't have the right to oppress/deny rights in the first place.
You are mistaking an end to oppression with "marginalization."
Yes, we DO rightly marginalize oppressive behavior. If you want to cling to oppression/denial of rights, you will be "marginalized" away from that oppression, just as those who'd like to beat or murder others are marginalized in not being allowed to do so.
How much condescension and forced compliance will it take for you to acknowledge what is beginning to happen? Will it reach the stage of tongues being ripped out? Does it have to?
Nothing is happening except people demanding equal rights. If you don't like that, if your religion is about denying people equal rights, well, then you will have to comply with it nonetheless. Again, it's like the person whose religion includes child sacrifice - they just can't do that.
You are still free to live your faith out... up until you start denying others' their liberty.
To compare that to actual persecution just makes people sound pretty wimpy and irrational.
You gotta be kidding.
"Saying, "You can't discriminate against groups of people..." is not persecution. It's protecting liberty. Your right to swing your fist ends at another's nose.
Agreed?"
No. I don't. First of all, because no one is saying we are being persecuted because immoral people are insisting we can't discriminate against their behavior, as our laws do with all sorts of behaviors. That's just another example of the dishonesty inherent in defenders of the agenda.
We are being persecuted by having our livelihoods threatened for daring to point out the unvarnished truth regarding the immorality of homosexual relationships. We are being persecuted by having our businesses threatened when some asshat reporter poses a set up question, fishing for Christians to expose to the vitriol and hatred of the mentally disordered and sexually immoral. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
"And can you also agree that making suggestions of actual civil war is incredibly dangerous, actually dangerous?"
So nice of you to take the low road again by presuming he's encouraging war. He's clearly concerned that some level of war could result in the SCOTUS ruling in favor of abject and obvious depravity. YOUR side is doing all it can to wage war against truth, logic, science, Christianity and Christian teaching and a host of Constitutional protections.
"We Christians are not being marginalized."
No. Not you "progressive" Christians, who have thrown in with the Father of Lies as you enable that which is unquestionably sinful and contrary to the will of God.
"People demanding their rights and conservatives having to give up oppressing others is not a loss of rights on your part - you didn't have the right to oppress/deny rights in the first place."
No rights have ever been denied, and I don't mind once again demonstrating just how much of a lie this revisionism is:
--No law or state constitution regarding marriage as the one man/one woman institution it is and always has been has ever denied homosexuals from entering into that arrangement. The laws as clearly stated had never prohibited anyone based even on something so inane as so-called "sexual orientation". Homosexuals were always free to marry a person of the opposite sex. Indeed, many had done so, many were encouraged to do so to deflect suspicion that they may indeed be the sexual deviants they are and want to be. So, as "sexual orientation" did not bar homosexuals from marrying, they were not denied any right to marry at all.
Marshall...
We are being persecuted by having our livelihoods threatened for daring to point out the unvarnished truth regarding the immorality of homosexual relationships
As a point of fact, you are not. Your livelihood is NOT threatened for holding an opinion about marriage between gay folk or about homosexuality in general. In the real world, no one is saying "He doesn't approve of marriage between gay folk! Take his business away!" What IS happening is saying, "If you are in the business of selling flowers, you can't choose to discriminate against folk because of their sexual orientation." Just like you can't choose to discriminate against people because of their race or religion.
You are factually mistaken on this point, Marshall.
And to say "Oh, no! forcing people to not discriminate will result in the collapse of society in 10 years" is just insane. And to say this might lead to a civil war, threatening armed insurrection because you don't get your way is just dangerous and actually immoral, as opposed to expecting people to sell flowers when that's their business.
You are mistaken.
As you are about your "homosexuals have not been denied jobs..." Of course they have. Don't be deliberately naive.
As to your hateful and false claims about what you perceive to be unacceptable (I will not use your obscene language here) I will not dignify that sort of hateful language with a response. Instead, I will warn you that this sort of language is not acceptable here. You can comment on the topic, but I will not allow hate speech towards gay folk any more than I would against people of color or religious groups. That comment has been deleted.
Don't do that again, Marshall. I insist.
My blog, my rules.
"You are still free to live your faith out... up until you start denying others' their liberty."
And this is where you and yours continued to keep your heads rammed deeply up your own backsides. There is no loss of liberty simply because one does not qualify for a license. And unlike a driver's license or a license to practice law, homosexuals can live together and pretend they're a normal married couple all they want. The state refusing to join in the charade does not constitute ANY loss of liberty. What freakin' liars you all are!!
In the meantime, as the many lawsuits against business owners have proven, as the loss of jobs (Frank Turek, for example) has proven, the LGBT fascists are determined to deny Christians the liberty to live their faith should any dare do so in a manner that reflects the truth about the immorality of homosexual behaviors. That's ACTUAL persecution, even if it isn't on par with being fed to the lions or gassed in the ovens. To condescend as you do is still another example of your lack of the Christian grace you demand of others.
So, the points of my post that you can comment on (on topic) if you wish to comment:
1. That claims about society collapsing if people have to sell their flowers at weddings they don't approve of is a shrill, emotional and childishly silly claim.
DO you think that society will "collapse" if florists have to sell flowers? Really?
2. That threatening a civil war, an armed insurrection is dangerous and treasonous, especially over such a ridiculous "offense" of expecting businesses not to discriminate.
3. That Christians in the US are not being persecuted in any serious way and to claim that you are makes you seem awfully wimpy.
THOSE are the topics of this post, Marshall. Do you have any polite commentary in response to those topics? Then post them, but do so in a respectful manner.
I insist.
re: Frank Turek.
"His book, notably, also got him fired as a consultant with Cisco earlier this year."
1. He was a consultant, not a direct employee.
2. Companies can and should choose their consultants carefully, if they are concerned about company image. If a company were hiring a consultant to give advice to the company and it became public knowledge that the consultant was a blatant racist who'd written a book about "white power", the company would END that consulting contract immediately, if they were smart.
3. Like it or not, you all are increasingly viewed in the same immoral manner as the blatant racist (especially when you use the sort of hateful language you just used here). People and businesses are increasingly recognizing your hateful and irrational views as hateful and irrational and recognizing such behavior could be harmful to their bottom line, if it were public knowledge that they were hiring racist or homophobic consultants.
4. This is not being fired for your religion, it's being fired for harmful public practices. It's about harm, not about your religion. Or, put another way, it's only about your religion insofar as the parts of your religion that encourage harm to others.
You may not view it that way, but that is how it is. Just as the fundamentalist Mormon may not view forcing teen girls into polygamous marriages is harmful, it doesn't change that it IS harmful and that people would also fire such a consultant for his HARMFUL behavior, not for his religion.
Marshall...
First of all, because no one is saying we are being persecuted because immoral people are insisting we can't discriminate against their behavior, as our laws do with all sorts of behaviors.
What "behavior," Marshall? Attending a wedding? Celebrating the love of two people? You want to discriminate against a wedding you don't believe in? What behavior are you protesting? Holding hands? Kissing? People going through a solemn, joyous celebration together in the company of their friends and loved ones and, sometimes, faith community?
No one is asking you to join them on the honeymoon where, presumably the "behavior" that you disagree with will happen.
I assume you also do not agree with Muslim services, since you're not a Muslim? Does that mean that you think that a florist should be free to discriminate against Muslim weddings, too?
How about Mormon weddings, discrimination should be allowed for that, too?
How about a wedding between a black and white couple - some people still find that offensive to their religion, should they be free to discriminate?
Where do you draw the line?
I repeat: People are free/ought to be free to observe their faith beliefs up to and until it causes harm to others.
Your right to swing your fist DOES end before it hits someone else's nose. That's a basic notion of personal liberty, man.
Marshall...
So nice of you to take the low road again by presuming he's encouraging war.
Dobson's words, not mine. HE is the one who said this might lead to civil war. That is dangerous talk, it might give ideas to and embolden the more deranged members of society, even if Dobson doesn't hope for it (and note, I did not say he was encouraging, I said he was mentioning it as a possibility...)
Marshall...
There is no loss of liberty simply because one does not qualify for a license. And unlike a driver's license or a license to practice law, homosexuals can live together and pretend they're a normal married couple all they want. The state refusing to join in the charade does not constitute ANY loss of liberty.
There is the loss of the freedom of self-determination to marry the person of your choice. Now, 20 years ago, you are correct that the laws did not allow for this, but that is the point: We are saying those laws were unjust precisely because they did not allow for self-determination/liberty and we've worked to see those laws changed.
And, just as YOU see it that, without marriage (and the legal rights denied without marriage) people who were not legally married COULD pretend they were and act as if they were up until their rights were denied (rights like the right to adopt, to see one's spouse, etc)... they COULD have pretended they were married in every way except legally... in the same way, once marriage equity is established for gay folk, then you and Team Dobson can pretend anyone you want to is NOT married legally. It won't make it reality, but you can pretend it.
The difference is that you ignoring the reality of legal marriages causes no one harm except yourselves. But when you deny the rights to others, you are imposing harm, actual, measurable harm. And, as already noted, your right to exercise your religion ends at taking away someone else's rights and liberties.
Pretend away!
OK. You've done it again. You're a cheap liar and a fraud, pretending to care about grace and tolerance. You delete my comments under the false pretense that I am engaging in hate speech. I should have known better than to once more post a comment here without saving it in a file for this very eventuality. That way, I can re-post it and explain why you are lying and those who might be reading can see what a fraud you are. I've said nothing false. I've said nothing hateful. You are an inveterate liar. Let's look at a few of your more recent lies:
"What IS happening is saying, "If you are in the business of selling flowers, you can't choose to discriminate against folk because of their sexual orientation.""
This is a lie. None of those businesses that have been sued by homosexuals were "discriminating" against homosexuals. They were discriminating against a particular request made by homosexuals.
--The florist sold flowers many times to the homosexual who wanted her to provide flowers for his "wedding". She never discriminated against him, nor did she deny a job to homosexuals who had worked for her.
--None of the bakers who were sued for not providing a wedding cake had no problem selling baked goods to homosexuals. They simply did not want to provide their talents in the celebration of sexual immorality.
--The New Mexico photographer who was sued by lesbians had no problem taking pictures of lesbians, but did not want to provide her talents to memorialize a celebration of sexual immorality.
In short, these people were NOT guilty of that which YOU and your ilk are determined to accuse them. You lie, because they are not willing to compromise their principles and their devotion to God and His clearly revealed Will on the subject of human sexuality like you are.
"And to say "Oh, no! forcing people to not discriminate will result in the collapse of society in 10 years" is just insane."
Self-serving. All of our laws discriminate against behaviors. To ignore, tolerate, condone or encourage bad behaviors will indeed cause a collapse of society. We can see this today with the rampant rioting over police actions gone south, actions that would not have occurred if behaviors in the arrested were corrected long before. We can see this in the massive amount of negative effects of allowing sexual promiscuity in our culture.
"And to say this might lead to a civil war, threatening armed insurrection because you don't get your way is just dangerous and actually immoral, as opposed to expecting people to sell flowers when that's their business."
And again you lie. No one is "threatening" armed insurrection, but warning of the possibility that it could occur due to forcing immorality on a nation so desperately in need of a more morally upright citizenry. You don't seem to get all worked up over the "NO JUSTICE NO PEACE" crap we're hearing with alarming regularity these days. But a concern by a person of true faith you'll use to denigrate those who won't equivocate on matters of sexual morality. That must be more of your Christian grace working, isn't it?
"(I will not use your obscene language here)"
This is either a lie or hypocrisy (or both). Both Bubba and Craig have listed obscene and profane comments of your own. You're a fraud.
So, to the points of your post on which I am allowed to comment:
1. "That claims about society collapsing if people have to sell their flowers at weddings they don't approve of is a shrill, emotional and childishly silly claim."
That's not the claim, liar. The claim is that if we are forced to accept immoral behavior, forced to join in celebrating and encouraging it, which is what forcing these businesses to provide their private property and talents does, will indeed lead to worse in our culture. It is the forced toleration, an infringement of Constitutional liberties. The florist situation is merely a symptom of the greater issue of indulging sexual immorality. You're a proponent of that sin. You would force others to join in that sin. God help you.
2. "That threatening a civil war, an armed insurrection is dangerous and treasonous, especially over such a ridiculous "offense" of expecting businesses not to discriminate."
Again you repeat the lie. And a double lie here, as Dobson wasn't threatening war but warning that it may come, and that discriminating against behavior is discriminating against a (low)class of people.
3. "That Christians in the US are not being persecuted in any serious way and to claim that you are makes you seem awfully wimpy. "
This is a lie of degrees...that because no blood is drawn, no persecution is taking place. Denying one's private property or talents in celebration of sexual immorality isn't persecution at all, but you falsely call it "discrimination" and "bigotry". The truth is not in you. At all.
"Do you have any polite commentary in response to those topics? Then post them, but do so in a respectful manner."
There's nothing respectful in the manner in which you twist and distort the issue in order to demonize those who hold fast to the true understanding of sexual immorality, discrimination and Constitutional rights.
I just realized I missed an earlier lie. Homosexuals have only been denied jobs when they insist on being open about their "orientation" to employers that prefer people of better character in their employ. Homosexuals who do not flaunt their immorality do not lose their jobs simply for being homosexuals because then who would know?
re: Turek
"1. He was a consultant, not a direct employee."
His job was as a consultant. He lost his job for that which had no direct impact on his job in any way, shape or form. Some whiny homosexual googled him, found his book and whined that Turek was homophobic. Even if we were to concede that he was suffering from some mental disorder that made him irrationally afraid of homosexuals, the subject never came up in the course of his doing his job (successfully as regards the Cisco's bottom line) as a consultant.
2. "Companies can and should choose their consultants carefully, if they are concerned about company image."
Hypocritical discrimination. Denying a job to someone with an unrelated opinion on an unrelated subject having nothing whatsoever to do with job performance and ability. It would be like denying a job because the candidate is an anabaptist. If you're typical of such, they'd be smart to do so.
"3. Like it or not, you all are increasingly viewed in the same immoral manner as the blatant racist (especially when you use the sort of hateful language you just used here)."
It happens that I indeed do NOT like it, and I don't like it because it is wrong. To accuse someone of standing for moral behavior as being immoral is directly counter to the Will of God, and yet you wallow in that very sin. Indeed, I would have no trouble hiring a racist who never promoted racism in any way that interferes with the bottom line. I would not like that he is a racist, but that alone would not deter me if I thought he could keep his opinions in check.
I would do the same for any homosexual or lesbian who had the strength of character to suppress their urge to BE homosexual in a manner that would not suggest that I, as their employer, in any way condone such sexual immorality.
And of course, you lie about me having used hateful language at any time in my deleted comments (or before or since).
"4. This is not being fired for your religion, it's being fired for harmful public practices."
How inane. Claiming an accurate understanding of Scripture as harmful practice. You're incredibly dishonest. Scripture is crystal clear on the sinfulness of homosexual sexual practice. There is no doubt, only distortion by those like yourself. And you dare speak of hateful speech. What is more hateful than perverting the Word of God?!
And BTW, homosexual practice is far more harmful than having more than one wife, even a teenage wife (given that many are far more mature than most progressive Christians twice their age). While you pretend polygamy was sanctioned by God, you claim it is a harmful practice. Yet, in your hypocrisy and deceit, there is no example of homosexual practice sanctioned by God and you pretend there's no harm in it. Incredible.
"What "behavior," Marshall?"
How disingenuous! The behavior in question is the sexual immorality of homosexual sexual practices. Ceremonies that seek to unite homosexuals in marriage are celebrations of that underlying behavior. Only the deceitful would try to pretend such a celebration can be separated from those acts that are necessary for consummating the union. You embarrass yourself trying to pose as incredulous and shocked.
"No one is asking you to join them on the honeymoon where, presumably the "behavior" that you disagree with will happen."
A stupid attempt here. As I said, the union itself is immoral, and no degree of solemn, joyous celebration disguises that fact. One needn't join in the debauchery to have enabled the sin. Your attendance in the celebration of that union does that well enough.
"I assume you also do not agree with Muslim services, since you're not a Muslim?"
You mean the uniting of a muslim man with a muslim woman in the bonds of matrimony? Why would I not agree? That's called "a marriage" because it is one man with one woman. If it was two muslim lesbians, I'd disagree in the same way. The faith of the happy couple has nothing to do with it. The composition of the couple does. Try paying attention.
"How about a wedding between a black and white couple - some people still find that offensive to their religion, should they be free to discriminate?"
How about showing me where Scripture indicates skin color means anything. But as far as what some business owner cares to do, it's his business and the mixed race couple will find another that doesn't have that issue. So while the issue isn't one of discrimination as related to race, but rather to behaviors, I don't have to like that some might be racist. I only have to respect their liberty to be so stupid. Thus, if you think standing for Biblical truth with regard to human sexuality is stupid, I reserve the right to live by Biblical truth that you find to be stupid because you don't like what God says on the subject.
"Where do you draw the line?"
HELLO!!! I draw the line at one man/one woman. Try paying attention. It's the same place God draws the line. Why shouldn't I draw it in the same place?
"I repeat: People are free/ought to be free to observe their faith beliefs up to and until it causes harm to others."
I repeat: Refusing to lend,rent or sell one's private property or talents for the celebration of sexual immorality (SSM) harms no one, unless there is something traumatic about finding an unprincipled business owner willing to take the money. The insipid aspect of this is pretending harm is being done by such a denial and then fretting over Dobson's warning about the potential for more serious opposition to fraudulent SCOTUS rulings. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Indeed, there is more harm being done in forcing compliance with those who won't compromise God's clearly revealed will just to acquiesce to those who won't compromise their carnal desires to acquiesce to God's will than the other way around. You don't understand liberty at all.
"That is dangerous talk, it might give ideas to and embolden the more deranged members of society, even if Dobson doesn't hope for it (and note, I did not say he was encouraging, I said he was mentioning it as a possibility...)"
Nice back peddle. But it is far more dangerous to pretend the possibility doesn't exist if one feels it does. It is a sin of omission, in fact, if one does not warn against that which one feels truly threatens. But one thing for sure, I don't buy your concern that his warning might encourage the very consequence against which he warns. That's BS and you know it. It just doesn't work that way. If it does, then you really need to speak out on your blog against those "NO JUSTICE NO PEACE" idiots. Such talk IS a threat of violent action, and totally unjustified violent action at that.
"There is the loss of the freedom of self-determination to marry the person of your choice."
This is just a John Cleese-like "no it isn't" to the italicized quote that precedes it. One needs no license to marry anyone. A license is state recognition and there's a reason the state takes interest in one type of relationship and not any other. But to fail to qualify is not a loss of freedom or liberty. That's another BS argument with no legs.
As to rights, single people have adopted before. The adoption issue, however, also runs counter to true rights, such as the rights of children to have both a mother and a father, and the right of adoption agencies the freedom to determine the best options for those children in their care. This is a singular example of the selfishness of the whole push for SSM. There is no "right" to the vast majority of those benefits that are bestowed upon real marriages. They are simply connected to marriage because of the concept of the two being one. But while homosexuals can pretend to be married, they have no right to do so, only the freedom to pretend. What's far more important is that they have no legitimate right to force the state (the people) to join in the pretense, even if SCOTUS says otherwise.
Marshall, I have deleted another comment of yours with especially hateful, obscene commentary. I have saved all your obscene comments and can send them to you with the obscene parts pointed out, so you will recognize your obscenity and why it is not going to be posted here. If you truly do not recognize your own obscenity, just ask and I will send them back to you to be cleaned up and re-posted sans obscenities.
But since you appear to miss the point, I'm not speaking of mere cuss words, which I consider rude, sometimes, but not actually obscene. I'm talking about hateful attacks using hateful words.
[Obscene: offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency;
offensive to moral principles; repugnant.]
As it is, I'm probably giving you too much license, but as you know, I don't like deleting comments and rarely do it. I don't do it for attacks against me, but I will do it for obscene attacks against others.
I insist.
To one of the main points, you said...
The behavior in question is the sexual immorality of homosexual sexual practices. Ceremonies that seek to unite homosexuals in marriage are celebrations of that underlying behavior.
You DO know, don't you, that no actual sex activities happen at weddings? I don't know about you, but for me, celebrations are about the blessed, loving union of two people, and sex is NOT the underlying behavior, love is.
Perhaps that's your problem (I know you've expressed similarly sexually unhealthy opinions before)... that you view sex as dirty and sick and thus you make a holy union of two people in love "all about sex..."?
Sure, sex is generally a part of healthy marriages, but it is NOT the "underlying" point of marriage, not the marriages of which I'm aware.
So, perhaps that's where you more conservative types are having the difficulty. You see a beautiful union of two people and in your dirty minds, it's all about sex, even though (of course) no sex is happening.
The point remains, Marshall, no one is asking the florist or baker to agree with what happens in the lives of married people AFTER the wedding ceremony/party/gathering, any more than the florist or baker needing to agree with what happens in the lives of people after Derby parties or Muslim or Jewish or Mormon weddings or other events which a florist or baker where a florist or baker might be needed.
Taking part in the ceremony need not be an endorsement of other activities in their lives. BUT, if you view that one party/gathering to be inextricably tied to what, in your personal opinion, is sinful, well, you're going to have to adapt.
Oppression can't be legalized.
So, one more and I'm off to church.
If you think it's okay to discriminate/refuse service to a group NOT based on the event, but on what they may do later, will you approve of store/business owners denying to serve conservative Christians, to provide them food, drink, housing NOT because they will be using that food to discriminate, but because you'll be using that food to "sin" (in our opinion) but because, later on, after eating, you WILL be going out to "sin," to engage in harmful, oppressive behaviors (in our opinion)... do you think we should be allowed to refuse service/goods to conservative/fundamentalist types?
If you're rationally consistent, you would agree we should have that right, BUT if you're reasonable, you would also recognize the serious human rights problems that position - the position you are advocating towards others - would cause when applied to conservative Christians of the more fundamentalist stripe.
First off, by all means...send me the deleted comments so that I can see just how far you'll go in misrepresenting and distorting definitions in order to stifle opposition and disagreement. I'll review them for the purpose of collecting more evidence of your deceit and lack of the Christian grace you claim to revere so highly. Then I'll re-post the comments to the best of my ability with regards to what will certainly be your draconian standards in mind.
"You DO know, don't you, that no actual sex activities happen at weddings?"
This is an example of the routine form of deceit, even if self-delusion on your own part, that those like yourself like to put forward as a compelling argument. This union is based on the immoral sexual desire that each "spouse" has for the other. Platonic unions do not result in weddings or any similar celebration. Who do you think you're kidding...besides yourselves (that would be you and all other activists and enablers)? I love quite a few of my long-time male friends. I do not want to have sex with any of them and none of us have ever proposed any civil or religious ceremony to commemorate our extremely close friendship, followed by a a reception with cake. It just doesn't happen. So you can 86 that inane line of (what can only be loosely referred to as)reasoning and replace it with something less blatantly and purposely insulting.
And of course, what has been prohibited by God because it is an abomination to Him could not be "blessed", particularly by Him, no matter how much it makes people like you go "Awww!"
"Perhaps that's your problem (I know you've expressed similarly sexually unhealthy opinions before)... that you view sex as dirty and sick and thus you make a holy union of two people in love "all about sex..."?"
I do not view sex as dirty and sick, but as any student of Christianity knows full well (this is where you need to really pay attention regarding this manner), sex is only "non"sinful in the context of a marriage, which is defined as one man united with one woman. If that sounds like an unhealthy opinion about sex to you, then you are far more morally corrupt than I thought. Indeed, it is the only legitimate scenario in which sexual activity is permissible according to Scripture. It is the only union of two people that could be regarded as "holy". Certainly, by Scriptural standards, no union of two of the same gender can be so regarded when there is lustful desires by each for the other.
"You see a beautiful union of two people and in your dirty minds, it's all about sex, even though (of course) no sex is happening."
Once again, it is not a "beautiful" union, but a sinful one according to Biblical precepts. Also, again, it is indeed a matter of sex since it is sexual desire that brought the two together initially (just as is the case with 99% of normal marriages), sex that will consummate the union and sex that will likely be the reason that it disintegrates. To pretend that sex is not the issue in SSM is flat out deceitful.
"Taking part in the ceremony need not be an endorsement of other activities in their lives."
How can it not be? When you force someone to sell, rent or lend their private property (which is what the products of a merchant is) or provide their talents for the purpose of celebrating what is considered by that someone as immoral and opposed to their religious belief, you are forcing them to endorse the activity.
But forced endorsement isn't the issue anyway, though it is every bit as It is the participation alone that is offensive to the merchant of faith, and forcing the merchant to provide that private property and/or talents is forcing participation in that which he knows is sinful, even if anabaptists sadly don't think so.
"BUT, if you view that one party/gathering to be inextricably tied to what, in your personal opinion, is sinful, well, you're going to have to adapt."
Well, that remains to be seen, as even many who support SSM do not believe a merchant should be forced to act in a manner that conflicts with his firmly held religious beliefs. But to whatever extent a merchant is so forced, that constitutes true oppression...not making a couple of homosexuals find another baker. And YOU want that oppression legalized.
"If you think it's okay to discriminate/refuse service to a group NOT based on the event, but on what they may do later,"
Let's try to pay attention, shall we? I could not be more clear, nor can those who have been sued over this issue: participating in a "gay" wedding is to participate in something sinful. Two men (or women) uniting as if married is a sinful situation by the standards of orthodox Christian belief. That makes the event itself sinful. To be a part of that "celebration" is to enable the sinner in their sinfulness. What about this basic concept aren't you getting?
As to the rest, I am certain I have made myself equally clear: I have no problem with anyone exercising their decision to deny service to anyone for ANY reason whatsoever (aside from life-saving services), even for something as reprehensible as denying on the basis of race. I don't have to agree with such a decision, and I would likely not patronize such a merchant. But it's his business. I prefer this situation as it allows me the privilege of knowing the character of the merchant to whom I might give my money. I WANT to know such things about the person with whom I might do business. If I don't agree with the such decisions, I consider it a public service to know that information in order that I might find another more deserving of my money.
Use your head for just a moment. Think of those two old lesbians of whom you are so fond. Imagine them going to the local pharmacy for some ointment. Upon their departure, the merchant and his employees make all sorts of derogatory comments and jokes about your friends compelled by their revulsion toward the LGBT crowd. Do you want to enrich such a merchant by ongoing patronage when he detests personal friends of yours, or would you likely recommend to your friends another pharmacy?
Now imagine that everyone in your little corner of the world feels as you do. What is the likelihood of this establishment thriving once word gets around? Do you see an opportunity to perhaps "evangelize" your support of immorality with this person in order to maybe persuade him to do as well?
This is how the free market is supposed to work, and this is how changing hearts and minds is supposed to work, not by oppressive force of judicial or legislative fiat. Your way means that "bigot" will live large as he is able to not only disparage those he dislikes with impunity, but profit by those he dislikes at the same time. My way means he will go out of business, OR, should he still thrive after the word spreads, I will know I live amongst jerks and can either preach or move. There's no downside to my position.
So I'm not only rationally consistent, I'm logically endorsing what will be most beneficial for the most people. My way does not oppress anyone, but allows the ideologies of an individual to naturally lead to either his own success or failure, OR, to his decision to re-assess his ideology and perhaps change if change is warranted (again, moving might be best if the whole town supports sexual immorality).
The bottom line is that adaption is forced either way. But my way is forced by the parties that are supposed to have the sovereign authority to do so...in this case, the consumer. YOUR way totally infringes upon the merchants Constitutionally protected liberties by force of government...the very thing our Constitution prohibits.
Marshall, I think this line gets to the meat of most of where I think you are mistaken. You say...
sex is only "non"sinful in the context of a marriage, which is defined as one man united with one woman. If that sounds like an unhealthy opinion about sex to you, then you are far more morally corrupt than I thought. Indeed, it is the only legitimate scenario in which sexual activity is permissible according to Scripture.
1. God has not given you a definition of marriage. This is a fact.
2. Where you read the Bible and find a line or two that cause YOU TO GUESS... "Aha! THIS must be how God defines marriage and IF God defines it that way, who am I to disagree..." that you take that guess does not make it a fact. It is an unprovable opinion, NOT a fact, NOT what God has told you.
If you disagree, well, you are just factually mistaken.
3. You reach this error, I believe, because you treat the Bible as a rulings book, where one goes to find a ruling, much like a Holy Magic 8 Ball, as I have often noted. You ask the question... "What is the definition of marriage, how does GOD define marriage...?" You "shake up" your Bible and find a verse that reads something like "For this reason, God made them male and female..." and YOU THEN EXTRACT from that verse a ruling, "AHA! THAT is God's definition..." But the text does not say that, nor is there any real world data to support that conclusion. It is your human extrapolation, NOT a fact and NOT a "word from God," at least not provably so.
If you disagree, well, you are just factually mistaken.
4. I happen to hold the opinions that sexually "acting out" and having multiple partners with no commitments is not a healthy way to express our God-given (or innate, if you prefer) sexuality. I happen to think that a committed, monogamous arrangement is the best, healthiest place to express that sexuality... in other words, marriage. But given that some people are not heterosexual, I would never suggest that the one and only way to express our sexuality is in a heterosexual marriage - how does that make any rational or moral sense for a gay person? It would be obviously immoral/wrong/unjust to limit it to only heterosexuals.
As a matter of justice and morality, then, it seems obvious to me - regardless of whether Marshall Art disagrees - that marriage arrangements are the best place for expressing our sexuality, gay or straight.
Now, if you have another opinion or a dozen other opinions about what God thinks about it, I really just don't care. It is my opinion that your opinions are unjust, immoral and oppressive and so, I will disagree with you. As a strike FOR morality and justice.
Feel free to disagree, but just keep in your mind the clarity that your hunches about what God thinks are not synonymous with what God thinks and your hunches that are contrary to established, known facts are simply mistakes. Provably so.
Marshall...
I have no problem with anyone exercising their decision to deny service to anyone for ANY reason whatsoever (aside from life-saving services), even for something as reprehensible as denying on the basis of race.
Well, here in the US, we have decided that businesses can NOT discriminate based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. I happen to think this is the morally right decision.
So, while you can still cling to the notion that it's moral to allow white racist business owners to turn black folk away with no legal repercussions, the rest of us have that behavior as grossly immoral oppression - especially in regards to how one treats a historically oppressed minority.
The same will be true for those who'd cling to the notion that it is moral to turn away people based on sexual orientation.
You're on the immoral and losing side of history on this point, Marshall. In my opinion.
"1. God has not given you a definition of marriage. This is a fact."
No, it is NOT a fact. Indeed, the above is an absolute and abject lie. Thousands of years of Judeo-Christian theological scholarship have agreed that Genesis 2:24 stands as God's definition of marriage as one man and one woman. It is only the morally corrupt "progressive" Christian homosexual enabler that pretends this is not so. This stands as but one of many sources I could have chosen to cite to provide what is a clear explanation to honest and rational people. That is...unless you are demanding that God must have preceded that verse by saying, "What follows is My definition of the word 'marriage'", which makes you ludicrous beyond belief.
"2. Where you read the Bible and find a line or two that cause YOU TO GUESS..."
Another lie, as there is no guessing required for that which is crystal clear. Both Christ Himself, and later Paul, affirm the definition of one man and one woman becoming one flesh. There is no doubt about it whatsoever. You just wish there was because the truth is just so terribly inconvenient for you and your friends who are given over to their sin.
"3. You reach this error, I believe, because..."
because you need it to be an error in order to provide license for what you'd prefer Scripture should allow, but doesn't.
""AHA! THAT is God's definition..." But the text does not say that, nor is there any real world data to support that conclusion."
Absolute childish nonsense to the Nth degree! It is what the text IS saying and the real world data is the rest of Scripture and how marriage and family is never depicted in any way that suggests any other definition is possible. The real world data is how the real world throughout human history has recognized the true, one man/one woman definition, while never, ever widely accepting homosexual unions or behaviors. The real world data is thousands of years of Judeo-Christian acceptance of this definition as so clearly revealed in Scripture to honest people.
"4. I happen to hold the opinions that sexually "acting out" and having multiple partners with no commitments is not a healthy way to express our God-given (or innate, if you prefer) sexuality."
But unlike me, you have absolutely no Scriptural basis for that position, nor have you ever attempted to provide any.
"But given that some people are not heterosexual, I would never suggest that the one and only way to express our sexuality is in a heterosexual marriage - how does that make any rational or moral sense for a gay person?"
An equally irrelevant question would be, how does that make any rational or moral sense for a person oriented toward sex with animals?
"It would be obviously immoral/wrong/unjust to limit it to only heterosexuals."
It would only be "obvious" to the immoral, like yourself. What is or isn't moral isn't based upon the personal preferences of man, but on the Word of God. It's certainly "not fair" to the thief that he is prohibited from stealing. What a preposterous notion that morality would or should be based on what we want.
The following is so absurd it deserves its own dressing down:
"As a matter of justice and morality, then, it seems obvious to me - regardless of whether Marshall Art disagrees - that marriage arrangements are the best place for expressing our sexuality, gay or straight."
First, you do not have the sovereign authority to dictate either justice or morality. THAT is obvious and I indeed cannot help but disagree with you because I agree with God. He was quite clear about what marriage is and that definition is reiterated over and over and over again throughout Scripture.
Second, "expressing our sexuality" is not the purpose of marriage. There is no Scriptural basis whatsoever for this self-serving notion. Indeed, there is no such basis for imagining that God has any concern that we actually seek to "express our sexuality" at all. Where did you come up with this masturbatory idea? And what of those whose "orientation" is toward multiple partners, siblings or parents, children, animals...who are they do "express their sexuality"?
You want to pretend you are striking a blow for morality and justice. But where is your evidence that your inane concepts of either has Scriptural backing? God determines what is just and moral. How does enabling what HE called a sinful behavior fall under either heading? Be specific for a change. Provide the verses that. I want to see something as specific as you demand for "my" definition of marriage. Where does God say what you pretend He is saying with regards to your position? If want to pretend that the verses I cite are too vague, what do you have that has more substance, even for you?
There's no "hunch" involved with my position as it is clearly concluded from specific teachings. I can't see that your heretical position even qualifies as a guess, much less a hunch, because you provide nothing to support it. So if mine are hunches in conflict with "provable" facts, let's see that proof.
"Well, here in the US, we have decided that businesses can NOT discriminate based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. I happen to think this is the morally right decision."
But you are wrong. The founders did NOT share your opinion in the least, and you couldn't provide one shred of proof to show they did. Their concern was regarding what government can or cannot do. They were concerned with preventing government from infringing upon our liberties. Public accommodation laws infringe upon the liberties of business owners. One needn't agree with the racist attitudes of a business owner, but it isn't the government's job to dictate what an individual must think. There's nothing "moral" about the government forcing one to like another, which is what public accommodation laws do. It's no different than redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation. Forced charity is not charity and it is not the moral thing to force people to be charitable.
"So, while you can still cling to the notion that it's moral to allow white racist business owners to turn black folk away with no legal repercussions, the rest of us have that behavior as grossly immoral oppression - especially in regards to how one treats a historically oppressed minority."
This is incredibly stupid. The notion to which I cling is that one who puts in the effort and takes the risks to establish a business enterprise has the right to run that business as he sees fit and to serve those who it pleases him to serve. If that means you have to go elsewhere to buy your beef jerky, that's not "oppression". Not in the least. While I might not agree with the merchants decision to deprive stupid people of their jerky, it's his freakin' business and the government has no Constitutional authority to dictate such a thing.
"...the rest of us have that behavior as grossly immoral oppression..."
And here we see another example of liberal hypocrisy, as you insist on forcing YOUR morality upon the nation. Typical.
I had said
"1. God has not given you a definition of marriage. This is a fact."
And Marshall responded...
No, it is NOT a fact. Indeed, the above is an absolute and abject lie.
As always, you are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts. God has not give you a definition of marriage, Marshall.
If you have such a definition, from God to you, please provide it and documentation from God, certified, please.
In the meantime, you are welcome to your opinions, just don't confuse them with facts or conflate them to God's Word from Marshall.
It is decidedly and without doubt NOT and "opinion". It is indeed a fact that God has defined marriage as one man/one woman. NEVER has any Biblical scholar/theologian, Christian OR Jewish, found reason to suspect it is defined any other way. Only childish "progressives" require evidence of God saying something like, "I, the Lord your God, hereby defined marriage in the following manner...". Throughout human history, moral and mature adults, as well as most immoral and immature adults, clearly understood that definition was reflected throughout Scripture as being a result of God's clearly revealed intention. A comprehensive summary can be found here. What have you got to dispel this notion in any way, but your desperate need to believe that God did NOT so define marriage in this way?
You accuse me of conflating opinion with fact. You don't even have the decency to do so yourself, as your "opinion" is no more than an invention of fantasy and immoral human desire to acquiesce to worldly corruption. This is the charge I level against you, as I have for years, and for which you offer nothing of substance to rebut.
Marshall...
It is decidedly and without doubt NOT and "opinion". It is indeed a fact that God has defined marriage as one man/one woman.
Marshall, as you appear to be unable to distinguish between fact and opinion, you are not allowed to make any further comments on this post without
1. Providing a signed note from God (notarized) supporting your OPINION, and showing it to be a fact or
2. You apologize for your false claim.
I insist.
Marshall has twice now posted without providing the signed, notarized documenation from God or admitting he misspoke. What he said, in essence...
As I said, my "signed note" is Scripture itself
No one is disputing that the Bible contains the words they contain. What is in dispute is the meaning and the authority which some try to assign to their interpretations.
I am entirely fine, Marshall, if you want to read a line from Genesis and say, "What this MEANS (in my estimation) is essentially that God is defining marriage as one man and one woman..." You are welcome to interpret that day all day long, as long as you understand that it is MARSHALL's interpretation, not what God has said.
That is the distinction that you are failing to make, Marshall, and why your comments have been deleted. You do not seem to understand reality and to be able to differentiate between YOUR personal human interpretation and a fact.
So, it has been noted that YOU BELIEVE in YOUR opinion that YOU THINK some verses can be interpreted the way you think. But it simply is not a foregone fact that your interpretation = reality.
It's just not. Until you can understand that, you can't comment here because, well, that's just delusional, Marshall, and I'm not going to enable your delusional thinking.
You're a coward, plainly and simply. If you believe what I put forth as true is mere opinion, then obviously you have a different "opinion". As this is the case, then you obviously have some Scriptural support for your "opinion" (which you no doubt live out as if factual, so who do you think you're kidding?). To date, you've offered nothing to support your "opinion", nor have you offered anything whatsoever that renders my "opinion" as unfounded, misunderstood or in any way not the truth. Instead, you play this childish game of demanding "signed documentation from God", all the while offering the weakest of weak misapplication of irrelevant verses, if you offer anything at all. How dare you speak of grace in discourse with this low class behavior of yours! Shameful.
Oh, and one more thing: You're a complete hypocrite. You constantly whine about being misrepresented at other blogs when they insist you refrain from posting. Here, you delete my comments and then misrepresent my arguments. So you're a hypocritical coward to boot.
My opinion has been stated clearly, repeatedly.
My opinion is that the Bible is not a rule book for modern life.
My opinion is that this was one of the great sins of the Pharisees... that they tried to force literal rules upon people with no grace. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for doing that. Where the Pharisees pointed out (factually) that the OT rules said "Kill this adulterer..." Jesus literally (in the text) dismissed that rule and said "Neither do I condemn you..." and saved her from the literal death that the Rule-Livers were pushing.
When Jesus' followers were being sniped upon by those same Rule-Livers, Jesus clarified that the Sabbath was made for Humanity, not the other way around. The rules were there to help us, in Grace, not to take the life away, in legalism.
My opinion is that when people try to force a ruling out of a book of Grace and Truth, they fall prey to the sin of the Pharisees.
My opinion is that this thread of thinking is abundantly clear thoughout the Scripture. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but you can't say it's unfounded or, given Jesus' treatment of the Pharisees, not an idea that's NOT to be taken seriously.
My opinion is that marriage is NOT NOT NOT ever a single time ever in the history of the text of the Bible "defined by God." Does not happen.
My opinion is that you folk are lifting completely out of context a few words and using them to support your modern cultural biases. When Genesis says...
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
...it is my opinion that you are taking beautiful poetry telling a figurative mythic explanation of men and women and trying to make a RULING out of it, you are missing the point. Entirely.
cont'd...
Is it possible to consider this text a "ruling" for God, a definition of what God wants marriage to be? Sure it's possible, you've done it along with many others.
Is that what the text demands/insists itself to mean? No. Factually, no, the text makes no such insistence, the text does NOT NOT NOT ever one single time say "AND THIS IS GOD'S RULING FOR MARRIAGE..." any more than this verse that comes just before it...
Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.
...a ruling on what job men are to have. Using your approach, one could say, "Well look there, GOD HAS DEFINED man's work for us. MEN - according to God - MUST work in the garden, cultivating and keeping it - for their livelihood!"
Do you see how graceless and textually unfounded such a claim would be on Genesis 2:15? If so, then perhaps you can see how graceless and textually unfounded it would be to do the same thing to Genesis 2:24.
The fact is, you don't take these sorts of chapters literally in toto. You interpret them, as one should do. And when you interpret, you are holding YOUR HUMAN opinion. It is NOT a definitive, authoritative FACT when you interpret some passage.
And my opinion is that when you do so poorly, as I believe you have done, it is even less than an opinion. It's a silly opinion and, in this context, graceless, and that's a danger.
In my opinion.
Now, if you can agree that these opinions of yours ARE your opinions, your understanding, your beliefs... I have no problem with that. It's just when you insist that your opinions are equivalent to facts (when you can not prove them to be facts and when, factually, they are not known to be facts) or equivalent to God's Word, that is a problem. I hope you can understand that when people start making up facts or claiming to speak for God, that we rightly ought to hold them accountable and insist upon some factual, authoritative support for the claim.
Hold opinions all day long and I don't care how silly they are (although I may disagree with them), you are free to hold them. But you are not free to make up facts. Facts have a different standard of proof and you have factually NOT been able to support your claims, indicating that you have some problems differentiating reality from your opinions. I don't have to support delusional thinking, nor should I.
re...
As this is the case, then you obviously have some Scriptural support for your "opinion" (which you no doubt live out as if factual, so who do you think you're kidding?). To date, you've offered nothing to support your "opinion"
In case you missed it or misunderstood it: Since I don't misuse the Bible as a rulings book, I don't necessarily need to provide Scriptural support to prove my case. I simply offer my reasons (I support marriage equality, for instance, because there is no rational reason NOT to support gay folk getting married if they wish to do so and because there is harm in opposing it, and because, I believe, marriage is the healthiest place to live out our God-given sexuality... for instance...) and those reasons ARE reasons, whether or not you agree with them. So you can't say I have not provided support for my case, that would be a false claim.
However, if YOU want to make the case that the Bible is a rulings book where moderns can find lines and say "this ruling to ancient Israel or ripped from a poetic passage is a ruling that God thinks moderns should hold to..." then you have to begin with providing some sort of support that the Bible should be used in that way. And since, ultimately, what you are claiming is that your interpretations of your cherry picked (out of context) passages are equivalent to "This is what God says...," then the onus is on YOU, Marshall, to provide some authorization that demonstrates you have a license to speak for God. Which is why I asked for a signed and certified statement which you have not provided.
On the other hand, since I'm stating "Here's MY OPINION, what I find to be reasonable, and here is why I find it reasonable...," all I need to do to support that my opinion is my opinion and that I find it reasonable is to testify.
It's a difference between what authority one claims to speak with. I clearly have the authority to offer MY reasonings and support for MY opinions. Without a single doubt, I have that authority.
That's not in question.
What is in question is YOUR claim to speak for God, THAT is what remains unsupported.
Dan,
As you have been corrected so often, your opinion about following God's law is totally in error. You have a very poor understanding of the conflict between Christ and the Pharisees. Christ was far more strict with regards to obeying God than were the Pharisees.
What's more, you cannot honestly dismiss others as treating Scripture as a rule book when you yourself live according to teachings of Scripture as you pervert them. And you admonish those who don't, or who obey God's laws as Christ commanded us to. What are you living by? Suggestions? I don't think so.
"Jesus literally (in the text) dismissed that rule and said "Neither do I condemn you..." and saved her from the literal death that the Rule-Livers were pushing."
You've been corrected on this corruption of the story as well. He did NOT dismiss the rule. He dismissed the expectation that HE should give the OK for carrying out the rule, as if He had the civil authority to do so. Jesus was not walking around insisting that He could dictate how the Jews should carrying out sentencing of those found guilty of breaking God's laws. Nor was He insisting they should ignore the righteous sentences for law breakers. Furthermore, He allowed the sentence to be carried out by the one who was without sin. Doesn't much sound like dismissing any rule. Honest students of Scripture understand that the story was about the Pharisees trying and failing to trap Jesus between a rock of the Jewish religious law, and the hard place of Roman authority. You pervert the story to make it mean what you need it to mean to shore up your weak position on morality.
"My opinion is that when people try to force a ruling out of a book of Grace and Truth..."
Your opinion is unsupportable nonsense shaped in a manner to provide loopholes through which you can force any manner of self-serving alternatives to that which you find inconvenient. Who do you think you're kidding?
"My opinion is that this thread of thinking is abundantly clear thoughout the Scripture. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but you can't say it's unfounded..."
I most definitely can and have. What's more, I've provided a link to demonstrate the foolishness of your protestations regarding Scripture as a "rule book" and just how unfounded they are. If yours are abundantly clear, why provide some evidence?
"My opinion is that marriage is NOT NOT NOT ever a single time ever in the history of the text of the Bible "defined by God." Does not happen."
Only if you childishly insist on having the words "This is the definition of marriage" appear before it is defined. Why not actually read the links I provide in support of my position which at the same time totally demolish yours? Then at least you'd have something tangible to actually defend against with evidence of your own. OR, you could point to some part of it and attempt to show why it doesn't hold water. That might make for serious debate.
"...it is my opinion that you are taking beautiful poetry telling a figurative mythic explanation of men and women and trying to make a RULING out of it, you are missing the point."
And again, your opinion is fallacious and unsupportable. Whether "mythic" or not, it explains at the very least that each was made for the other, not each for another of the same gender. And relationship defines marriage.
"Is that what the text demands/insists itself to mean? No."
Your error and self-delusion is in demanding that it must so insist. It doesn't have to "insist" for it to mean that men and women are meant to be with each other and designed by God for the purpose. Christ reiterates that God "made them male and female"..."For this reason..." ...to become one flesh. They came from one flesh (Adam) and by their conjugal union again become one flesh. Only one supporting the immorality of homosexual behavior would suggest this isn't the case. But you have nothing but your conscious and willful decision to reject it to back you up.
"Using your approach, one could say, "Well look there, GOD HAS DEFINED man's work for us. MEN - according to God - MUST work in the garden, cultivating and keeping it - for their livelihood!""
Only if one is a desperate defender of sexual immorality could this be considered an apt comparison. It isn't in the least. But I'll give you this much: had Adam not sinned, he likely would have had that very job for all eternity. But as they were booted from the Garden, he lost the gig. You'll pretty much say anything, won't you?
"Do you see how graceless and textually unfounded such a claim would be on Genesis 2:15?"
Graceless is you comparing apples to oranges and expecting me to do the same. The purpose of creating man and woman was for them to unite and become one flesh. The purpose of creating man was for him to rule over all the earth (Gen 1:26), not just tend gardens. But you'll pretty much say anything, won't you?
Now you want to call my position mere opinion, and silly opinion at that. Your attempt to prove that is what is silly, as it fails so miserably. Far sillier is YOUR complete invention (because "opinion" doesn't really fit what you've done with the concept of marriage) and how you've got nothing to support it as being the least bit possible. "Whole cloth" I believe it is called. Complete fabrication. I continue to wait patiently for any evidence from Scripture that provides room to call the union of two of the same sex a marriage. Anything at all. Still waiting. So while you insist on referring to my supported by Scripture position a mere opinion, you've got NOTHING for your fantasy. Even if God Himself came down and said, "Yo, Art. I never really gave a definition of marriage at all", you'd still have far less (that is...nothing at all) that gives you license to dare suggest that a union of two of the same gender could possibly be within whatever definition God might otherwise have.
As such, I have indeed been able to factually support my claims. You simply dismiss and reject them like a good little enabler is supposed to do. Then you say this:
"I don't have to support delusional thinking, nor should I."
You do have to demonstrate that mine is delusional and you really should provide something that shows yours is not. To date, you've done neither. Your latest attempt to diminish my position (that nonsense about working the garden for a living) I've shown to be ludicrous. And so it goes.
"In case you missed it or misunderstood it: Since I don't misuse the Bible as a rulings book, I don't necessarily need to provide Scriptural support to prove my case."
How convenient. How lazy and cowardly. Regardless of how you use the Bible (and you most certainly abuse it as I've just demonstrated yet again), you do need to provide something from Scripture to support a position that you claim is Christian, such as the nonsensical position that God would bless a union that can only be consummated by engaging in behavior He has described as an abomination. Can best friends, platonic friends, become one flesh? How can that happen without sexual intercourse? Is there any hole in your position that you can possibly fill for me ever?
"(I support marriage equality, for instance, because there is no rational reason NOT to support gay folk getting married if they wish to do so and because there is harm in opposing it, and because, I believe, marriage is the healthiest place to live out our God-given sexuality... for instance...)"
From a Christian standpoint, there is indeed a rational reason to oppose "gay" marriage. I just mentioned it above with regards to consummating the union. A true Christian encourages others to repent of their sinfulness and live their lives according to God's will, which includes the crystal clear prohibition against engaging in homosexual sex. "Harm" in opposing bad behavior is of the self-inflicted variety. Those that insist on engaging in bad behavior suffer as a result of the engagement and the consequences it brings, not from the righteous opposition of those who recognize the bad behavior for the bad behavior it is. We oppose theft and murder. Those who feel they have reason to steal and murder would indeed experience harm of some sort if they did not follow through on their intentions, either.
As to "God-given sexuality" and "living it out", that would be the one man/one woman variety within the only context approved by God---marriage of that one man with one woman only. Your "reasons" for supporting sinfulness is the type of man-made law of which the Pharisees were so often rebuked. Except that yours go much farther astray of God's will and purpose. Shame on you.
"So you can't say I have not provided support for my case..."
I absolutely can and would be remiss if I didn't, because you haven't. You've given your own reasons made up in your corrupt mind. I asked for anything from Scripture that supports your position because nothing else matters for a self-described Christian in so blatantly opposing what theologians have stated was the case since the Biblical authors first put quill to parchment. And keep in mind, if you are going to talk about what the Bible says about marriage, you really need to find something to suggests the word does NOT refer solely to the union of one man and one woman. I'll wait here.
"However, if YOU want to make the case that the Bible is a rulings..."snip"...I asked for a signed and certified statement which you have not provided."
I've given plenty from Scripture over the years to back what is in context and not the least bit cherry-picked (a routine and spurious charge from those with no Scriptural support of their own for their own weak opinions...this means you, Dan) verses. For example, the universal prohibition against homosexual behavior (and the other sexual behaviors of Leviticus 18) is supported by the fact that God stated Israel was not to do what the Egyptians and the Canaanites did. That is, it was already considered by God to be wrong and the reason why He was destroying other cities and peoples. The way they trimmed their beards? Not universal. No mention of evil barbers in those other cultures provoking God's wrath.
"What is in question is YOUR claim to speak for God, THAT is what remains unsupported."
Above is your most common lie, the routine bearing of false witness of which you accuse people like myself. I do not speak for God. I speak of what God has revealed to us, much like the apostles, only not quite as comprehensively. As my latest link shows, Christ constantly spoke of God's will and tightened up the loose understanding of God's will by the people in general and the Pharisees in particular. It really is what we are all called to do. But you don't like or respect all of God's will. You alter it to your liking. You need to stop doing that. You do your homosexual friends no favors by enabling them in their sin. You might as well join them in their sin for all the good that does you. I do have authority to speak of what God wants for us as He has revealed it to us. No. I have the obligation to speak of it and I continue to do so to the best of my ability and even if I, in my imperfection, fail to live up to it perfectly.
In the meantime, you purposely keep it ambiguous and vague in order to avoid offending those who most need a reminder of what does and does not please God. Shame on you.
The fact is, you don't take these sorts of chapters literally in toto. You interpret them, as one should do. And when you interpret, you are holding YOUR HUMAN opinion. It is NOT a definitive, authoritative FACT when you interpret some passage.
I'll let your off topic comments stand, but you have only served to demonstrate that your claims to "facts" are entirely baseless and remain unsupported. If you can't admit to that, then you are, in fact, confused about understanding the difference between fact and opinion.
"The fact is, you don't take these sorts of chapters literally in toto."
I absolutely do. What's more, "FACT" is that I don't equivocate as regards what these sorts of chapters teach or require of us. I don't make it mysterious since it is really quite crystal clear over 90% of the time. "FACT" is that Scripture is already interpreted for us by scholars and theologians. I merely need to read it to know it without having to ponder and scratch my head over what "thou shalt not" means.
You insist that I have demonstrated that my claims to facts are baseless and unsupported. Crap. I've provided basis and support but YOU fail to demonstrate why I am wrong, or what a more likely alternative is, and you refuse to do this because you lack basis and support for why it might be more likely. You do, however, twist meaning and insert your own, willfully misrepresenting teachings of the Bible to enable that which you prefer.
Still short on time, but there are two points I need to make:
1. I do indeed take all of Scripture literally. The problem here is your insistence that such a position requires that I take literally such phrases as "four corners of the earth" and then must presume the earth is square. This is deceitfulness on your part to pretend it is impossible to differentiate between lessons taught and the manner in which they are taught. The use of a colorful phrase or metaphor does not demand I take those phrases and metaphors in a literal sense. It is the lesson taught, the histories related, etc., that one takes literally.
2. Insisting that I cannot distinguish between fact and opinion does not make it so. If you believe a fact I present is not factual, it is your duty to provide counter evidence demonstrating your objection to be truer than my stated claim. I won't admit to anything simply on your insistence that I do. I provide support for my positions that you simply dismiss. You provide nothing but a petulant demand that I agree.
Post a Comment