A
follow up to my earlier post, “Neither Do I Condemn You...” and
ongoing conversations about the various human theories about
Atonement, as it relates to Christianity and salvation. Stan, at the
Birds of the Air blog, recently posted about “The Awful
Alternative...” where he talks about atonement theories.
On
that blog post, Stan said that if we don't accept what Stan calls
“traditional, biblical Christianity...” (and by which he means,
if we don't accept the particular human traditions Stan believes in
of understanding salvation in terms of either God paying a “ransom”
for our “sins” or of Jesus “taking the punishment for our
sins,” in place of us... ie, if we don't take the human traditions
of evangelicals going back hundreds, maybe many hundreds of years),
then there is no justice.
Here's what Stan said on his
blog...
“First,
clearly God is not
"just and justifier" (Rom 3:26). The Ransom Theory and its
sequels start with the premise that sin demands justice. Jesus did
not
satisfy that demand, so God is not just.”
The
problems with this, as I pointed out to Stan are...
1. It
still is a set of human traditions, no matter how many hundreds of
years old it is and no matter how many humans agree with it.
2.
It's a set of human traditions on a point that we can't prove
objectively.
3. It presumes – in spite of any support for
the presumption – that to not “atone” or make right with God in
JUST the way that the humans who favor these human theories, then
there God “is not just...”
The problem is: Says who? WHO
SAYS that all sin – of whatever shape or size or impact, must be
paid for by a human life? AND that the only “just” punishment is
eternal torment with no hope for redemption or rehabilitation? It's a
presumption that the claim is right, without a proof that the claim
is correct.
4. The problem with this HUGE unproven presumption
is that it contradicts the very notions of Justice that they say
failing to heed their opinions will undermine. That is, choosing to
punish someone for an eternity of torment for the typical sins of
humanity... say, normal lies, minor thefts, greed, pride, etc – is
disproportionate to the sin, and thus, a violation of justice.
Out
of ALL these conservatives that I've talked with over the years –
these who've visited my blog over the years, Stan, Neil, Glenn,
Craig, Marshal... no doubt others I'm not thinking of right now... as
well as those I've talked to in my real life and in places like FB –
in ALL these conversations, no one has EVER dealt with this huge hole
in their argument. The only path to “justice,” they argue, is to
have an unjust and irrational and frankly, quite evil, punishment
wildly disproportionate to the “crimes” committed.
Never
an answer. Rarely even an attempt to answer it.
The closest
that I've seen to an answer is them saying, “God's ways are not our
ways...” But then, that begs the question of, “Well, what makes
you think God's ways are YOUR ways? WHY is your human opinion about
justice the “right” one to explain God's justice?"
So,
there's all of that, waiting for some response. What Stan did respond
to were a set of claims that I didn't make. For instance, Stan said
in response to reasonable questions I raised...
The
Jesus he follows condemns no one.
I
never made this claim. It's not something I believe.
He points
to my post on the “woman caught in adultery” as “evidence”
that I've claimed Jesus condemns no one and no behavior. The problem
is, that's not any claim I made in that post.
This is typical of the sort of responses I get from traditionalists of the
conservative variety... straw-man attacks about things I haven't said
versus dealing with the reasonable questions I did raise.
Stan
did go on to allow that, “Well, Dan did say that Jesus condemned
the Pharisees...” but then, that's not “no one,” is it?
Further, in that post, I was speaking specifically about Jesus' harsh
condemnations that are recorded in the gospels. In reality, Jesus
only strongly rebukes the Pharisees and the rich oppressors in those
texts. In pointing out that reality, I'm not saying that there are no
other behaviors to condemn. At all. Of course, the poor man who rapes
a woman or abuses a child should be condemned, as well. I'm just
noting the reality that it didn't happen and get recorded in the
gospels.
So, we see here another instance of a conservative
reading words written in his own language and day and completely
failing to understand the meaning. And I know
the completely failed to understand my meaning because they were my
words. I also asked Stan that, given his repeated inability to
understand my words written to him today, why he has so much
confidence in his understanding of ancient texts about an omniscient
God's ideas?
No answer.
Stan continued by saying...
it
must be clear that the God Dan follows and the Jesus Dan believes in
is not the same as the mine. Why, then, would Dan be upset that I say
that we are not in the same religion?
And
later...
My
God is defined as just (among other things) and yours is not.
My
God is not “defined” as just? Says who? That's nothing I've said.
I've always been abundantly clear that God is concerned about
justice.
Stan continued...
Maybe
it's me, following the longstanding, traditional, biblical version,
or maybe it's him, with his what I would term "new and improved"
version. But clearly we are not of the same faith if we do not have
the same Father and the same Son to worship and obey.
Stan fails to see that it's a bit of presumption to say that
because I disagree with his interpretations and traditions, that my
views of God are not traditional or biblical. People have long viewed
God in the ways I view God and we have often reached our opinions
precisely because
of the words of the Bible, not in opposition to them.
Stan's
conclusion... “clearly we are not of the same faith and do not have
the same Father...”
Because we disagree.
But imagine
this: There's a family with a great pair of parents. Flawed, but
still loving and concerned about justice especially for the poor and
marginalized. One child in that family accurately says, “My parents
were great. They loved us and taught us about justice and watching
out for the poor and marginalized.”
The other child says,
“My parents were horrible. They didn't act in a loving manner and
were incredibly unjust!”
Does the second child NOT still
belong to those parents and that family? Are they a different family
because they one child disagrees?
Of course, this claim is not
a rational or consistent one. Both children ARE part of the same
family, in spite of disagreements or mistakes.
I totally get
that we disagree significantly on many points. But the difference
between modern (and not-so-modern) conservative evangelicals and more
progressive folk is, we truly believe in Grace. That is, we don't
insist that one must agree with us totally and completely – or even
in part on some specific set of beliefs – in order to be a follower
of God. Why? Because we don't believe that salvation or community
depends upon perfect understanding of some vague and undefined set of
“required” beliefs.
I can guarantee that I am wrong on
some points. I don't know which ones, but I'm human and I will get
things wrong. Likewise, I guarantee that all humans will get some
things wrong. But we aren't saved by having perfect knowledge or
perfect understanding, are we?
27 comments:
And lest there be any confusion about my intentions on posting something like this, let me be clear. I bring up disagreements with Stan because I would like to see engagement in the actual questions I raise. I'd like them to learn to get past their mistaken presumptions about what they think (and wrongly claim) "Dan thinks..." and admit it when they've made a mistake, just as I strive to do. And then, once they recognize what I'm NOT saying, if they'd just deal with the questions I am raising and points I am making. That would be ideal.
It's just so difficult and I have found that it just hasn't happened yet.
But I hold out hope.
See what I wrote in the post below. Marshal starts out like he's going to disparage your liberal category: "human traditions."
But he belongs to a tradition that is permeable to modernity, which he demonstrates with "to some extent any and all understandings of Scripture constitute a "human" tradition..."
But because he is adamantly a conservative extremist within his tradition, he has to be self-contradictory and un-thorough.
HIs argument loses cohesiveness because he argues both things at once: all theology is platformed on human traditions, but his is right, for reasons he cannot articulate.
His default position is to oppose whatever he perceives as a modernist construction, and remains entirely ignorant that 1) his assumption that the Bible presents only one, consistent view is only as old as the Reformation's literalist dogma, and so remains ignorant that 2) there are differing conceptions of justification and redemption in NT scripture.
Marshal ends up manufacturing lies - only caring to seem like he's set up the logical condition despite any non-lazy reader seeing that he hasn't really cared to. He makes up myths.
Marshal said...
"Human traditions"
This is a term you like to use to disparage that which doesn't provide the license for your perversions. At the same time, you do not use it to describe your own heretical corruptions. Regardless of the source, to some extent any and all understandings of Scripture constitute a "human" tradition..."
1. I'm not "disparaging" human traditions. I'm rightly identifying them when you all fall back on them. Opposition to gay folks getting married is literally NOT biblical. It's a human tradition. Opposition to transgender folk is literally not biblical. It's a human tradition. Various theories about atonement are not biblical, they are human traditions. Belief in inerrancy is literally not in the Bible. It is a human tradition.
Understanding reality begins with recognizing facts vs opinion. It is a FACT that God nowhere in the Bible condemns gay folks getting married or transgender folk. It is a FACT that God nowhere authorizes Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement or Inerrancy. These are all theories postulated by various humans and thus, human opinions, not proven or provable.
I'm glad you can acknowledge that much reality, Marshal. It's a start. (Although I expect that you will backpedal and revert back to some version of "But these ARE facts...")
2. It's a fact I'm literally not seeking a "license for perversions." That is YOUR mistaken human opinion and a damned false claim.
That we don't agree about what is (Trump's whole life, practically) a "perversion" and what isn't (two folk, gay or straight, uniting in a loving, committed, respectful commitment in the formation of a new family). That you would try to paint something so lovely and wholesome as somehow bad, THAT is a perversion. Not that you can see that yet, but it literally is.
3. Humans are flawed and imperfect. Thus, any human opinions about unprovable matters are prone to error. Thus, any human traditions formed from human opinions are prone to error. Just a fact of logic.
How is that mistaken?
Marshal's comment has been deleted because he can't comment here until he admits reality from the last post (denying reality is a bad thing and no grounds for reasonable discussion). But I'm posting this comment from Marshal to address the points he raises.
Marshal also said... "The real concern is whether or not the tradition in question is actually Biblical, which can be defended or denied by reviewing those passages used to support it."
Well, that may be your position. For me, the real concern is whether or not a tradition is actually true, good, reasonable, loving and just. "Biblical" is a term that conservatives have often used to try to suggest that their human opinions are not mistaken or capable of being mistaken, because they are "biblical..." But what you, Marshal, or anyone else consider "biblical" IS STILL, perforce, a human opinion. YOU THINK that God supports inerrancy or PST Atonement... because YOU interpret words in the Bible to make that conclusion.
But what if YOUR INTERPRETATION is flawed? Mistaken? Evil, even?
How do you know it can't be? Fact: You don't.
God says you shouldn’t eat pork.
Or be in the same house with a menstruating woman.
Etc.
Marshal said... "You're pointing out your rejection of Biblical teaching and pretending they're nothing but "opinion", despite it based on hard evidence..."
I'm Not rejecting "Biblical teaching." Im rejecting your opinions and interpretations about texts from the Bible. Do you understand this?
Your opinions and interpretations are not equal to biblical teaching. No matter how much you pretend it is. Do you recognize this reality?
When I disagree with your interpretations of The Bible,That's not disparaging The Bible. It's disagreeing with your opinions. Nothing else.
Your opinions ARE your opinions, not the only possible interpretation. And so, I'm not "pretending."
When you say, I really really really really really like believe in my heart of hearts that this interpretation is true, that does not mean you are correct. And it's sure as hell not "hard evidence."
"I'm Not rejecting "Biblical teaching.""
You absolutely are, because I do nothing less than repeat what Scripture says. From there, honest conclusions are easy to produce. Indeed, they pretty much arise by themselves for honest people.
"Im rejecting your opinions and interpretations about texts from the Bible. Do you understand this?"
I understand that's your routine response, but it's not an argument which is more than "nyuh uh". It never comes with a more compelling, rational and logical counter...even without the "hard data" you demand of others.
"Your opinions and interpretations are not equal to biblical teaching."
Why wouldn't they be when actual verses and passages are the main meat of my positions? For instance, while you focus on "Penal Substitution", to us that's merely a label for what is clearly and unmistakably taught in Scripture. To us, it's the many passages and verses which reference the reality if Christ's sacrifice to which that label is applied. In the meantime, you offer nothing from Scripture which stands opposed to the reality of PSA, and instead merely default to your standard "nyuh uh"...which is ironic given your dismissal if far more and better substance from our end.
"When I disagree with your interpretations of The Bible,That's not disparaging The Bible."
Given our positions flow from Scripture and are no more than saying the exact same thing in only a slightly different way, you most certainly are. This is especially true given the total absence of a better explanation of what the provided passages and verses might otherwise mean.
"Your opinions ARE your opinions, not the only possible interpretation."
Should the day ever come when you see fit to provide another, we can debate it.
"When you say, I really really really really really like believe in my heart of hearts that this interpretation is true, that does not mean you are correct."
All that matters here is your inability to prove otherwise and your unwillingness to try. The "hard evidence" is the text upon which our belief is based, without which our belief would be no more credible than yours.
Scripture: 1. Don’t eat pork; 2. Don’t stay in the same house with a menstruating woman; 3. Given that Jesus is returning soon, you shouldn’t get married; 4. Make really good friends with sex workers and revolutionaries; 5. Love your neighbor as yourself.””
Marshal: I don’t fucking care!
___
Dan: "When I disagree with your interpretations of The Bible,That's not disparaging The Bible."
Marshal: “Given our positions flow from Scripture and are no more than saying the exact same thing in only a slightly different way, you most certainly are”
St Paul: “Jesus has overturned Scripture: it’s love not law.”
Jesus in St John: “The Spirit will come and teach you new things”
Protestantism (Marshal, Stan, Neil, Craig, and the fake Scotsman):
"The Son and The Spirit DID teach new things. But now they’re trapped in a book! Exactly as the Father intended.
And because the lesser gods are trapped in the book, The Father won’t mind me reaching back into the OT - past Jesus - and resurrect some laws I personally like.
I want to keep control of some of the judging. Just like the Pharisees did."
Marshal... "You absolutely are, because I do nothing less than repeat what Scripture says. From there, honest conclusions are easy to produce. Indeed, they pretty much arise by themselves for honest people."
Marshal, using my brain and reaching conclusions other than yours is NOT "rejecting Scripture." It's just not. You use your brain to reach your conclusions. Those conclusions are NOT the only possible conclusions.
Following from that, Marshal said... "Should the day ever come when you see fit to provide another, we can debate it."
I've repeatedly gone into depth about why I believe in Grace, not the Penal Substitutionary Human Theory of Atonement... as a RATIONAL and Biblical conclusion.
I've explained my biblical and rational reasoning on marriage equity and LGBTQ rights, on the human theory of Inerrancy, on War and Peace, on Non-Violent Civil Disobedience, on Justice, on "hell," on the nature of Jesus' Good News, on Wealth and Poverty, etc, etc, etc.
I HAVE "provided another explanation," over and over. You DISAGREE with my conclusions and reasoning, but that's not the same as me never having provided an explanation.
First of all: DO YOU RECOGNIZE that reality? I HAVE made my case and you don't agree with it, but I HAVE made my case. Do you recognize that reality?
For instance, here is an ENTIRELY rational and biblical explanation of why I disagree with your human theories of atonement:
1. Jesus came preaching "the good news/gospel to the poor and marginalized," from the very beginning of his ministry. THAT is why he'd come, he tells us at the beginning of his ministry.
2. In all of his recorded sermons and lessons, we see ZERO serious suggestions from Jesus himself that the Gospel = "We're sinners, God is an angry God who can't abide by sin and must torture sinners for an eternity, but I've come to "pay" for human sin by giving my life, getting killed and using my blood to somehow literally "pay" for human sin to "appease" an angry God so that those who repent and "accept" that blood payment by acknowledging Jesus as the son of God - and do it in just the right way - can be saved from this angry God."
3. If Jesus were preaching the "gospel" of PST Atonement, then don't you think that would be a central message in his words? But it's not. It's just not. You have Jesus using the word Ransom ONE TIME (the same story in Matt 20 and Mark 10) and that one time was in the midst of a lesson about humility, NOT directly about salvation or the Gospel.
What Jesus said in that ONE allusion to "ransom" was...
“You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
There there is the Lord's supper passage in Matt 26 where Jesus says...
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
In ALL of the four gospels and in ALL of the places where Jesus and the disciples talked about the Gospel, there are ONLY these three vague allusions to something that could be taken to mean to suggest something like the human PSTA.
cont'd...
4. Given that reality, and the near-complete absence and lack of emphasis on anything like the human PSTA, it strains credibility to suggest that this is what Jesus was (not) talking about when he talked about the Gospel.
5. Likewise, Jesus never directly used the word Grace in the Gospels, although in the Gospel of John, the author says... "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
One thing to point out here: I'm not looking for a specific WORD to be used. I'm talking about IDEAS. So, just because Jesus didn't refer to Penal Substitutionary Atonement theories is not, in and of itself, a non-starter. But he never talked about the IDEA of PSTA, except for maybe vaguely in two separate places.
6. BUT, what we DO see over and over and over from Jesus are words that DO talk about ideas of Grace, He'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized, he critiqued endlessly the judgmental and arrogant Pharisees and emphasized coming to community in simplicity and grace, he talked about the great Welcome Table, where all the traditionally excluded were included and welcomed, Jesus was willing to include the traditionally hated Samaritans, women, foreigners, on and on and on, we see Jesus' speaking of Good news/Gospel specifically for the poor and marginalized and, believe it, this IS a grace to the traditionally oppressed. He spoke of a WAY that is welcoming and full of Grace.
7. AND SO, seeing all of these teachings from Jesus and seeing practically NO EMPHASIS from Jesus on PSTA, it just strains rational and biblical credibility - to me - to suggest that PSTA is what Jesus himself was speaking of in his many mentions of the Gospel and in his many recorded words.
Now, that IS an explanation (very brief - I've written a great deal more on it as you should know) of why I don't think your human theory is the best explanation - or even a rational or good/credible one - for your human theories. It IS a reasonable defense that you may ultimately disagree with, but you CAN'T say it isn't there.
Do you recognize that reality, now that I've pointed it out to you yet again?
And again, I'm not saying you have to agree with my conclusions, I'm just noting the reality - the real word objective reality - of it all that I HAVE provided explanations and defenses of my opinions. You can't say I haven't done that. You can't say I don't honestly believe it and you can't say that other people also don't honestly believe these ideas.
Good faith, rational adult conversation would insist upon you just recognizing REALITY, even if you disagree with opinions.
"Marshal, using my brain and reaching conclusions other than yours is NOT "rejecting Scripture." It's just not. You use your brain to reach your conclusions. Those conclusions are NOT the only possible conclusions."
Your first mistake is using your brain. It's too small and inefficient for serious considerations of important issues.
Secondly, I've never suggested...or even hinted...that there exists possible different conclusions from those at which I've arrived. The problem here is that you offer nothing to support yours. You dismiss, say, mine, and then offer no better possibility and definitely no supporting evidence from Scripture to in any way provoke a change of heart. "Nyuh uh" just never cuts it.
"I've repeatedly gone into depth about why I believe in Grace, not the Penal Substitutionary Human Theory of Atonement... as a RATIONAL and Biblical conclusion."
There's nothing rational about your conclusions because your "depth" is no deeper than a wet spot almost dried by the sun. I do recall one or two citations of Scripture which were verses cut short in order to make your point, but in general you offer nothing of substance. "Rational" requires substance and "Biblical" requires actual Biblical verses or passages to support your premises.
"I've explained my biblical and rational reasoning on marriage equity and LGBTQ rights, on the human theory of Inerrancy, on War and Peace, on Non-Violent Civil Disobedience, on Justice, on "hell," on the nature of Jesus' Good News, on Wealth and Poverty, etc, etc, etc."
No. You've offered piss poor corruptions of words, verses and passages, heresies and totally made up crap. This is most evident in your support of sexual immorality, wealth and poverty...shit...everything you've listed, actually. It's been the crux of our differences for years.
"I HAVE "provided another explanation," over and over."
No. You've offered different positions, but your explanations for how you came to hold them are weak sauce. You've offered piss poor corruptions of words, verses and passages, heresies and totally made up crap and call them explanations, Biblical reasoning and other such nonsensically labeled word salads. And the holes in your "explanations" have been many. "Reason" is a word which doesn't apply for how you came make them up.
"First of all: DO YOU RECOGNIZE that reality?"
What "reality"? You have no grasp of reality. To you, "reality" is what you need it to be, not what it is. The next time it occurs to you to ask that question, slap the crap out of yourself.
YOU THINK my explanations are insufficient. BUT I AM NOT YOU. I think YOUR opinions and interpretations are very unbiblical and wholly irrational. BUT, unlike you, I don't say you've never explained your position or that your explanations are not viable/rational TO YOU.
Having someone explain their position and disagreeing is NOT the same as saying they didn't explain their position. Saying "I find that reasoning lacking" is not the same as saying, "Therefore, YOU can't possibly believe it..."
Of course, I truly think my explanations make the most sense. That's why I hold them.
Last time, I'm being more than patient:
DO you understand that reality?
Let me try one more way: In the real world, I TRULY BELIEVE that my understanding of the issues that we talk about is the most reasonable, moral, just, biblical and defensible that I know of. I hold these positions because I seek truth and this is the best I understand them. Likewise, I honestly don't think your explanations are soundly biblical or rational, moral or defensible. It's why I no longer believe them (although in the real world, once upon a time, I probably largely agreed with you on each of them.
Do you recognize the reality that I hold my positions because I think they are the most reasonable and biblical? EVEN IF you think I'm ultimately mistaken, I truly believe them to be the best explanations I have so far.
While I don't ultimately agree with your hunches (any more... again, I used to), I don't doubt that you truly believe them.
Are you able to understand that this is true for me? That I TRULY believe what I say I believe?
Just that much. Do you understand JUST that much?
When one reasons from scripture, as I have always dine - as I did above - Marshal will block you.
He has zero answers for Biblical interpretation because he has zero ability to defend against the whole of Scripture.
He has his cut and pastes. His mind is a cut and paste mind. It’s the only way to live in the 21st century as if it were 1840.
Like the Amish and the Mennonites and the Hasidim, Marshal is a bizarre and brutalizing fundamentalist.
Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that “the person who does these things will live by them.”
But the righteousness that comes from faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say?
“The word is near you,
on your lips and in your heart”
Marshal... "Your first mistake is using your brain. It's too small and inefficient for serious considerations of important issues."
This is not how serious adults of good faith discuss topics. Don't be so juvenile.
Marshal... " The problem here is that you offer nothing to support yours."
I literally JUST DID.
I pointed to the dearth of support from the words of Jesus found in the four Gospels as your understanding being what the Gospel that he and his followers preached. Noting an ABSENCE of support is one way to support a position.
From there, I continued to point to the places where Jesus DID speak of the Gospel and point to his words "I have come to preach good news to the poor..." "I've come to invite the disenfranchised/marginalized to the feast table..." etc.
And here's a whole page full of my explanation about the Gospel AS FOUND in the four Gospels and AS PREACHED BY Jesus...
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=gospel
So, I literally just gave an explanation (brief, but referencing a small book's worth of commentary I've made over the years that you've read) "to support my views."
You can disagree, but you can't say I have not explained and offered my reasons. You can't say I've done this apart from the Bible's words.
Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, I started as a traditional conservative, literally, and it was being told to take the bible and especially the teachings of Jesus seriously that I've ended up holding these positions. It's not like I've read what liberal theologians have said and they changed my view. In the real world, I've reached my position from striving to take the bible seriously - even literally, earlier in my Christian life, until I realized that a literal interpretation of the Bible - or good common sense - does not insist upon taking the words found in the Bible literally or inerrantly.
"This is not how serious adults of good faith discuss topics. Don't be so juvenile."
You mean like calling Glenn insane and me one tick less? You mean like demonizing conservatives as liars when you call Jenner and Levine "women"? Do you even know what "good faith debate" means? It seems quite clear you don't...Mr. Deleter.
"From there, I continued to point to the places where Jesus DID speak of the Gospel and point to his words "I have come to preach good news to the poor...""
And from there you continue...without support...to insist He is referring to material poverty, even after providing for you commentaries which better inform you. You reject them because you're so fixated on money.
"And here's a whole page full of my explanation about the Gospel AS FOUND in the four Gospels and AS PREACHED BY Jesus..."
Yeah...and it'll take me some time to go through all that shit again to refresh my memory on just how absurdly you "explained" your corruptions. Unfortunately, I'll have to do so in order to explain to YOU why it is so lacking as true explanations. AGAIN!!
"Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, I started as a traditional conservative, literally,"
And again, LITERALLY, you have no idea what "traditional conservatism" is or looks like. It has to do with that small inefficient brain of yours.
Marshal: “ Mr. Deleter”
Marshal is a stone cold hypocrite.
Traditional conservatism, by the looks of Marshal, is hypocrisy turning to lies turning to myth making.
Marshal said... "Your first mistake is using your brain. It's too small and inefficient for serious considerations of important issues."
Dan replied... "This is not how serious adults of good faith discuss topics. Don't be so juvenile."
Marshal replied...
"You mean like calling Glenn insane and me one tick less? You mean like demonizing conservatives as liars when you call Jenner and Levine "women"? Do you even know what "good faith debate" means? It seems quite clear you don't...Mr. Deleter."
The Difference is, I was referring to a specific action of Glenn's. He said that mental health "was not real."
(!)
This is irrational. This, on top of regular suggestions by people like him and you that experts don't know what they're talking about and that you know better than the experts.. Again, this is irrational. Delusional, even.
Insane was a perhaps hyperbolic (but reasonable) term to talk about that very real problem of thinking grandiosely that you know better than experts, but it wasn't completely irrational.
You, on the other hand, said I had a small brain. That's just a very grade school response to nothing more than disagreeing with you because you disagree with the experts.
I'm honestly interested in knowing your answer to this: Do you not understand or see the difference - the very great and significant difference - between the two?
Marshal... "You mean like demonizing conservatives as liars when you call Jenner and Levine "women"?"
To the degree that some conservatives refuse to acknowledge others gender correctly and presume that they know better than the person and experts what someone's gender is, I call that factually mistaken. That's not demonizing them It's just pointing to reality. That they are detached from reality and think they know better than experts or even the individuals themselves..., to the degree that that makes them look foolish and is arrogant and oppressive, that's on them. People's actions have consequences.
I'm just talking about facts, as we know them.
And once more, I can't say this enough... No one really cares what non-experts think abouttopics they're ignorant about.
I don't care in the slightest what gender you think someone else is. I don't care what gender you think I am. I don't care what gender you think you are. I don't care what gender you think Jenner is. Your opinions about things that you don't know anything about are entirely irrelevant.
"The Difference is, I was referring to a specific action of Glenn's."
The difference is, he's got a far better argument for his position than you have for insisting Jenner and Levine are women.
Stupidly false unsupported claims will not stand.. I don't care what you two flat earthers think about other people's genders.
You two are idiots.
You're ignorant.
You're not experts.
You don't know the people in question.
You are not gender experts.
Your unsupported hunches are contrary to expert opinion.
No one cares what the ignorant think in their little heads.
What part of "we don't care what you think if it's unsupported by data" do you not get?
This is similar to those who would claim the Earth is flat. You are irrelevant. You're wrong. You're making stupidly false claims with no support because there is no data to support your claims. Your ignorance is not an excuse.
Now go away.
If you can't support anything port anything, We don't care what you think. Your opinions are a little puddle of ant piss in the midst of the oceans.
"And once more, I can't say this enough... No one really cares what non-experts think abouttopics they're ignorant about."
Marshal...
Which is Dan-speak for "I don't care about truth, facts and logic so long as I can cite 'experts' who promote the lies I cherish."
When we're talking about human sexual orientation and gender identity, the APA is the collective group of experts on the topic. Saying, "I think those experts are wrong..." is meaningless.
Again, Your uneducated and ignorant non opinion is a puddle of ant piss in the ocean. Your ignorant opinion is meaningless. You and the others who would oppress and cause harm have lost.
And I don't care if you can find one doctor out of a 100, or one scientist out of a 100 who would endorse smoking cigarettes every day. I'm gonna listen to majority of experts and not the outliers being paid by the tobacco lobby.
Marshal - the “pro life” devotee - just wrote off 800,000 American deaths and 5 million worldwide as a hoax.
To lie with such callousness testifies that Jesus has had zero impact in his life: his “faith” is corrupt.
When I say that you all are ignorant and idiots about the topic of transgender people or sexual orientation I'm speaking specifically to that because you are quite literally ignorant of these topics.
You are NOT a researcher in gender studies.
You are NOT a scientist who has studied sexual orientation.
You are literally ignorant of the topic. You have no data driven support for your positions... Thus, you are literally ignorant of the topic.
Now I will apologize for being too harsh if you can demonstrate to me with data and research from accredited sources that you DO have some expertise in these areas.
But you don't.
You are ignorant. That is just a factual assessment of this situation. It's not even an insult. It's just a factual assessment of your lack of knowledge on the topic.
Now you have ONE chance to comment here again. Show me that you have expertise in this field or admit that you do not and then apologize for being obtuse.
I go around and around giving you chance after chance to recognize reality. And you go round and round and dodge and deny.
Marshal, I don't think you understand how respectful adult conversations happen. IF you have some data and research and experts that dispute the mainstream of expert thought, THEN you have to cite that "research" IF you want to be taken seriously and not as an anti-science idiot.
Hence why I refer to you boys as idiots and ignorant. Because you aren't relying on experts, research or data and instead, over and over, rely upon empty, anti-science, unsubstantiated claims.
That doesn't work with rational adults.
And thus, you expose your ignorance and demonstrate that I was just stating reality by your continued empty, piss-ant "claims."
Post a Comment