"I engage in these conversations in an effort by God's grace through the leadership of the Holy Spirit to learn how and improve on doing this study the correct way and to learn from my mistakes to move away from doing it the incorrect way."
“Each time that someone suggests "well, I (hoity toity, wonderful ME) rely upon the Holy Spirit, NOT my reason, while YOU merely rely upon your flawed reason..." each time someone suggests that sort of verbal vomit, they are exposing their arrogance and hypocrisy and all-around plain goofiness, not to mention a bit of diabolical divisiveness. Stop it.”
“…you give a bullshit answer that implies YOU begin with the Spirit of God, but I/we only rely upon our reason. That is NOT of grace, it is NOT respectful. It is slimy and diabolical and excrement-filled. It is not the sort of behavior that becomes Christians.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
I would ask here what I ask elsewhere: IF someone is commenting in an ungracious, arrogant manner repeatedly and after being corrected, do you DISAGREE that a strong rebuke is called for?
I'll ask here again, too: Do you think that the Pharisees and other oppressors in the Bible liked it when they were strongly rebuked?
I suspect that you don't disagree with me that rebuking religious hypocrites is a biblical thing to do, you just don't like being lumped in with them.
Jesus taught us.
"15 “If your brother or sister[b]
sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
In Ephesians it says this.
"14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work."
Had you chosen to follow a Biblical model, perhaps the outcome might have been different.
You chose otherwise.
"I suspect that you don't disagree with me that rebuking religious hypocrites is a biblical thing to do, you just don't like being lumped in with them."
Actually, my problem lies more with your lack of proof of my hypocrisy than anything else.
Craig...
Had you chosen to follow a Biblical model, perhaps the outcome might have been different.
You chose otherwise.
Again, Craig, Don't be an ass.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to...
“Woe to you, blind guides...
You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."
Jesus in Matt 23.
Harsh rebukes ARE a biblical model, Craig. I know you are aware of this, but here you go, suggesting that YOU are choosing a biblical model while I am making shit up. THAT is hypocrisy. That is arrogance. That is gracelessness.
Stop it.
Now, you might reasonably ask, "Is this rebuke TOO harsh given the circumstances," and we could rationally debate that. But you can't suggest that harsh rebukes are not part of the Biblical model of dealing with sin. Not seriously, not if you're aware of what the Bible says at all and Jesus' teachings.
Craig...
"I suspect that you don't disagree with me that rebuking religious hypocrites is a biblical thing to do, you just don't like being lumped in with them."
Actually, my problem lies more with your lack of proof of my hypocrisy than anything else.
Hypocrite (MW): a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not
From the Bible history dictionary: meant generally, in classical Greek, stageplaying, acting, the histrionic art; hence, it came to mean acting a part in life, etc.
Acting as if YOU would never NOT follow a biblical model, unlike THAT person there, who ISN'T following the Biblical model, when of course, harsh rebukes ARE part of the biblical model, that would be an example of hypocrisy and gracelessness. Of course, that is just today's hypocrisy. You did the same thing before on the way you dealt gracelessly with word play about the HS and your opinions.
Now, I guess it IS possible that you are so unlearned in your Bible study that you are unaware of harsh rebukes in the Bible, but I don't believe that to be the case. Not when it's been pointed out to you repeatedly.
Craig, you said over at Stan's (and he's closing out the off-topic comments)...
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read my links carefully. Several of them were from folks who support the various gay agendas (including marriage). These are very clear that within the gay community there is minimal desire for marriage to be monogamous. Further, if you look at the statistics this seems to be the case.
I can only assume that you would consider monogamy to be a critical component of marriage.
Finally, you can extrapolate all you want, it still doesn't rise to the level of proof, or evidence.
I will give you the benefit if the doubt and assume that you're just totally not getting my point and try again.
Person X says "folk in gay relationships tend not to be monogamous. They engage in multiple affairs and get diseases and don't practice loving fidelity."
It does not matter to my point if person X (or Group X) is gay or straight. It doesn't matter to my point that ten researchers find that gay folk are often not monogamous.
In fact, these findings (and I'd say the research is dubious, but that's neither here nor there*), SUPPORT my point.
MY point is this: Faithful, loving, committed, monogamous, wholesome marriage relationships are GOOD things for folk, whether gay or straight and is something to be encouraged and supported.
So, do you see how it doesn't make much sense to say, but gay folk (black folk, young folk, politicians, whatever group it is you want to single out) don't "tend to" be monogamous, encouraging Monogamy either IS or ISN'T a good thing. I happen to think that it IS a good thing and that discouraging licentiousness is wise.
Saying, "But they don't tend to be monogamous" suggests TO ME (IF it were even true) that we need to TRY HARDER to encourage monogamy in that group, rather than saying, "So, marriage is not a good idea for them..."
That's like saying, "Young men like to have a LOT of sex outside of marriage with as man women as possible, SO we really shouldn't encourage young men to get married..."
Forgive me, but that is just a stupid, stupid conclusion.
* As to the studies: While I have not looked at ALL of these sorts of studies, they tend to be problematic for these reasons:
1. The gay population is a much smaller population.
2. When researchers are striving to do a study, they NEED to find that population in order to study their habits.
3. The easiest place to find large numbers of gay folk - in many of these studies, anyway - was in gay bars.
4. MANY young folk (straight and gay) who hang out at bars TEND to want to try to "hook up," and have extramarital sex.
Thus, if you choose your research base from a group that is more promiscuous, guess what? Your results will show more promiscuity! Just fyi.
Dan,
Please read and consider the words of Jesus in Matthew 18. You chose to "rebuke" me in a public setting without confronting me privately first. Also, you chose harshness and name calling over grace, love and kindness. These are the choices you made. I apologize if my pointing these out is hurtful to you, but they were your choices not mine.
I'm not sure why you think continued name calling will help matters, but again you are free to handle it any way you choose.
"...but here you go, suggesting that YOU are choosing a biblical model while I am making shit up."
There you go making shit up. I pointed out that Jesus lays out how these things should be handled in Matthew 18. You chose a different route, than that which Jesus proposed. I'm not suggesting that I'm doing anything but responding to your attacks.
"Hypocrite (MW): a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not"
I am quite aware of what the term means, thank you.
"Acting as if YOU would never NOT follow a biblical model, unlike THAT person there, who ISN'T following the Biblical model,.."
Your problem here is that I've never actually said anything like this. You continue to impute motives and actions to me that are based on nothing but your preconceived notions of what you think I am. If you have evidence, produce it. If I'm wrong I'll own it, I've done it before, I'm sure I'll do it again. But at least try to hang me for what I actually say,think or do, not what you think I say, thin or do.
"You did the same thing before on the way you dealt gracelessly with word play about the HS and your opinions."
Actually all I did was copy/paste your exact words and point out that your Reason played an explicit part in your response, while you did not mention the Holy Spirit. If you would like to show me where you did mention the Holy Spirit in your initial response, great. Show me where I missed it. But since I copy/pasted your first response on the subject, I suspect you'll have a hard time. Further, once you did clarify, I accepted your clarification. The only thing I ever had issue with is your demand that I assume things about you and how you do things. Once you clarified, I had no reason to doubt you.
I am quite aware of harsh rebukes, and their place in the grand scheme of things. I am also aware of Jesus words in Matthew 18. the fact that you chose harsh public 'rebuke" over a private respectful conversation speaks volumes. The fact that you continue to call names and hurl insults leads me to question how well you understand how to "rebuke" and whether you fully grasp the concept of "speak the truth in love"
"MY point is this: Faithful, loving, committed, monogamous, wholesome marriage relationships are GOOD things for folk, whether gay or straight and is something to be encouraged and supported."
I understand that this is your point.
had you read the links I posted, you would find that the gay community doesn't agree with your definition of marriage.
You can argue with the stats all you want (some contrary stats would help your case), but when gay marriage supporters say:
"I’ve written about this before. I think my position is that the couple should do whatever works for them. I don’t think there should be a set rule imposed by society that couples should remain completely monogamous,..."
"No, I’m not talking about your store hours. I’m talking about relationships. From threeways & playing together, to open relationships, to completely monogamous relationships. It’s a really interesting topic to me because, particularly in the gay world, the latter seems very rare. In fact, I don’t know if I can name one gay couple that I know that has not open their bedroom door up to little sexual adventure with a guest."
"Though I personally don’t believe in open relationships, ultimately I believe people have the right to do whatever the hell they want. If both people in a relationship agree to it and have rules to play by, then all the power to them."
These are folks who agree with you on "gay marriage", but they disagree with your definition of marriage.
"I happen to think that it IS a good thing and that discouraging licentiousness is wise."
Yet a significant percentage of the gay community disagrees with you about monogamy.
"Forgive me, but that is just a stupid, stupid conclusion."
And if someone was actually advancing that conclusion I'd agree with you. Thank the Lord no one is.
If your issue with the studies were the case, then you should have no trouble finding studies to counter them. Finally, while the gay community is tiny, the "they're all hiding in the closet" stereotype, seems a bit dated.
The problem with this whole conversation is twofold.
1. The issue is NOT "gay marriage", it's homosexual activity. Simply cloaking sin in marriage doesn't eliminate it's sinfulness.
2. You contend that God blesses "gay marriages", yet you can't know that. Does God bless ALL "gay marriages"? Does God bless ALL marriages? Is marriage always good? Or is marriage only good as you define it?
Look we're not going to come to any sort of resolution on this so why not just let it go.
Craig...
you chose harshness and name calling over grace, love and kindness.
You DO understand, don't you, that it could be said that JESUS engaged in name-calling? "BLIND GUIDES! FOOLS! SNAKES!" Jesus pulled no punches when dealing with his religious hypocrites.
And you DO understand that such strong rebukes are NOT necessarily standing in contradiction to love, grace and kindness?
Craig...
I am quite aware of harsh rebukes, and their place in the grand scheme of things. I am also aware of Jesus words in Matthew 18. the fact that you chose harsh public 'rebuke" over a private respectful conversation speaks volumes.
AND AGAIN, Jesus "chose" harsh public rebukes at times, too, when dealing with HIS religious hypocrites and graceless pharisees.
Perhaps owning a little of your gracelessness and showing some signs of remorse (or at least acknowledgment of) your bad behavior would be a good starting point for restoring you to Christian fellowship.
For my part, inasmuch as your offenses were done truly in ignorance, rather than deliberately, then I am sorry I came down so hard on you. We have had many of these conversations (privately and publicly) and it's hard to imagine you were being so obtuse in ignorance, but perhaps you were. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize.
I am sorry if I over-reacted.
Craig...
1. The issue is NOT "gay marriage", it's homosexual activity. Simply cloaking sin in marriage doesn't eliminate it's sinfulness.
You are begging the question. IS it truly wrong to be in a marriage arrangement with a person you love, committed in a faithful, respectful, Christ-like encouraging, helpful relationship? What could POSSIBLY be wrong about that?
Whatsoever things are good, noble, true, pure, etc, think on THESE things.
Until such time as you have some real world evidence that faithful loving respectful marriage relationships are somehow "bad," I find the position a rather morally and logically and biblically dubious position. It is for this reason that you all will soon totally lose this argument in the public arena - it's just so illogical and immoral on the face of it.
Craig...
2. You contend that God blesses "gay marriages", yet you can't know that. Does God bless ALL "gay marriages"? Does God bless ALL marriages? Is marriage always good? Or is marriage only good as you define it?
Again, NO, I can't speak for God and God has not given us God's position on marriage between gay folk. SIMILARLY, YOU CAN NOT SPEAK FOR GOD. God has NOT TOLD YOU God's position on marriage between gay folk.
You are welcome to your illogical, immoral and unbiblical opinion, but it will remain YOUR subjective opinion.
The difference between us appears to be that you are willing to speak for God what God has not said and I'm not.
This, my brother Craig, is exactly the sort of pharisaical arrogance I'm concerned about in the church's life.
"You are begging the question. IS it truly wrong to be in a marriage arrangement with a person you love, committed in a faithful, respectful, Christ-like encouraging, helpful relationship?"
No it's more that you are asking the wrong question. Until you get a satisfactory answer to "Are we as humans designed to engage in sexual relationships with those of the same gender?" or "Does God condone sex with someone of the same gender?", any questions about marriage are pointless.
"Until such time as you have some real world evidence that faithful loving respectful marriage relationships are somehow "bad,"..."
Here I thought you had a problem with misrepresenting someone else s position.
In this case the fact is that I have never said the words you are trying to put into my mouth.
What I AM saying is that if (as I have shown) the gay community wants to define "marriage" so that monogamy is not an integral part of the relationship, then "gay marriage" cannot be "faithful loving" and "respectful".
"It is for this reason that you all will soon totally lose this argument in the public arena..."
So are you now suggesting that the rightness of something is determined by decisions in "the public arena"? Are you suggesting that the "public arena" is always right? If so then this conversation is even more hopeless than it appears.
"I can't speak for God..."
So when you've said "God blesses gay marriages" what exactly do you mean?
"You are welcome to your illogical, immoral and unbiblical opinion..."
I'm pretty sure you've contended that "God has not given us God's position on marriage between gay folk."
So how can you possibly suggest that anyone's opinion can be "illogical, immoral and unbiblical"? In (as you contend) the absence of any input from God on the issue, then any opinion is equally valid. Or are you speaking for God here?
"God has NOT TOLD YOU God's position on marriage between gay folk."
This fails on two levels.
1. You have no way to determine what God may or said to me or anyone else. (Please not I am not claiming any specific revelation or that God talks to me special or look how arrogant I am. Just that you have no way of knowing enough about me and my relationship with God to make such a blanket statement)
2. I have NEVER said he did.
"The difference between us appears to be that you are willing to speak for God what God has not said and I'm not."
No the difference between us is that you are willing to speak for me, rather than to allow me to break your paradigm of what you think I am saying.
Had I said that your position was "illogical, immoral and unbiblical", you could possibly accuse me of arrogance, yet I've not done that. In actuality I've really not made any value judgments about your position. I've asked questions that have gone unanswered, I've provided evidence that gay folks don't agree with your definition of marriage, I've suggested that you have not made the logical case that supports your contention, yes I've done all of those things.
I've even done that without name calling and insults. (unlike you)
But arrogant and Pharisaical, if you're going to make those kinds of false accusations, you really need some actual evidence.
I'm not faced with a tough decision. If I edit, delete, or moderate any further comments from you it feeds your meme. If i don't you will continue to make these unsupported allegations to which I will feel compelled to respond. I guess I've got a decision to make.
"Perhaps owning a little of your gracelessness and showing some signs of remorse (or at least acknowledgment of) your bad behavior..."
Perhaps you noticing that I have already done this multiple times would enhance your credibility in these matters.
"... would be a good starting point for restoring you to Christian fellowship."
I was unaware that I had been removed from "Christian fellowship". No one at my churches, Bible study, or special needs ministry had a clue that I'd been blackballed. I had no idea that you had so much power, color me suitably impressed.
Or you can keep beating the dead horse.
Craig...
No it's more that you are asking the wrong question. Until you get a satisfactory answer to "Are we as humans designed to engage in sexual relationships with those of the same gender?" or "Does God condone sex with someone of the same gender?", any questions about marriage are pointless.
Well, speaking for myself, having prayed on the matter, seeking God's will through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I HAVE a satisfactory answer. And, believing that marriage and commitment and fidelity and love are all GOOD things, I support and
celebrate marriage commitments, gay and straight.
So, who gets to decide?
I had said...
"Until such time as you have some real world evidence that faithful loving respectful marriage relationships are somehow
"bad,"..."
To which Craig responded...
Here I thought you had a problem with misrepresenting someone else s position.
In this case the fact is that I have never said the words you are trying to put into my mouth.
So, you and I AGREE that faithful loving respectful marriage relationships - gay or straight - are GOOD? Well, EXCELLENT!
My apologies for assuming you thought they were bad or wrong. Perhaps you can understand how I misunderstood you, but I am very
glad to hear that you DON'T think they are bad. Excellent!
And again, IF I misunderstood you, I am sorry.
(You'll understand my confusion, I hope, if you now turn around and say that you DO think marriage between gay folk is bad, after just getting on to me for suggesting this was your position...)
Craig...
What I AM saying is that if (as I have shown) the gay community wants to define "marriage" so that monogamy is not an integral part of the relationship, then "gay marriage" cannot be "faithful loving" and "respectful".
This is observably false, my brother. Gay marriage certainly CAN and HAS been faithful, loving and respectful. I have seen it myself.
Are there SOME gay folk who want marriage to be polyamorous? I'm sure there are. Just as there are some straight folk who want that.
It is my opinion, though, that just because some gay or straight people want to encourage this, that WE who believe in traditional marriage and fidelity and monogamy ought to encourage fidelity and monogamy and that there is no harm that I can see in encouraging such.
Do you know of ANY real world harm in encouraging faithful, loving, monogamous, respectful marriage relationships?
I had said...
"I can't speak for God..."
Craig...
So when you've said "God blesses gay marriages" what exactly do you mean?
Did you miss the first few times I answered this question, Craig? Or have you forgotten? I meant exactly what I've said I meant: That it is MY opinion that God blesses faithful, loving, respectful, compassionate marriage relationships.
I GET that you appear to hold the opinion that God doesn't and you're welcome to your opinion. Having prayed on the matter, seeking God's will and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I have come to hold THE OPINION that it falls into the category of "whasoever things are noble, good, true, pure," etc.
And, along those lines, I had said...
"You are welcome to your illogical, immoral and unbiblical opinion..."
To which Craig responded...
I'm pretty sure you've contended that "God has not given us God's position on marriage between gay folk."
So how can you possibly suggest that anyone's opinion can be "illogical, immoral and unbiblical"? In (as you contend) the absence of any input from God on the issue, then any opinion is equally valid.
Don't be ridiculous. I have NEVER held to the silly assumption that all opinions are equally valid. So, how can I suggest that
anyone's opinion can be illogical or immoral or unbiblical? If I FIND their opinions to be such based on the evidence at hand.
For instance, I easily find the position that "encouraging faithful, loving, respectful marriage relationships is wrong" to be illogical, because WHAT is possibly wrong about those good things? It's not sensible, it doesn't make good logical sense. If we who believe that licentiousness is harmful and wrong want to encourage people NOT to be licentious, then encouraging faithful loving and respectful marriage relationships is a LOGICAL response.
BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE I HAVE, I find such a position illogical.
I could go through and demonstrate the same for "immoral" and "unbiblical" if you'd like, but you get the point I hope.
All opinions on matters such as this are subjective, but that does not mean that they are all equally valid.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
I had said...
"God has NOT TOLD YOU God's position on marriage between gay folk."
Craig...
This fails on two levels.
1. You have no way to determine what God may or said to me or anyone else. (Please not I am not claiming any specific revelation or that God talks to me special or look how arrogant I am. Just that you have no way of knowing enough about me and my relationship with God to make such a blanket statement)
Fair enough. I'll change it to say, "I see NO EVIDENCE that God has told you God's position on marriage between gay folk and I seriously doubt that God has given you a special revelation to that end..."
Craig...
2. I have NEVER said he did.
Okay, then we probably can agree that God hasn't told you that. For what it's worth, I DID NOT CLAIM that you had said that. I was just pointing out the obvious, that it IS the case that God has not given you a special revelation on that point.
I'm not sure how this is a "fail," but whatever.
Craig...
No the difference between us is that you are willing to speak for me, rather than to allow me to break your paradigm of what you think I am saying.
Not sure where you think I spoke for you except for maybe the suggestion that you think gay marriage is bad/wrong, but if I misspoke on that (I doubt it) I have apologized and apologize again.
Dan,
To clarify once again. I have no opinion on the goodness or badness of marriage between gays. I don't think marriage is the issue. I will allow that I would (This is my personal fallible opinion, not informed or supported by the Bible), that it would probably be better in some sense for a gay person to be in a monogamous "marriage" relationship, rather than banging anyone he can entice into a horizontal position at some bathhouse. This doesn't mitigate the sinfulness of the actions, just seems like a better choice.
"This is observably false, my brother. Gay marriage certainly CAN and HAS been faithful, loving and respectful. I have seen it myself"
First, I have never said that it cannot (just can't help that can you).
Second, it appears that the most current study indinatesa that more than half of all "gay marriages" are not monogamous. So, your nonscientific sample appears to be a minority.
"Do you know of ANY real world harm in encouraging faithful, loving, monogamous, respectful marriage relationships?"
No, it's just that that's not what the gay community seems to have in mind when they talk about marriage.
Are you suggesting that the only way to have a "faithful, loving, monogamous, respectful marriage relationship" is marriage. It seems to me that anyone of any persuasion who wants this can have it right now.
"I have NEVER held to the silly assumption that all opinions are equally valid. So, how can I suggest that..."
You've gone to great lengths to establish that you have developed your opinion on this topic with no explictic specific Biblical support. In essence that you have concluded that God's silence equals approval or blessing. Since you have said that your position on this matter is your opinion based on God's silence, then you have no grounds to make any kind of value judgement on other opinions that disagree with yours. It's all just opinion, and God is silent. So while you may not have said those actual words this is the logical conclusion of your pinion.
Had you said "In my opinion, your position is XYZ..." then one could simply dismiss your words. However you state clearly and unambiguously that (in this case) my opinion is " "illogical, immoral and unbiblical". Clearly in any objective sense this is false. You may not agree with the logic of those who have concluded that the Biblical text calls homosexual sex sinful, but this position is not immogical. There is voluminious evidence for this position, all arrived at through careful logical study. Further, who are you to declare anything objectively moral or immoral (arrogant much?)? It seems that that is the province of God, and as you have repeatedly pointed out, your opinion is that He is silent on this issue. Finally how can something (again, in your opinion) on which the Bible is silent, be unbiblical? Seems like quite the leap in logic.
"For instance, I easily find the position that "encouraging faithful, loving, respectful marriage relationships is wrong" to be illogical,"
So what, I have never expressed such an opinion. I find that you arguing against a position I have never taken to be illogical.
"All opinions on matters such as this are subjective, but that does not mean that they are all equally valid."
So, now you have the ability to determine the objective validity od a subjective opinion? (arrogant much?)
Your comment was a fail because you assumed facts not in evidence, and made a false pronouncement based on the facts you had available. Further, the fact that I didn't say something is not evidence that something did'nt happen.
If you're not sure where you spoke for me, or assumed that I said or thought something, simply look through the thread and count the number of times I say "I didn't say that." or similar phrases.
Look, I get that you make certain assumptions about me and other more conservative folks based on your preconceptions. Whether it is from your conservative upbringing or how some people have treated you at some blogs. Whatever it is it's just not helpful to a respectful conversation.
I have been guilty of this (and probably still am to some degree) in the past and gotten rightfully beaten down for it. That's why I try really hard to pull actual quote from people and respond to those without broad brushing (I'm sure I still do it at times, but I try to be aware of it and am willig to make the correction when I do.
If you could just refrain from expressing your opinions as declaratons, it might go a way's toward increasing understanding.
Anyway, keep beating if your so inclined.
Craig...
To clarify once again. I have no opinion on the goodness or badness of marriage between gays. I don't think marriage is the issue.
So, you are NOT willing to say that marriage between gay folk is a bad thing?
Good, wise choice, seems to me.
Further you "will allow" that it is better for gay folk to marry than burn in sin (as Paul phrased it), or to be promiscuous?
Good, wise choice. I'm glad to hear it, as far as that goes.
Still then, you think that living in a marriage relationship AND engaging in sexual activity (as married folk are wont to do), that THAT part of it is sinful and bad, is that right? Just not as bad as promiscuity.
So, insomuch as married people have sex, you think a marriage relationship would be bad/sinful when we're speaking of gay folk, is that not right? OR, are you going so far as to agree that it's not likely sinful/bad in that blessed context?
IF you're merely saying that marriage for gay folk is "less bad" than promiscuity, BUT STILL, that it's bad insofar as they engage in sex, then do you see how that SEEMS like you're saying a marriage relationship with gay folk is bad?
Wouldn't it be like saying, "Well, I'm not saying X people getting married is a bad thing, just that if they share a house like married people, THEN THAT part is bad..." In other words, you SOUND LIKE you're saying you aren't willing to call gay marriage bad, but if they actually BEHAVE like married people, well, yeah, THEN it's bad...
If so, do you see how that is rather duplicitous?
If not, then I'm very glad that you're not willing to say that God considers a behavior "bad," when God hasn't said so.
(NOTE: I am NOT saying THIS or THAT is your position - I'm not speaking for you. I'm asking these questions)
I had said...
"This is observably false, my brother. Gay marriage certainly CAN and HAS been faithful, loving and respectful. I have seen it myself"
Craig responded...
First, I have never said that it cannot (just can't help that can you).
First, I DID NOT SAY YOU SAID THAT (just can't help it, can you?). What I said was that gay marriage CAN AND HAS BEEN faithful, loving and respectful. What I said was that the STATEMENT was demonstrably false.
You're welcome.
You said...
Craig...
Second, it appears that the most current study indinatesa that more than half of all "gay marriages" are not monogamous. So, your nonscientific sample appears to be a minority.
I'm not sure how the number of gay folk or straight folk who do not strive to live in a monogamous marriage is relevant as it relates to encouraging healthy monogamous marriages? In fact - AND AS I KEEP POINTING OUT AND YOU APPEAR TO KEEP MISSING - IF there is indeed a large number of any group (gay, straight, whatever) that engages in promiscuous behavior, then ENCOURAGING fidelity and monogamy and healthy relationships IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT.
Does that not sound reasonable?
I asked...
"Do you know of ANY real world harm in encouraging faithful, loving, monogamous, respectful marriage relationships?"
Craig responded...
No, it's just that that's not what the gay community seems to have in mind when they talk about marriage.
So, if X% of straight men in their twenties would like to have multiple partners, then does that mean that the "straight community" has promiscuity in mind when they're speaking of sex?
Do you understand how you're making generalizations that aren't universal?
Do you understand how, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE that a majority of any group wants to be promiscuous, that is NOT an argument AGAINST faithful, monogamous marriage promotion, but rather, an argument IN FAVOR of promoting it?
Craig asked...
Are you suggesting that the only way to have a "faithful, loving, monogamous, respectful marriage relationship" is marriage. It seems to me that anyone of any persuasion who wants this can have it right now.
Of course. Just as straight people can have that same situation. IF they aren't concerned about the legal and societal benefits and blessings of marriage. I'm of the opinion that we'd probably be better off to get gov't out of the marriage business, but in the meantime, it makes a difference and it is morally wrong to discriminate against one group as we're doing.
"So, you are NOT willing to say that marriage between gay folk is a bad thing?"
I'm wiling to say exactly what I said, I have no opinion as it seems like it's the wrong question. Feel free to try to interpret that any way you want.
"Further you "will allow" that it is better for gay folk to marry than burn in sin (as Paul phrased it), or to be promiscuous?"
Again, this is not the issue as far as I'm concerned. If as I (and others) suspect homosexual sexual activity is a sin, then those who engage unrepentantly will face eternal consequences, whether or not they marry. Ultimately, I'm not arrogant enough to think that I have the power to allow or not. For me it's just a non issue.
"Still then, you think that living in a marriage relationship AND engaging in sexual activity (as married folk are wont to do), that THAT part of it is sinful and bad, is that right? Just not as bad as promiscuity."
Since I never said anything remotely like this, it seems illogical that you would presume it to be my position.
"So, insomuch as married people have sex, you think a marriage relationship would be bad/sinful when we're speaking of gay folk, is that not right? OR, are you going so far as to agree that it's not likely sinful/bad in that blessed context?"
Once again, did not say this. You can respond to what I did say though.
"IF you're merely saying that marriage for gay folk is "less bad" than promiscuity, BUT STILL, that it's bad insofar as they engage in sex, then do you see how that SEEMS like you're saying a marriage relationship with gay folk is bad?"
Once again, it would really help if you responded to what I said.
IF (as has been the position of the vast majority of the Church for 2000 years) homosexual sex is sinful, then it is sinful no matter what the context. I did say that I (again only MY opinion) would think that it is better to be monogamous than promiscuous. This assumes that sex outside of marriage is sinful. It still seems that monogamy is the better choice.
"Wouldn't it be like saying, "Well, I'm not saying X people getting married is a bad thing, just that if they share a house like married people, THEN THAT part is bad..." In other words, you SOUND LIKE you're saying you aren't willing to call gay marriage bad, but if they actually BEHAVE like married people, well, yeah, THEN it's bad..."
Despite what you think it SOUNDS like I am saying, or what you think it SEEMS like I am saying, I'd rather focus on what I actually said. It really is quite illogical to respond to what you imagine I am saying rather than what I said.
Craig...
Despite what you think it SOUNDS like I am saying, or what you think it SEEMS like I am saying, I'd rather focus on what I actually said.
Craig, I AM focussing on what you actually said. I READ what you actually said and then responded to what you actually said, saying "Does that mean THIS...?" in order to CLARIFY what you actually said.
In fact, I clearly pointed out that I was NOT saying "This is what you said," but rather, I was asking you questions to help clarify what you are saying.
If I'm not entirely sure of what you're saying, does this process of clarification seem unreasonable to you?
"First, I DID NOT SAY YOU SAID THAT.."
No what you said was that I thought that it was impossible for gays to be in the tye of relationship you described. I did not say it was impossible, in fact I said that the fact that you observe (what apprears to you to be) such relationships (That's me acknowledging that such relationships can exist), is evidence only that those relationships appear to be good. So since I have already acknowledged your point, why do you keep going backward.
"...then ENCOURAGING fidelity and monogamy and healthy relationships IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT.
Does that not sound reasonable?"
Since I've said that encouraging these types of relationships is not problematic, I must wonder why you think that I don't.
What I HAVE said is studies show that more than 50% of the gay community disagree with your definition of monogamy as an essential element of marriage. Are you suggesting that only "gay marriages" that meet your definition should be sanctioned? Or that these marriages just be legalized and scociety should just accept this expanded definition of marriage.
"Of course."
So are you really actually saying that the ONLY way for two people to engage in a "loving, respectful, momogamous, ..." relationship is through marriage?
Seems like an odd way of thinking to me, but hey it's your opinion.
Do you then agree with those in the gay community that marriage (at least in an officially recognized sense) need not be monogamous? Or would just the gay folks get the non monagamy exemption? Or should we just redefine marriage to mean whatever folks want it to mean?
I can agree that getting the state out of marriage could be a good thing. But would you then legislate marriage as a sacrament administered by churches? Would you force a pastor to violate his/her consience and marry a gay couple even if he has reached to conclusion that the Bible consideres such practice sinful?
Keep beating, read what I actualy wrote.
If my asking clarifying questions based on what you said is problematic for you, let me just rephrase it and ask a question straight up:
Craig, do you you think that gay folk living in a marriage relationship (in what WE would consider to be "marriage") AND engaging in sexual activity (as married folk are wont to do), that THAT part of their marriage relationship is sinful and bad?
(Once again, that is not intended to say you DO believe that. It is a question to ascertain if you believe that.)
"If I'm not entirely sure of what you're saying, does this process of clarification seem unreasonable to you?"
No, but when you take what I write, re-state it as something that is completely different, it seems to go beyond clarifying. Again, if you have a quote where I say what you think I say, I'll deal with it. But when I've clarified multiple times and you still mis state my position, I have to wonder what's up.
For example, I don't know how much more clearly that "gay marriage" is not the issue. Yet, you continue to try to get me to "clarify" my position on various facets of "gay marriage". Once again, I really don't care. If the underlying behavior is sinful, then dressing it up in marriage doesn't mitigate the fact that the underlying behavior is sinful.
You have stated that your opinion is that homosexual sex is not a sin per se. Although, you have not provided much in the way of evidence to support your opinion, I have seen multitudes of attempts to make this case. I have yet to see anyone make a case for this that is remotely compelling. On the other hand I find the traditional interpretation(s) to be very compelling.
Given that I find the entire discussion of "gay marriage" to be fairly pointless.
If you can present some new compelling evidence please do so, but don't waste the space just rehashing the same old tired arguments.
Anyway, I bet if you look you can find the answers you seek in my comments to this point. If not then plaese ask away.
"Craig, do you you think that gay folk living in a marriage relationship (in what WE would consider to be "marriage") AND engaging in sexual activity (as married folk are wont to do), that THAT part of their marriage relationship is sinful and bad?"
I've answered this question at least 3 times in this thread (not including the comment that posted after this one), what additional clarification could you posibly hope for.
I agree with the most common interpretation held by the Church for 2000+ years. Thus I agree that the most logical interpretation of the scriptures inquestion is that homosexual sex is a sin. Therefore (as I have stated repeatedly) if one is engaging in a sinful activity marriage (especially civil marriage which is what a big part of the debate is about) does not render sinful behavior suddenly unsinful.
You really could have gotten this figured out on your own.
Craig...
What I HAVE said is studies show that more than 50% of the gay community disagree with your definition of monogamy as an essential element of marriage. Are you suggesting that only "gay marriages" that meet your definition should be sanctioned? Or that these marriages just be legalized and scociety should just accept this expanded definition of marriage.
I thought I was pretty clear: I said that if we value monogamy, fidelity and loving relationships, then we should ENCOURAGE AND PROMOTE THEM.
Does that seem unreasonable?
Craig...
So are you really actually saying that the ONLY way for two people to engage in a "loving, respectful, momogamous, ..." relationship is through marriage?
I think you misunderstood my answer. I just responded that, NO, it is NOT the only way to be in such a relationship. Gay folk can do that now. Straight folk can do that now. Still, in our society, there are societal and legal benefits to a legalized marriage and it seems reasonable and moral to me that if we're going to allow it for one group, we should allow it for others and end discrimination for religious reasons.
Craig...
Do you then agree with those in the gay community that marriage (at least in an officially recognized sense) need not be monogamous? Or would just the gay folks get the non monagamy exemption? Or should we just redefine marriage to mean whatever folks want it to mean?
I'm not sure what you're asking.
I value fidelity and monogamy. I would want to promote that. Enough of us in this country believe it to be rational to limit marriage to two people (ie, not allow polygamy) that it is the law. I agree with the law.
If a married couple - gay or straight - want to have multiple paramours on the side, that is their business. I would not want to promote or encourage it. I don't really want to criminalize it, either.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're asking.
Craig...
I can agree that getting the state out of marriage could be a good thing. But would you then legislate marriage as a sacrament administered by churches? Would you force a pastor to violate his/her consience and marry a gay couple even if he has reached to conclusion that the Bible consideres such practice sinful?
No. If gov't had no role in marriage and a pastor wanted to NOT marry a couple because they were gay or because they were straight or because they were mixed race, as distasteful as all that is, I would not want to interfere with churches practicing their religion, even biased, prejudiced practices.
I would be opposed to forcing churches to marry folk they didn't want to marry.
Craig...
Keep beating, read what I actualy wrote.
I read what you wrote, found it unclear, asked questions to clarify.
Dodge 'em or answer 'em. Your call, I don't care.
Craig...
Therefore (as I have stated repeatedly) if one is engaging in a sinful activity marriage (especially civil marriage which is what a big part of the debate is about) does not render sinful behavior suddenly unsinful.
You really could have gotten this figured out on your own.
I DID have it figured out. Remember? I said you considered this arrangement bad. You CHASTISED me, saying you had NOT said that.
While you hadn't used those words, it appears now that I HAD figured it out.
That's all. I was just trying to make sure I hadn't really misunderstood you and I haven't.
You're welcome.
Craig...
Again, if you have a quote where I say what you think I say, I'll deal with it. But when I've clarified multiple times and you still mis state my position, I have to wonder what's up.
See the comment above and I think that will tell you "what's up."
Craig...
You have stated that your opinion is that homosexual sex is not a sin per se. Although, you have not provided much in the way of evidence to support your opinion, I have seen multitudes of attempts to make this case. I have yet to see anyone make a case for this that is remotely compelling.
I've made the case many times, Craig.
In short:
1. Those things that are good, noble, pure, true, loving, respectful, etc, etc... Those things that are GOOD are GOOD. Good is Good, it is a tautology.
2. Thus, someone engaging in a loving, healthy, respectful, mutually compassionate and kind relationship, it is SELF-EVIDENTLY Good.
3. Those things that are good, noble, loving, pure, etc, are OF GOD.
4. Those things that are good, noble, loving, pure, etc, are NOT sinful.
5. All of this is apparent from reading the Bible.
6. There is, on the other hand, NO evidence (other than the absence of evidence - but arguing from silence is not a compelling argument) that God opposes marriage between gay folk in the Bible or elsewhere.
7. There is abundant evidence - in the Bible and in the real world - that Good is Good.
There is the case again, Craig. Now, you may not find it compelling - I certainly did not for the first half of my life - but it IS an argument that many folk find compelling.
I can't "prove" to you that my case is the "right" answer favored by God and all nature. Nor can you prove to me that yours is the right answer. We can only go on what is compelling and, in prayer, where the Holy Spirit leads us.
And there we are.
"I thought I was pretty clear: I said that if we value monogamy, fidelity and loving relationships, then we should ENCOURAGE AND PROMOTE THEM.
Does that seem unreasonable?"
Do you think that if you repeat this and ignore my point it will go away. I've agreed with you that we should promote these things. Yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact that a significant chunk of the gay community is actively seeking to redefine marriage.
Thanks for the clarification on relationships. It seems to me that we cal allow everyone to have all of the "societal benefits" without expanding the definition of marriage. A move which I would theoretically support.
"Dodge 'em or answer 'em. Your call, I don't care."
No dodges, plenty of answers. Nice try.
"I DID have it figured out. Remember? I said you considered this arrangement bad. You CHASTISED me, saying you had NOT said that."
No I did not say this arrangement was bad, I said it was irrelevant. Simply running two people through a civil marriage ceremony does not vitiate sin. I have no opinion on the goodness or badness of "gay marriage". I hope this is clear to you. I have no idea by what standard you are even assigning goodness or badness to things, which just encourages me to care about this arbitrary categorization even less.
"I've made the case many times, Craig."
yes, I acknowledged that. I also mentioned that I've seen numerous folks who have more credibility on this than you, and who have made a much more complete case than you have.
I DON"T FIND YOUR CASE COMPELLING.
So, I asked you not to repeat what has already been said, and what I said I don't find compelling. Your response, to repeat the same tired old stuff. Effective.
"(other than the absence of evidence..."
Which works against your "argument" more than it works for it.
"...but arguing from silence is not a compelling argument)"
Yet that is your argument, no wonder I don't find it compelling.
Tautology. using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity. Tautology also means a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the statements depend on the assumption that they are already correct.
OK, you've got at tautology, so what?
Seriously, if that's your entire case I'm shocked you find it compelling.
It's like one big case of using a word to define the word. With a few holes thrown in as well.
Do me a favor, please don't elaborate, I've seen much better cases made and don't find them compelling.
Nor do I find your case compelling.
Now what?
Craig...
if that's your entire case I'm shocked you find it compelling.
You're shocked that I find the notion that what is obviously good to be obviously good compelling?
Does that you think that some things that are obviously good to be somehow BAD? I can't imagine you'd think that (and I'm not saying you DO think that, that's why I asked).
Actually what shocks me is that someone who quite redily demands that others produce "hard evidence" would make a case based on such subjactive basis.
You like to use the term good to justify things, yet I don't see what the basis is for you identifying something as good.
Are you suggesting tha good is an objective term? Are you suggestig that what appears to be good is always actually good? Are you sugesting that God has the same definition of good as you? Are you suggesting that using the tem good to define good is an normal practice.
Quite honestly I guess I expected something more for your case. If that bit of rethorical tautology floats your boat, fine. I just can't see how it would possibly be pursuasive to anyone else. Maybe that's all you care about. You've established a construct that allows you to feel comfortable, and that's enough.
Anyway, I keep suggesting that he horse is dead already, and you keep posting. I guess if your want to keep contending over your opinion I can't stop you (at least without appearing arrogant), so go ahead. It's all good.
Craig...
Are you suggesting tha good is an objective term?
Good: of a favorable character or tendency; agreeable; pleasant; wholesome...
I just mean "good" in the normal English usage of the word. Beyond that, I mean it as a shortcut way of saying Right or Righteous. I guess I would tend to think that those things that are Good are also Righteous.
Would you disagree? If so, do you have examples of something that is good, but UN-righteous?
Is it your position that what is obviously good can sometimes be bad?
Is "good" objective? I don't know, I think it would depend upon the circumstances and situation. I'm not sure that I understand the question. Do YOU think an adjective can be objective?
I would say that those situations and experiences that support health, wholesomeness, love, mutual respect, kindness, healthy companionship... that those situations are good, by definition.
What do you think? Do you think that those situations that support and promote these qualities can be BAD?
Craig...
Are you suggestig that what appears to be good is always actually good?
Well, there are, of course, DECEPTIVE situations. Someone PRETENDING to be doing something good, but who is using the situation, in fact, for something bad. For instance, a fella who volunteers to work with children would APPEAR to be doing something Good. BUT, if he was only volunteering in order to molest children, then THE APPEARANCE of Good was just a deception.
On the other hand, a married lesbian couple who adopts an orphaned child and raises the child lovingly and wholesomely, they have done something Good. The appearance matches what is actually happening.
So PEOPLE who might appear to be doing something good are not always doing so, or not perfectly doing so. But someone doing something good in appearance and reality, they ARE doing something good.
Good is good. A tautology and a darned compelling one.
You don't find Goodness to be a compelling argument?
{That last was a question, not an accusation).
Craig, this next would be an example of something that sounds smarmy and arrogant. I'm sure it's not your intention, and that's why I'm letting you know, so you can re-think how you say things...
I just can't see how it would possibly be pursuasive to anyone else. Maybe that's all you care about. You've established a construct that allows you to feel comfortable, and that's enough.
It sounds smarmy and arrogant because of the whole, "Maybe that's all you care about."
I've been quite clear that what I care about is following God, seeking God's will. I don't do so perfectly, but that IS my heart's desire, and thus I pray seeking God's will and the grace to follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit (you know, my writing has gotten even LONGER since I feel I have to explain what I mean in nearly every sentence).
Why would you suggest that "that's all you care about..."? I care about following God's will.
Now, having said that, in following in the steps of Jesus and seeking the HS guidance, do I believe it Good to support and promote Good? Yes.
Do you find that unusual?
I've not "found a construct that allows me to feel comfortable," that is devilish bullshit. I have no idea why you'd even say something so ugly.
Rather, I have found what I believe to be the HS guidance in the walk in Jesus' steps, striving by God's grace to follow in the Way of God, living into the Kingdom of God.
Do you suggest I'm wrong for striving to walk in the direction I feel God is leading (having prayed about it and sought the guidance of the HS)?
Craig...
Anyway, I keep suggesting that he horse is dead already, and you keep posting.
You keep asking questions. I am striving to do as you have asked and ANSWER your questions.
Also, I have what seem to me to be reasonable questions that I'd like an answer to, so I ask them.
Does that seem unreasonable?
For instance, you said...
what shocks me is that someone who quite redily demands that others produce "hard evidence" would make a case based on such subjactive basis.
And it seems to me that you're suggesting that wanting to pursue and promote Goodness is "subjective," and, what? Not worthwhile? I'm sure that's not your position, I just don't know what to make of that statement.
And I ask for hard evidence when people SAY they have hard evidence for what seems to me to be a questionable position.
Does that seem unreasonable?
"Is it your position that what is obviously good can sometimes be bad?"
It is my experience that often things that appear to be good actually turn out to be bad. I would also suggest that good is often in the eye of the beholder.
"Is "good" objective? I don't know, I think it would depend upon the circumstances and situation. I'm not sure that I understand the question."
Then your answer is no.
"Do YOU think an adjective can be objective?"
No, but it seems that you are suggesting that certain things or actions are objectively good.
"What do you think? Do you think that those situations that support and promote these qualities can be BAD?"
In that case one could make the argument that stealing to support your ideal qualities would be good. Again, I'm not sure you have laid a foundation that demonstrates that things are objectively good.
"You don't find Goodness to be a compelling argument?"
So far I've not seen an argument. Just a rhetorical tautology. Good is good is just a meaningless use of a word to define the word.
"Maybe that's all you care about."
You've said numerous times that you have no desire to convince anyone of anything (or words to that effect). Based on that I am simply observing that it seems that your primary concern is to develop a construct that satisfies you, not that will convince anyone else. Thus, what may sound arrogant and smarmy to you may not actually be.
"Do you find that unusual?"
There is much I find unusual.
"I've not "found a construct that allows me to feel comfortable,"
You've laid out a "case" with which you obviously feel comfortable. If I am wrong and you are uncomfortable with your conclusion, I apologize. You seem very comfortable with your "case". I'm sorry if I misinterpreted.
"Why would you suggest that "that's all you care about..."? I care about following God's will."
In no way did I mean to imply that ALL you care about is this. I was suggesting that in this instance you seem to have come to a point that is comfortable to you and you have no desire to move beyond that. Again, sorry if I implied something beyond this thread, didn't mean to.
"Do you suggest I'm wrong for striving to walk in the direction I feel God is leading (having prayed about it and sought the guidance of the HS)?"
Nope. I do think you're mistaken, but not that striving is wrong.
"Does that seem unreasonable?"
No, just that if you expect "hard" evidence, you should be prepared to provide "hard" evidence to support your positions.
Craig...
it seems that you are suggesting that certain things or actions are objectively good.
It is my opinion that feeding a starving child is objectively good, that adopting a child and raising them/providing for them as your own in a loving environment is objectively good, that choosing to forgive an enemy is objectively good, etc.
Yes, I think some things are objectively good.
Do you?
Craig...
In that case one could make the argument that stealing to support your ideal qualities would be good.
? I'm not saying EVERY behavior is objectively good. Just that some things are objectively good. And even in the case of the stealing food to feed a starving person, the intent IS objectively good, I'd argue.
My point would be that some behaviors are (and here's the term I prefer to use) SELF-EVIDENTLY good and other behaviors are self-evidently bad.
Our ARGUMENTS for or against these behaviors will be SUBJECTIVE, but the behaviors are objectively good or bad.
In the case of two folk living in a marriage arrangement, respecting, loving, faithful, monogamous commitment, that this is a self-evidently good behavior and I have yet to see any reasonable arguments AGAINST such behavior.
You may have a hunch that it is bad because you have a hunch that God opposes it because you have a hunch about how best to interpret the Bible, but that does not rise to the level of a reasonable argument TO ME.
Craig...
You've said numerous times that you have no desire to convince anyone of anything (or words to that effect). Based on that I am simply observing that it seems that your primary concern is to develop a construct that satisfies you, not that will convince anyone else. Thus, what may sound arrogant and smarmy to you may not actually be.
Then a word to the wise for your consideration: In Christian circles, there is oftentimes a certain level of smug self-satisfaction that expresses itself in ways like this...
"Well, I don't know about YOU, but what I want to do is follow God..."
"Well, YOU may find it is a comfortable position to hold, but I'm not worried about comfort, I'm worried about following God."
And so on. I have seen Christians (and really, all people) be pretty good at using these sorts of phrases to IMPLY something about the Other.
So, when you say...
I just can't see how it would possibly be pursuasive to anyone else. Maybe that's ALL YOU CARE ABOUT. You've established a construct that allows you to feel comfortable, and that's enough.
It sounds very much like (and in fact, I don't see how else one would reasonably take it) you're saying, "Well, if ALL YOU CARE about is being comfortable, maybe that's enough for YOU..."
In the future, if you don't want to come across as a pompous ass, I'd suggest phrasing it more charitably, something along the lines of,
"Oh, so you're saying that, after seeking God's will and the guidance of the HS, you feel confident that your understanding is the correct one. Well then, if that's what you think, you best hold to it until such time as you feel led in another direction..."
That is a much more Christian and less arrogant way of expressing that sentiment.
So, where you try to explain yourself by saying...
In no way did I mean to imply that ALL you care about is this.
Maybe you can see that when you say, "If that's ALL YOU CARE ABOUT... being comfortable..." that would seem to be not even an implication, but a direct suggestion.
Just a suggestion to help in communication.
Craig...
just that if you expect "hard" evidence, you should be prepared to provide "hard" evidence to support your positions.
What is it that you think that I've asked for hard evidence for?
The only times I can think of are when people have made false accusations about my position, I've requested hard evidence (of which, none exists generally, since they aren't me and can't speak for me) or when they've suggested that there opinion is the one True Objective opinion, I've asked for hard evidence.
I'm not suggesting MY HUNCHES about God's position on marriage are objectively right. They are MY opinions. That would be the difference between me and y'all is that I don't conflate my opinions with God's opinions.
That does not mean that, in the real world, some things are self-evidently good or bad. Most of us would allow that, I'd suppose you, as well.
Beyond that, I'm saying that what is Good or Godly is objective.
But, our ARGUMENTS about what is good or Godly are SUBJECTIVE, being OUR arguments and ideas that we can't measure or weigh or count or otherwise confirm independently in the real world.
"Well, I don't know about YOU, but what I want to do is follow God..."
"Well, YOU may find it is a comfortable position to hold, but I'm not worried about comfort, I'm worried about following God."
I guess it's telling that you couldn't quote my exact words to make your point, you had to add your own.
It's also telling that you feel the need to include me in what some unspecified unnamed "others" do in order to justify your outrage.
Perhaps, as I've suggested before, you shoud approach folks as individuals and deal with them as such. It also might be helpful for you to spend less time worrying about how things seem and what you infer, or what you think I might be implying. It just gets you off on tangents.
Again, lectures from you of how to deal with people with grace can best be taken with a pillar of salt.
As for the rest of your comments there's really not much worth responding to, since your just repeating what you've said before.
I do agree that there are things and actions that are good, however I think that it's more nuanced than you'd like to believe.
I also think that our view of what is good is too easily influenced by our prejudices.
To use your example of feeding a starving child.
1. Is it good if the feeding of the child leads the child to depend on charity and not to learn to be self sufficient?
2. Is feeding this child exclusively Twinkies objectively good.
Obviously there are "levels" of good and some things that appear good may not be good and some things that appear bad may on fact be good.
It still comes down to who defines good. As long as it's anyone but God the definition will be flawed.
And who gets to decide what God thinks is good?
Craig...
I do agree that there are things and actions that are good, however I think that it's more nuanced than you'd like to believe.
And how do you know what I'd like to believe?
I'm just stating what I think most of us can agree on: That some actions are self-evidently good. If someone is engaging in what, by all appearances, is Good behavior, on what basis would we say, "No, that's not good behavior..."?
A family living together, supporting one another in healthy ways, loving one another, being faithful to one another... these are GOOD behaviors. I see no evidence or compelling reason to think that it is bad behavior, whether those folk are gay or straight.
"And who gets to decide what God thinks is good?"
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that a good place to start would be God.
"And how do you know what I'd like to believe?"
I have no idea what you'd like to believe (actually, your comments paint a pretty clear picture), I was using what some might refer to as a figure of speech. I apologize of my use of said figure of speech was a problem for you, or caused you any difficulty or discomfort, I simply meant it as a figure of speech, not as a statement of absolute fact. My bad.
"If someone is engaging in what, by all appearances, is Good behavior, on what basis would we say, "No, that's not good behavior..."?"
Once again we're in luck. No one is saying that.
"A family living together, supporting one another in healthy ways, loving one another, being faithful to one another... these are GOOD behaviors. I see no evidence or compelling reason to think that it is bad behavior, whether those folk are gay or straight."
Lucky again, since no one is saying this either.
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that a good place to start would be God.
Very good. We'll both let God decide what is good and not opt to speak on behalf of God what God has not said. Let's do that and let grace abound, my brother.
We'll see how that works.
Hi Craig! I've been wanting to check out these comments for awhile, not realizing there was a discussion going on. Of course I could not read them all, as it seems like I'm re-reading, which I am as I've seen it all before. BUT, I've got this:
"The difference between us appears to be that you are willing to speak for God what God has not said and I'm not."
Of course the difference between us and Dan is that we speak only on what God HAS said and can easily make assumptions that align with that, whereas Dan uses what God HAS NOT said as a good place to force a loophole though which sinful behavior can be allowed and celebrated. It is true that marriage is a good thing and everyone would be better off marrying than carrying on out-of-wedlock affairs. But based on the facts of what Scripture (and thus, God) DOES say, there can be no legitimate argument in defense of homosexual marriages being blessed or even good things.
The facts are these: All references in Scripture to homosexual behavior are negative. All references to sex outside of marriage are negative. All references to marriage assume, imply or state the union of a man and woman only.
Dan likes to use words by Paul suggesting that anything pure, loving, kind, etc is a good thing and loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships like those he thinks he knows so well, must indeed be worthy of God's blessing. But the mere fact that two people of the same sex might indeed be committed and filled with love for each other does not make that relationship worthy of God's blessing, any more than if the two people were a man and woman outside who didn't marry, or a man and woman related to each other. Committing sin with a nice attitude does not lessen the sin. It's not like stealing to feed a starving child.
And then of course is the harsh rebuke nonsense. To refer to Biblical stories of God, Jesus or a prophet rebuking suggests that Dan believes he also possesses the authority and ability to properly attach condemnation appropriately to those who are deserving. Said another way, when Jesus does it, there is no doubt about the guilt of the rebuked. Dan assumes guilt and does so without proving evil intent or actual guilt of the person he rebukes. He is the greater hypocrite (assuming both sides can be legitimately accused) by virtue of his ongoing pleas for grace in discourse.
Anyway, Craig. Most of this stuff I've expressed at my blog. I'll have to keep an eye on your blog since it appears that you're posting stuff again. Which is good.
MA, thanks. I've been on a little burst lately. It helps that I have Mondays off which gives me a little spare time.
Sorry for spilling some of this over at your place, but Dan has been gracious enough to provide so much ammunition, it's hard not to use it.
Post a Comment