Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Questions for Dan
As a bit of a different tack this time, instead of answering the endless list of questions asked by Dan in a given conversation, I’m going to go through the questions I’ve asked (which remain unanswered). At some point I will answer all of Dan’s questions, but for now the scales are out of balance. So here we go.
Questions from the discussion thread at John’s starting with my comments from October 16th at 5:59 through the end of the thread.
1. So, do you believe in a divine author?
2. Are you suggesting that in the instances where the Bible records “rules” (10 commandments, the various commandments of Jesus), that those rules are not valid, or not to be obeyed simply because you have decided that the Bible isn’t a “rule book”?
3. Can you provide any evidence that anyone actually subscribes to this “The Bible is a rule book” theory of yours
4. Would it not be accurate to say that while the Bible may not be a “rule book” in the modern sense of the term that is a book that contains rules?
5. I’d be curious to see what you would suggest “God breathed” is a metaphor of. (While this is technically not structured as a question it is an invitation to provide information and as such is included here.)
6. You emphatically pronounced that babies are innocent. By what authority do you make this pronouncement? By what standard do you judge?
7. Are you able to perfectly determine the innocence or guilt of everyone?
8. Please show me the place where baby and innocent are synonyms?
9. Are you really denying that God judges guilt and innocence?
10. Who else would you suggest is capable of ultimate judgment?
11. You’ve already tried, and failed. So who?
To be fair, Dan did respond to what I have listed as questions 6 &7, however, I’m not impressed with his response and will keep them here in case there is more detail forthcoming.
Amen
"I pray you, never regard that story of the serpent as a fable."
It is said, nowadays, that it is a mere allegory. Yet there is nothing in the Book to mark where history ends and parable begins: it all runs on as actual history; and as Bishop Horsley forcibly remarks, “If any part of this narrative be allegorical, no part is naked matter of fact.”
It seems to me that if there was only an allegorical serpent, there was an allegorical Paradise, with allegorical rivers, and allegorical trees; and the men and women were both allegorical, and the chapter which speaks of their creation is an allegory; and the only thing that exists is an allegorical heaven and an allegorical earth.
If the Book of Genesis be an allegory, it is an allegory all through; and you have an allegorical Abraham, with allegorical circumcision, an allegorical Jacob and an allegorical Judah; and it is not unfair to push the theory onward, and impute to Judah allegorical descendants called Jews. But if you borrow any money of this race, you will not find them allegorical when you have to pay.
It is idle to call the narrative of the Fall a mere allegory; one had better say at once that he does not believe the Book. There is something sane about that declaration, although it be folly; but to say, “Oh, yes, it is a venerable volume, and worthy to be studied; but it is padded out with many an allegory,” is to say something which confutes itself, if you come to look into it.
The Book is intended to be real history, and it contains some portions which, by the consent of everybody, are real history; but Moses could not be an historian, and yet set mere fables before us as a part of his story. To write a jumble of allegory and of fact causes a man to lose the character of a reliable historian, and we had better repudiate him at once.
There was a real serpent, as there was a real Paradise; there was a real Adam and Eve, who stood at the head of our race, and they really sinned, and our race is really fallen. Believe this.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
One more lengthy post of answers for Dan.
OK, it looks like I got into the “Discussion page” thread on October 1, 2014. So I am going to start from there and attempt to answer all of Dan’s questions addressed specifically to me. It is quite possible that I will miss some, and for that I apologize. But here goes.
1. “The final arbiter to what?” Determining an answer.
2. “By what standard do I decide that it is wrong to rape a puppy?” I can only guess.
3. “What argument is it you think I’m making?” That the fact that a disagreement exists demonstrates that both sides have equal validity.
4. “No. Should you marry a guy even though you’re straight for any reason – as an outreach and compromise to our gay brothers and lesbian sisters out there?” No
5. “That would be an honorable thing, right?” No
6. “Similarly, it is not healthy for a gay guy to remain married to a woman just to “honor” the marriage. How does living a lie honor a marriage?” If simple self-interest is the standard, you might have a point. However a marriage is a joining of two individuals into one entity. I can see no possible scenario of dissolving a marriage that does not involve harm. Your argument seems to be “As long as I’m not harming myself, then it’s all good.”. Unfortunately, that ignores the harm done to others. You ignoring my real life examples of this suggests that in this case, you would place homosexuality ahead of anyone else who may get harmed by the coming out.
7. “You can’t just turn off your orientation.” Proof of this statement would be helpful. I submit that there are thousands of alcoholics who turn off there orientation daily.
8. “Well, if they took the Bible literally, they would, wouldn’t they?” I don’t know, that’s why I asked.
9. “Would YOUR church not allow a polygamist?” Probably not as a member
10. “Even though the Bible does not condemn it at all and many heroes of the Bible were polygamists?” Although the Bible does prescribe marriage as 1 man and 1 woman.
11. “ If so, on what basis?” The words of Jesus
12. “On what basis do you decide that some behaviors are “sinful” and that one must agree that they are sinful in order to be part of your faith community?” Scripture.
13. “You want to believe that gay marriage is not a good thing?” Actually, my issue is with the actual behavior addressed in the Bible, not the notion that cloaking a sin in “marriage” makes it not sinful.
14. “You want to believe that it’s okay for Christians to be in the military or even be in the military yourself?” I just realized that these last two are probably statements disguised as questions.
15. “Clarified now?” No
16. “Would you REALLY want, say, a woman who realized after the fact that she was a lesbian to stay in a marriage with a guy, even though she’s not sexually attracted to him and that would be condemning the husband to a life of celibacy?” If the sole purpose of marriage was sex, you might have a point. The problem is if one takes your stand, then if one partner can’t have sex for any reason, then the marriage is void, and the other partner is free. “Better or worse, sickness or health, ‘till death do us part.” Except is there is no sex.
17. “HOW is that fair to the husband??” How is the husband abandoning his family “fair” to them? When did marriage become all about “fair”. You sound like a 12 year old.
18. “ Or would you insist that this lesbian have sex with a man against her will? HOW is that fair to the woman?” Insist, no. But it seems that marriage is about sacrificing for the good of the other, so if the lesbian actually loved (see 1 Cor 13 for a definition of love) her husband, then maybe she’d make a sacrifice. Again, since when is marriage based of “fair”?
19. “Isn’t that what repentance is about, at least in part? Realizing you made a mistake, apologizing, correcting the mistake as best you can, making amends as best you can and TURNING around, and heading in the right direction?” So, you are suggesting that this “repentance” is more important than the harm it might cause. Strange.
20. “She MADE A SOLEMN PROMISE. To HER CHILDREN!! Would it be wrong to go back on her word?” So a “SOLEMN PROMISE” (apparently ALL CAPS make it MORE SOLEMN) to one’s children is on par with a covenant entered into between a man, his wife and God. Now, if she just got married without considering the children that might be problematic, but I’d guess that as the children got older, they might be willing to re think their position. Or, one could take the Biblical view that the parents are parents for a reason, and the the children should obey their parents.
21. “Not that you’re answering any of my questions but, DO you think it would be wrong to break that promise?” I just answered that.
22. “Or, do you realize, like me, that it was a bad promise to make in the first place?” It was, and I’d suggest that it is stupid to assume that the children wouldn’t realize how childish and unrealistic they had been.
23. “The thing is, do we allow the grace for people to REPENT of the mistake they made and turn around and move on, in the RIGHT direction, or do we insist that they keep going down the wrong road?” Since you haven’t demonstrated that abandoning ones wife and children to marry your gay lover is objectively “right”, I’ll pass on this one.
24. “Again, would you want that husband to remain in a sexless marriage the rest of his lives due to a simple human error?” If you mean would I want a husband to follow the example Jesus gave and sacrifice himself for the sake of the marriage, yeah, following Jesus seems like a good plan to me.
25. “Or would you insist that the woman engage in sex contrary to her orientation (ie, she would NOT like it any more than you’d like getting it on with a guy) due to a simple human error?” Again, practicing self-sacrifice for the benefit of others sounds like something Jesus might have thought was a good thing. This still opens the door for someone who doesn’t think they’re getting enough sex to bail on their marriage.
26. “Can you even imagine at all how miserable you would be if someone forced you into gay sex?” I’ve answered this multiple times; I’m including it so you don’t think I skipped it.
27. “It is innate to you, is it not?” See, you ignored my question by asking another question. My personal experience is certainly not “proof” of anything universal.
28. “Do you really disagree with this very obvious fact or do we actually agree on that point?” You haven’t established that your statement is a “fact” once you do, then we can move on.
29. “What do you think, Craig? Do you think that people think, “Ya know, I’m really gay, but I’ll go ahead and marry the opposite gender because it will be fun, later on, to say, ‘just kidding!’ and divorce them and explain my actual orientation…”?” Actually, no. I think that IF sexual orientation is really as big a part of our core being as you insist it is, then it would be impossible to make a “mistake” about it. You probably don’t realize that this is actually more supportive of my position than yours.
30. “The question then is, GIVEN THE MISTAKE, do you really think the healthiest thing to do is KEEP going down the mistaken road or do you think it’s best to repent, admit the mistake and turn back?” You seem to think that asking the same question multiple times is helpful, it’s not.
31. “Perhaps you truly DO hate the notion of repentance…?” Nope. I’m not thrilled with your twisting the meaning of repentance, and ignoring the harm done to people, but Biblical repentance is a good thing.
32. “Tell me: Would you CHANGE ORIENTATIONS because you were bored?” No, but the question presumes that orientations cannot be changed, which you have not demonstrated.
33. “1. Where is the scientific evidence that sexual orientation is NOT innate?” Even though this is simply are asking of a question you chose NOT to answer, here goes. I am Not making a claim that sexual orientation is NOT innate, therefore there is NO burden of proof. You ARE making a claim, and that claim should be proven rather than assumed.
34. “2. Where is the scientific evidence that orientation is NOT static and lifelong?” I’d suggest that someone changing “orientation” is suggestive that “orientation” is not static. However, you made the claim that it is, without providing proof. Your turn.
35. “3. Where is the scientific (or any other proof) that how a person expresses their sexuality is NOT driven by their orientation?” See the two previous answers.
36. “4. How do YOU accurately measure what drives a person to express there sexuality in different ways?” I don’t.
37. “Or do you need to measure? Is it enough for you to puff your chest out and declare, “Thus saith the Craig (speaking on behalf of God, don’t you know)!” Since I didn’t say what you have quoted me as saying, you either don’t understand the concept of a quote, or have chosen to lie. Which is it?
38. “This appeal to science would be more believable if you all didn’t dismiss the scientific evidence when it is presented.” You mean IF it was presented.
39. “What are you saying? What do you mean “Impressive that you’ve seen research that hasn’t been done…”? “ I’m saying that by saying “If the research were done…” you are admitting that the research HASN’T been done. So, when one suggests that they know the outcome of research that hasn’t been done, that suggests an ability to see the future that you haven’t previously demonstrated.
40. “How do you drive a car?” With my feet.
41. “Thank you, Dr Craig. How many years do you have in your field of gender identity studies?” I wasn’t aware that it was necessary to have a doctorate in “gender identity studies” to understand that there are numerous biological/chromosomal/DNA differences between men and women.
42. “Or is it the case that you have eyes to see a penis and that tells you all you need to know?” Since I’ve repeatedly tried to get you to stop the penis crap and deal with the biology, this is another instance where your continued ignoring of me clarifying that you are wrong about my position is tantamount to simply lying.
43. “Gender identity is simply, factually not as simple as whether or not there’s a penis or vagina. Do you agree with the experts on that point?” I don’t know as you haven’t provided any definitive experts who unequivocally make your case. If you do, then we can revisit this.
44. Did you ever say whether or not you thought “the Bible” (or God) condemns transgender folk for the change? Yes, I did.
45. “If so, on what basis?” It’s in my answer.
This passage seem as though it could be problematic to a number of Christians
44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise[h] from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things.
I saw a tweet this morning that highlighted this verse, and it struck me that folks who are "red letter Christians" might have some trouble with this verse.
1. It implicitly treats the resurrection as historical.
2. It implicitly treats at least part of the OT is historical and accurate.
3. It grounds Jesus message in the OT.
4. It explicitly says that Jesus believed that His death was necessary.
5. It explicitly says that Jesus believed that His death and resurrection was to secure repentance and remission of sins.
6. It explicitly says that the Jesus believed that Gospel to be preached is that Jesus died for the remission of sin.
7. It explicitly says that the Disciples were witnesses.
8. The letters used for this are red.
So many folks like to write off the OT as "myth" or "legend", while minimizing the miraculous works of Jesus. Many of these same folks like to focus on the more "feel good" teachings of Jesus, while minimizing His focus on sin and repentance. I'm not sure how these folks would deal with this, but I'm sure taking it as a clear. literal saying of Jesus is probably not high on the list.
Gems from Bob Lupton #2
In Judaism, there are 8 levels of charity ranked from highest to lowest.
1.Enabling the recipient to become self-reliant
2.Giving when neither party knows the other's identity
3.Giving when you know the recipient's identity, but the recipient doesn't know your identity
4.Giving when you do not know the recipient's identity, but the recipient knows your identity
5.Giving before being asked
6.Giving after being asked
7.Giving less that you should, but giving it cheerfully
8.Giving begrudgingly
How much of what social gospel christians do is in the lower half of the hierarchy?
Thursday, October 9, 2014
More Questions
Once again, Dan continues to carp about my refusal to answer questions, so I just went through an entire comment thread and pulled out all of the questions he asked that I didn't already answer. I will try to avoid repeating his questions, although there are a multitude of examples of him asking the same question over and over.
"So, if you had a married gay Christian couple, you would accept them as fellow Christians at your church?"
Unfortunately, you haven't given me enough information to answer in a way you would prefer. In general, I would say that in the absence of unequivocal evidence to the contrary I would tend to take people at their word regarding whether or not they were Christian.
"Or would you “accept them” insofar as you wouldn’t literally kick them out of your church, but people would tell them they’re wrong, that they’re not Christian, etc?"
Again, not enough information. But in general we as a church would address any member/regular attender who was living in a manner that included open unrepentant sin. Obviously, this would not be a public castigation, but we would hope that our members are involved in relationships where they can be accountable and honest about their struggles.
"I am quite sure there are moderate conservative churches out there who would absolutely not kick out even a gay couple who were married, but how would they/do you handle it?"
I don't know that there is an official policy, and I'm unaware of an instance where something like this has come up, so I really don't know. I'd suggest that love, truth, gentleness, humility, and honesty would be the starting point.
"Do you have any GLBT members?"
Probably
"If so, do you have any married GLBT couples (not that you would consider it “married,” perhaps)?"
Don't know, don't really care.
"If so, do you go to their houses for dinner? Invite them to your house for lunch? Hang out together?"
Not up to this point. Not so far. I spend a fair amount of time "hanging out" with someone who is gay.
"If so, does the topic just go ignored or do you try to lovingly broach the topic and, if so, what does that look like?"
I think I've already answered this. Love, truth, gentleness, honesty, humility.
"Craig, IF those numbers are sound and IF the research held up, would you be disappointed to learn that more religious folk more often kick their children out for being gay?"
Yes.
"Craig, John, if a transgendered woman wanted to start coming to church, would she be allowed to?"
Yes
"That is, if a person born male but who was dressing as a female (either transitioning or fully female), would you be in favor of your church allowing them to attend?"
That is, still yes. Are you assuming that we're too stupid to know what you were talking about?
"Would they be welcomed with open arms (hugs and all), even while disapproving?"
I have no idea, in general we don't go around randomly hugging people we don't know.
"What would that look like?"
normally it looks like people build relationships with other people and greet them as people with whom they have a relationship.
"So, what does that look like?"
I just answered that.
"Do you go visit them in their homes?"
Randomly, no. Do people visit the homes of those with whom they have a relationship, yes.
"Do you celebrate their anniversaries with them?"
We don't celebrate anniversaries publicly.
"When they try to adopt a baby, do you provide support?"
Financially, no. Corporately, probably not. But that would be the same for everyone.
"If they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior, do you accept them as fellow Christians, not just fellow sinners?"
What is a Christian but a sinner saved by grace? As with anyone, I would want to see if their actions lined up with their claims, but that goes for anyone.
"If you don’t accept them as Christians, but do accept them into the church services, do you talk to them about their “sinful living conditions” or do you say nothing?"
I'd suggest that we would treat any one engaged in an ongoing unrepentant sinful lifestyle the same in that we would (as I already answered), address any public sin withing the context of people with whom they are in relationship and accountable with.
"What about the transgender woman?"
What about "her"?
"Do you let her into your woman’s restrooms?"
Only if she passes inspection by the armed guard and get's through the X-ray machine.
"Do you talk to her about her “lifestyle…”?"
Sure, why would we not talk about something that is important.
"Do you know WHY I am asking them?"
I rarely "know" why you do many things. In this case, I suspect that you are looking for confirmation of your prejudices, or ammunition to use later.
"Why balk at answering them?"
I didn't balk at answering them. I gave you a general answer, and some specific reasons why I was not going into detail at that point in time.
"Do you know it makes you look bad?"
Actually I don't care if you think it makes me look bad to prioritize time with my family over answering your questions.
"What’s the problem?"
There is no problem.
"You do realize, don’t you, that not all transgender folk are already “the new gender…”?"
If you mean do I realize that they don't just magically switch, the answer is of course I do.
"That is, some folk identifying as women and perhaps in the process of becoming biologically a woman are still a male, in their naughty bits?"
Unless these folks have magically figured out how to change their chromosomal make up, their DNA, their skeletal structure, their musculature, and how their brains function, they will remain "biologically" whatever gender they started out as, no matter how many perfectly healthy body parts they remove.
"Are you implying that we wouldn’t?"
No
"Based on what?"
I've seen enough folks on the theological left who have absolutely no problem lying about any number of things when it comes to membership and ordination questions. So, I guess you could say it's based on the fact that it happens.
"I’m hearing you say that they are accepted as full Christian brothers in your church?"
I suspect you're hearing what you want to, rather that what I actually said.
"But surely individual members get to know one another and do go out to celebrate life events like anniversaries, right?"
Sure
"And you all don’t announce anniversaries during the worship service, like in a prayer sharing time?"
Not usually
"Not even big ones like a 50th?"
Not usually
"Why would you not frame that response in those terms rather than in negative “sinner” terms?"
If the "sinner" term was good enough for Jesus, John, Luke, Paul, etc. it's good enough for me. But why would anyone ignore the common ground we all share? We're all sinners in need of a savior.
"I know part of that is the whole Calvinist “utterly depraved” attitude that many evangelicals hold to,…"
I know this isn't a question, but I want to address a couple of problems.
1. The correct terms are "Calvinist" or "Reformed', not evangelical. Not all evangelicals are reformed.
2. The correct term is "Total Depravity"
3. Given our previous conversations about this, the above indicates that you still don't understand that actual doctrine.
"Were you unaware of the great controversy over such a simple thing as using the bathroom?"
No, and given the miniscule number of transgendered people, I suspect that the "controversy" really isn't particularly "great".
"Do you understand that now?"
Do I understand that there are a few churches that don't operate the way you think they should, yes.
"Aha, so it IS a problem for you (and your church) if a pre-fully transistioned transgender individual wants to go to the “wrong” bathroom?"
Nothing I've said would indicate that your little "gotcha" "question" is correct.
"What do you suggest, instead? Filling out an affidavit prior to using the bathroom?"
Armed guards and X-ray machines.
"Why? What difference does that make?"
If a transgendered woman, is still biologically male then she has a number of inborn physical advantages over women.
"Do the physical advantages go away with the change?"
Not unless the operation removes and replaces the entire skeletal/muscular system.
"So, is it biology that helps us identify our gender?"
Biological factors (DNA, chromosomes,skeletal systems, musculature,brain function, etc.) are not changed during the "sex change operation". Therefore other than the removal of healthy functioning tissue/organs the post op transsexual does not undergo any significant biological changes. If you can somehow scientifically separate gender from biology, then you may have a point. But, so far you haven't.
"Do you think it’s wrong to ask questions about how we’re treating oppressed groups?"
No
"Do you think that question is an accusation?"
I think that your questions are often accusations with a question mark. Whether you honestly don't know how your questions appear, or you do it in some sort of passive aggressive intentional attempt to provoke I can't say.
"So, DO you think that being transgender is morally wrong?"
No
"What do you want me to do? Take guesses from a place of ignorance?"
I'd like to see you either state your opinion, or do the research that enables you to answer the question.
"Craig, what makes you a heterosexual (making that assumption)?"
Biology. Heterosexuals are vital to the continuation of the species.
"IS it because you have a penis, or is it the desire for/attraction to females that is in your psyche?"
Neither
"Is this desire “not real” since there is not a body part that can isolate that desire?"
I have many desires that while "real" are not desires that I should act upon. If you would like to make the case that all desires are good, feel free. If you would like to make the case that any particular desire is good,make it.
"Is heterosexuality a myth because we can’t identify it biologically?"
Nope, it's a biological imperative
"Or are you willing to accept that there are parts of our psyche, our Selves, that is just is real and innate as how many fingers we have on our hand or the sexual organs on our body?."
Of course. But accepting the existence of these desires, does not mean that they are all equally good or valid.
"It sounds as if you are saying if we can’t physically identify a physical component of our selves, then it isn’t real, but maybe I’m misreading you. Can you confirm one way or the other?"
then you are wrong, as I've never said that.
"What is negative about that?"
That your starting prejudice is that all conservatives will behave in exactly the same way as the fringe folks you find.
"Do you have other data?"
Since you have given no indication that you've read the data I've provided, nor have you rebutted any of it, why would you ask for more?
"…why not clarify directly?"
I have.
I suspect, that I won't see anything similar to this from Dan anytime soon.
I will however do the same for his questions from the discussion page dialogue when I have time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)