"If you have such a definition, from God to you, please provide it and documentation from God, certified, please."
"Providing a signed note from God (notarized) supporting your OPINION, and showing it to be a fact..."
Elsewhere I have been following a somewhat rambling exchange in which one party made the obviously stupid and outlandish claim that one could find a definition of marriage in Scripture. The unspoken part of the claim being that since scripture is "God breathed", then it might not be completely unreasonable to conclude that when Scripture (specifically Scripture quoting Jesus), makes a claim that it just might represent God's actual thoughts on the matter.
To be clear, there is no definition in the sense of a modern dictionary. But the Bible isn't a modern dictionary. There are, however, some claims that are reasonably clear and straightforward enough to equtate them with a definition.
The quotes above indicate the response to this obviously foolish claim. The person quoted above is asking for a standard of proof far beyond any that he himself is willing to provide for his claims.
One wonders why anyone would expect such a clearly unreasonable level of proof from others.
41 comments:
The difference being, Craig, is that I offer my claims as MY opinions, while your party offer your claims as being the equivalent of fact or "God's Word..." at least as a rule. How about you? Is your opinion that the Bible offers something equivalent to a definition of marriage a personal human OPINION or is it a FACT, that GOD has "defined" for us that Marriage is between one man and one woman?
I don't care if you hold that opinion, knock yerself out. What I object to are those who try to claim that their opinions are equivalent to God's Word.
Blasphemy and all that.
I have been abundantly clear on this point, Craig, so I'm not sure why you're not understanding the difference - or that it is a HUGE difference.
I've also said that I think one of the CLEAREST teachings in all the Bible - clear to people whether or not they are believers in God - is that Jesus taught his followers NOT to kill our enemies, basically some form of pacifism or just peacemaking. It's a hard thing to get around and seems like anyone could see that and anyone could see that claims to the contrary are dubious in the extreme.
And yet, no matter how clear it seems to many people, there are still people who don't agree.
Now, when that happens, do I tell them that I speak for God and that disagreeing with my take is equivalent to disagreeing with God? OR, is it the case that even in that abundantly clear biblical case, even then I allow that it is my opinion, and those who disagree with me are holding their opinions and, further, I always allow that they do so in good faith, no matter how obviously mistaken I may think they are.
My point in all of this is that the problem with at least some on the religious right is that they don't distinguish between fact and opinion. That when they REALLY believe some particular interpretation is right, they go past "and that's my opinion" right to "and to disagree with me is to disagree with God..."
That is problematic. And that is the difference between my type of folk and the other type of folk.
If you're in the camp that allows that it is YOUR opinion, then you and I don't have a beef, just a disagreement. It's the ones who can't make that distinction that I have a problem with.
Just to further clarify.
Dan
Yeah, I get it. We can't know anything for certain, blah, blah, blah. It's all just opinion, blah blah, blah. Even though I express myself in declarative sentences, I really don't mean anything but "it's my hunch", blah, blah, blah.
Whatever.
First, If your not going to read my posts before you comment; then, please, don't bother to comment.
Second, Let's look at what "your type of folk" actually say.
For example "For the record: When John 15 says that "No one has greater love than to give up one’s life for one’s friends"-- there is no biblical way to apply this to war.".
Or
"Applying this passage to soldiers and war has no biblical legs to walk on."
This is one of your "type" ( a pacifist who is also incredibly pompous and unreasonably certain that he speaks for God on this), who seems to make your characterization of your "type" a bit less than accurate.
At some point, I will be positing about the tendency of pacifists (at least some) to adopt a pompous superior attitude about their certainty regarding this one particular teaching of (the incarnate) Jesus.
Third, all of your self justifying blather doesn't address the point of my post. You are perfectly willing to demand a degree of support from those you disagree with than is reasonable or than you expect of those who agree with you.
It is inconsistent, your inconsistency has been pointed out to you many times, yet you seem oblivious to your inconsistency.
It is interesting that there is one response which could have given you the out on this, yet you chose not to go there.
You said...
One wonders why anyone would expect such a clearly unreasonable level of proof from others.
I clarified. The reason why is that these OTHERS are claiming their opinions as fact and as equal to God's Word.
When one makes a claim of fact, a claim to be speaking for God, there is rightly a higher bar. Thus, when someone makes the rather astounding claim to be speaking for God or that their unproven/unprovable opinion is a fact, we should rightly expect a REASONABLE level of proof. And when one can not produce that proof, it is reasonable to say, then, that they do not speak a known FACT, but rather, they offer their opinion, as a point of fact.
What is unreasonable about any of that?
As I have not made fact claims nor have I presumed to speak for God, the bar is not so high. I just need to offer the reasons why my position seems reasonable to me and, if you disagree, then that's your opinion.
What is difficult for you in any of this?
Dan
all of your self justifying blather doesn't address the point of my post. You are perfectly willing to demand a degree of support from those you disagree with than is reasonable or than you expect of those who agree with you.
And I have now demonstrated why you are mistaken. When one presumes to speak for God, there is rightly a MUCH higher bar than when is clearly speaking one's opinion on what one is clear is an unprovable position.
I am serious, do you truly not see the difference between someone offering an opinion AS an opinion on an unprovable topic and someone offering an opinion and stating it is a fact or it is "from God..."?
Dan
"The reason why is that these OTHERS are claiming their opinions as fact and as equal to God's Word."
Can you please provide me with examples of ANYONE claiming that their opinions are "fact" and "equal to God's Word"?
"When one makes a claim of fact, a claim to be speaking for God, there is rightly a higher bar."
Yes, when one makes a claim of fact, one does indeed have the burden to prove said claim of fact, yet when asked, you have chosen not to prove your claims of fact. This gets back to my point, why do you expect others to prove (using an unreasonable standard) what you will not.
"Thus, when someone makes the rather astounding claim to be speaking for God or that their unproven/unprovable opinion is a fact, we should rightly expect a REASONABLE level of proof."
So, I now expect some "reasonable level of proof" to prove the claim of fact that you are making in the above quote. I will accept actual quotes with links so as to provide context.
"As I have not made fact claims..."
Yet you have made claims of fact. In one case you claimed to be speaking for God.
How could you forget that fact that you said "God blesses gay marriage."? That statement is clearly a statement of fact, and a claim to speak authoritatively about what God "blesses". So, where is your notarized note from God supporting your claims.
I'd be happy to copy paste other claims of fact you've made and not supported, if I had any confidence that you'd support them to the level you demand of others.
At this point, the problem you have is that your justification for demanding that others support their claims of fact (with unreasonable levels of support), is a series of unsupported claims of fact on your part. It seems reasonable that before you complains about unsupported claims of fact, one should support ones own claims of fact.
Can you please provide me with examples of ANYONE claiming that their opinions are "fact" and "equal to God's Word"?
Marshall, on the very post that you cite.
It is decidedly and without doubt NOT and "opinion". It is indeed a fact that God has defined marriage as one man/one woman.
sic.
How could you forget that fact that you said "God blesses gay marriage."?
If I said that, then I have since abundantly and clearly let you know it is my opinion that this is the case. Never have I said that my opinion could not be mistaken. So, IF I said that in context, then that one time you could be forgiven if you misunderstood. But since I have frequently and clearly been clear about my opinions being my opinions, you really should have caught the point by now.
Lest you are not clear still: IS it an established fact that God blesses all marriages, including marriages between gay folk? NO, it is not an established fact, any more than it is an established fact that God defines marriage as one man/one woman. But, it is an extremely reasonable position to hold (mine, that is, not so much the one man/one woman/definition thingee).
Dan
To be clear, the quote you provide does not demonstrate that Marshall is attempting to "speak for God", nor does it demonstrate that he is trying to pass of his opinion as that of God.
At most, he is repeating (more accurately paraphrasing or summarizing) the construct of marriage as shown in the Bible.
I addressed the question of "is this a definition" in the original post, so that's been dealt with.
What you need is to find a something that isn't simply someone agreeing with the Biblical text.
So when you said "God blesses gay marriage", you didn't mean what you actually said. What you meant was something like: "In my opinion, I think that is likely that God blesses all marriages including gay ones even though the Bible and God have been silent on the topic of gay marriage and where the Bible speaks of marriage it always involves male/female, and where the Bible (God) speaks of the intent of marriage it/He speaks of one man/one woman for life.", one wonders why you weren't clear about that from the beginning.
"But, it is an extremely reasonable position to hold (mine, that is, not so much the one man/one woman/definition thingee)."
So even though your opinion has virtually zero Biblical textural support (especially the gay thingee which has absolutely zero), and the one man/one woman thingee actually HAS Biblical textural support, your are going to go with your unsupported opinion.
So, once again, if you HAVE actual support (links and quotes) that demonstrates ANYONE claiming that "their opinions are fact and equal to God's word", then provide it. If not, then you need to stop equating your (biased) opinions about others as statements of fact.
In other words, step up to the same bar you expect others too.
Just did a quick word search for "marriage' in the Bible and in none of the passages was there any indication that marriage was anything other than male/female. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Can you provide any thing from any Christian, Jewish, or Muslim text that supports your "God blesses"... either all marriage in general or gay marriage in particular?
Craig, he is stating as a FACT that God "Defined" marriage the way that Marshall thinks God did. That is speaking authoritatively for God. But regardless, I made it abundantly clear that when people make FACT claims (including fact claims about what God thinks) or presume to speak for God, they are to be held to a reasonable level of accountability.
And Craig, NO ONE IN THE WORLD, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON EVER IN ALL OF HUMANITY OR BEFORE OR AFTER IN FUTURE WORLDS is saying that there is not a biblical text that says what Genesis 2 says. That is not in question. IF Marshall were merely stating, "But the Bible says Gen. 2's text!" I would not blink at it. No one is saying the text is not there.
What is in question is what is the meaning of the text. Marshall makes the claim that the text is evidence that it is a "fact" that God "defines" marriage the way Marshall believes.
Thus, NO ONE is questioning "Does Genesis 2 exist in the world...?" The question is, "Is Marshall correct in claiming that it is a FACT that God thinks X..." I'm merely asking Marshall to provide a reasonable bit of evidence - something signed by God and notarized by a reputable accountant, please - is needed before I will take his hunches as a fact.
Do you understand?
Dan
Can you provide any thing from any Christian, Jewish, or Muslim text that supports your "God blesses"... either all marriage in general or gay marriage in particular?
Unlike you, I do not treat the Bible like a Holy Magic 8 Ball. I think a good marriage is a good and holy thing, in my opinion, because it promotes health, community, love, togetherness. THAT is my reason for thinking it is a holy and good thing, because of the results. And sure, the Bible does affirm that whatsoever things are good and true and noble and pure are good things, but I believe it because it's rational, not because there's a line in the Bible.
Dan
"I made it abundantly clear that when people make FACT claims (including fact claims about what God thinks) or presume to speak for God, they are to be held to a reasonable level of accountability."
So, when you make a fact statement do you believe that you should be held to a reasonable level of accountability?
"...he is stating as a FACT that God "Defined" marriage the way that Marshall thinks God did."
Not exactly.
" That is speaking authoritatively for God."
No it isn't. The most you can say, is that he is echoing the Biblical teaching on the matter. Of course, when folks (like the quotes I posted) on your side go much further, you don't even acknowledge those as being problematic.
"What is in question is what is the meaning of the text. Marshall makes the claim that the text is evidence that it is a "fact" that God "defines" marriage the way Marshall believes."
No, it's not. The above statement is not a fact, it is your opinion. Yet it is stated as a claim of fact. You have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claim of fact, why is that?
"I'm merely asking Marshall to provide a reasonable bit of evidence - something signed by God and notarized by a reputable accountant, please - is needed before I will take his hunches as a fact."
I've asked you to provide much lesser evidence of your fact claims, yet you will not. Why should anyone agree to your unreasonable standard, while you won't hold your own claims to a lesser standard?
"Unlike you, I do not treat the Bible like a Holy Magic 8 Ball."
So, your answer is no. Absolutely nothing. You do realize that arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, don't you? Yet, you proudly do just that.
Actually, this has gone far enough. You have more than made my point, and you should probably put down the shovel and stop digging yourself any deeper into the hole.
Your entire underlying premise (That Marshall and others) have taken it upon themselves to speak for God, and that they are equating their opinions with fact, is... opinion.
Let's look at a few of your statements, which you present as claims of fact.
"Unlike you, I do not treat the Bible like a Holy Magic 8 Ball."
"...those who try to claim that their opinions are equivalent to God's Word."
" I offer my claims as MY opinions,..."
" ...while your party offer your claims as being the equivalent of fact or "God's Word..." at least as a rule."
" That when they REALLY believe some particular interpretation is right, they go past "and that's my opinion" right to "and to disagree with me is to disagree with God..."
"And that is the difference between my type of folk and the other type of folk."
"The reason why is that these OTHERS are claiming their opinions as fact and as equal to God's Word."
"As I have not made fact claims..."
"That is speaking authoritatively for God."
"But regardless, I made it abundantly clear that when people make FACT claims (including fact claims about what God thinks) or presume to speak for God, they are to be held to a reasonable level of accountability."
What we have here are multiple quotes from you which are clearly NOT phrased as expressions of opinion. They clearly ARE phrased as claims of fact.
The fact that you are unable or unwilling to back up your claims of fact, is what you have so helpfully pointed out here.
If, however, you choose to take the "those are just my opinions" route, then you find yourself guilty of exactly the same thing you excoriate Marshall for (Conflating your opinion with fact.
In either case, your inconsistency is on display.
"If you're in the camp that allows that it is YOUR opinion,..."
I'm in the camp that says that it is healthy to be consistent. I'm in the camp that says don't ask for something you aren't willing to provide. I'm in the camp that says that if you express your opinions in ways that don't make it clear that they are opinions, don't get defensive when they are treated as what you present them as. I'm in the camp that finds a great deal of irony and humor in folks who lambaste their opponents for something while ignoring the same sort of thing in their allies. But most of all, I'm in that camp of "If you demand proof of something, you should be prepared to provide your own proof".
Finally, I guess it would be in bad form to point out that Genesis 2 is not the only place where the Bible speaks about marriage. Further, to pretend that Genesis 2 is the only place where the Bible speaks about marriage is intellectually dishonest. Even further, I pointed out in a comment yesterday that virtually every reference that Bible makes to marriage refers to male/female.
So, you can pretend that the magic 8 ball lie has some sort of relevance, but it's really just one more tired dodge from dealing with substance.
Finally, I can't help but notice your dismissive scare quotes reference to "God's Word" as if that notion is some sort of far fetched conservative fantasy.
I am on vacation, Craig, but two things:
1. I have NOT dismissed God's Word as far fetched fantasy. That is absurd and libelous. When I disagree with a HUMAN position, that is not the same as disagreeing with God's Word. What I dismiss is the way you all conflate your hunches with God's Word. You do it so thoroughly that you don't even appear to recognize it.
2. Marshall literally said,
"It is indeed a fact that God has defined marriage as one man/one woman."
He IS literally directly saying that IT IS A FACT THAT GOD HAS DEFINED MARRIAGE the way that Marshall thinks God has. Those are his direct words.
All I have time for. Getting back to my 30th anniversary wedding celebration vacation!
Dan
Dan, as usual I'm patient. Take your time and enjoy yourself. I wouldn't expect anyone to take vacation time for this.
Let's look at a few of your statements, which you present as claims of fact...
What we have here are multiple quotes from you which are clearly NOT phrased as expressions of opinion. They clearly ARE phrased as claims of fact.
Those comments are all claims, not necessarily a claim of fact. IF you think I'm making a fact claim, you can ask for clarification. Then I can tell you if it's my opinion or a fact.
Just because someone makes a claim does not mean that they believe that to be a fact claim. Some of them are fact claims, some are just claims.
When in doubt, just ask for clarification, as I do. As you can see, I asked for Marshall to clarify and he did, clearly.
"It is indeed a fact that God has defined marriage as one man/one woman."
You'll have to pardon me if, when Marshall says, "THIS IS A FACT" that he believes what he is saying is a fact and when he says "THIS IS A FACT THAT GOD HAS SAID..." that he believes he factually understood what God has factually said. Now, I could ask for Marshall to clarify, give him a chance to admit he misspoke except for... wait, I did that. He has insisted he is speaking of facts and what God has factually done, not his opinion.
You'll have to take that up with him, but clearly, I am not mistaken in what I said, nor am I inconsistent, as I will always gladly clarify when my claims are opinion claims, not fact claims.
My apologies for my (now deleted) snarky comment above... I took something the wrong way. I'm sorry for that.
Dan
Dan,
Regarding your Marshall quote, I dealt with this in my original post, and Marshall dealt with it in a recent comment at your blog. Your continued insistence that the only text being offered is Genesis 2 is both wrong (and has been corrected) and misleading. It has also been dealt with, by me. Not however by you. As I see it your options are to deal with the explanations which have been offered as clarification, or to continue to take Marshall’s quote out of context. It seems as if the former option might be more productive.
As to your claim claims. I fail to see a distinction. Either you are making a claim of fact, or you are making a claim you believe to be factual. In either case, the burden is on you to provide support for your claims. As you may have noticed I quoted a number of claims you have made in this thread alone. Again, it seems you had a couple of choices. You could have explained that you are operating under the premise that there are multiple types of claims (not including statements of opinion that are phrased as claims) and that it is incumbent on your reader to ask for specific and detailed clarifications for each and every claim encountered. Or you could have dealt with the list provided, and provided your supporting evidence which underlies those claims. Again, it seems that the latter course would have been preferable.
“I don't necessarily need to provide Scriptural support to prove my case.”
Then we see this little gem. So, when you make claims about how God “blesses” marriage, and how marriage is the most appropriate context for God ordained sexual expression, you can’t provide Biblical support for those claims.
So, let’s look at one of the few comments you actually did address directly. Here is the comment in question.
“Finally, I can't help but notice your dismissive scare quotes reference to "God's Word" as if that notion is some sort of far fetched conservative fantasy.”
Here is your response.
“I have NOT dismissed God's Word as far fetched fantasy. That is absurd and libelous.”
Unfortunately, I never said what you claim I said. So, when you get all testy about something I didn’t actually say it tends to undermine the rest of what you say.
I will say that you are incredibly consistent about what I just illustrated above. You consistently either don’t read things that are said, or choose to wrongly characterize something that was said, then you respond to either the mis-characterization or as if comments don’t actually exist. As I noted in the beginning, your issue about definitions has been dealt with multiple times yet you ignore that fact and act (respond) as if no one had addressed it. While this might be easier for you, it doesn’t help your “case”.
In closing I can't let this one go unnoticed. You refer to our "God-given sexuality", that is a fascinating term. Your use of the term raises some questions.
What exactly is the definition of that term?
What, specifically, is sexuality?
Why did God "give us" a sexuality?
How do we know sexuality is "God given"?
If we don't live within the parameters of what God gave us concerning sexuality are we breaking a rule?
This last part ties in with an idea I've been kicking around for a post, so maybe it will come up whan I get that done.
One thing at a time, Craig. Your first mistake...
Your continued insistence that the only text being offered is Genesis 2 is both wrong
I did NOT (NOT NOT NOT NOT... understand?) say that the only text being offered is Genesis 2. I never said it. It's not written down by me because I never stated it nor do I believe it, which is why I never said it.
Do you understand that much?
I referred to Genesis 2 as a shortcut for any potential verses you might cite, such as Matthew 19. I never said your entire case rested on one verse.
Do you understand your mistake?
Dan,
It would appear that my mistake is in reading what you actually wrote and not being aware that in your mind “Genesis 2” is shorthand for “Every other single verse in the Bible that references marriage as being between a man and a woman”. Obviously my taking your writing at face value was a foolish and ignorant mistake. In the future, whenever you use any specific example, I will now know that I should assume that said example is not actually specific, but is used in place of any and every other possible example that could be used.
My other mistake was is thinking that when I addressed this issue earlier in this comment thread that you would have responded and clarified at that point.
For both of my foolish, ignorant and unreasonable mistakes I humbly ask for your forgiveness.
Now, that you’ve pointed out and I’ve acknowledge my grievous errors, I hope me can move on to something of substance.
BTW, how does it help your case to repeat yourself?
Because you frequently misunderstand what I say?
So, NOW do you understand the mistake/misunderstanding and that I was not saying "Gen 2 is the only passage you're speaking of..."?
Short, to the point, just seeking clarification.
"NOW do you understand the mistake/misunderstanding and that I was not saying "Gen 2 is the only passage you're speaking of..."?"
Perhaps you missed the comment where I explained that my mistake was in not understanding that when you said "Genesis 2", that you meant "Every single verse in the entire Bible that refers to marriage".
Because had you read that comment, you would have saved yourself asking a stupid question.
I deleted your other comment. My reasoning was that it simply repeated what you had already said and didn't move anything anywhere.
I have been clear that I was unaware of your shorthand (Genesis 2=every other mention of marriage in the Bible), and that in the future I will try diligently not to make that mistake again.
Now that that is clear, I can only assume we can move on.
Craig, given how consistently you misread my words - and be sure, you read into my words more than what was there - you shouldn't be surprised when I ask for a confirmation that you're understanding before moving on.
But okay, you realize the mistake now. Moving on, you said...
Not however by you. As I see it your options are to deal with the explanations which have been offered as clarification, or to continue to take Marshall’s quote out of context.
I have no idea what you mean here. Sorry. I don't see how I'm taking Marshall's words out of context. You'll have to explain what you mean if you want me to understand.
Moving on, then...
Either you are making a claim of fact, or you are making a claim you believe to be factual. In either case, the burden is on you to provide support for your claims.
I'm quite sure you may think this, Craig. But you thinking that all claims are fact claims does not make it so. I - people - sometimes make claims that they believe are REASONABLE, but do so on topics which are not provably factual or not. I believe it is entirely reasonable that a loving God such as who Christians worship would find marriage - gay or straight - to be a holy, beautiful and blessed thing.
I think this for reasons that seem sound to me: God is all things good, noble, pure, loving, true, etc and encourages us to think on such things... Marriage - gay or straight - seems to me to obviously fit in that category of those things that are good, noble, pure, loving, true, etc. Therefore, it seems entirely reasonable that the Christian God would support all such things.
Your side, on the other hand, do not agree with that thinking. Your collective opinion is that God would NOT bless such unions, but only male-female marriages. Your side holds the opinion that God "defined" marriage as male-female and thus, you can't get past that, no matter how beautiful, loving, noble, etc marriages are.
But the thing is, Craig, these are UNPROVABLE opinions. We can't "prove" what God's opinion is about marriage as it relates to gay folk. Not as a fact. You can't prove that God was intending to "define" marriage when it comes up in the Bible in a male female context.
The difference is that I'll be clear that while I find my opinion to be extremely reasonable, well-considered and moral and biblical, I acknowledge that it is not a provable fact. Your side - or at least Marshall and a few others - appear to disagree. Marshall clearly thinks it is a provable/proven fact that God has defined marriage.
Where am I mistaken, exactly?
Do you think that Marshall is saying it is a "fact" but not a known/provable fact? What is the basis, then, for a claim of fact, if it can't be proven?
I suspect your answer, at least for you, is that it is "proven" in that you have a "feeling" of "confirmation" from God's Spirit in your soul, your heart of hearts... or words to that effect. Which is, of course, the definition of subjective opinion, not objective fact.
Dan
“But okay, you realize the mistake now. Moving on, you said...”
I realized the “mistake” before, you just didn’t read what I wrote.
“I have no idea what you mean here. Sorry. I don't see how I'm taking Marshall's words out of context. You'll have to explain what you mean if you want me to understand.”
Since I have referenced the fact that your root objection has been addressed both in my original post, as well as in comments by Marshall, until you deal with those it makes no sense to continue to object to something that has already been dealt with. The fact, that you won’t address these things when they are offered, then pretend as if they don’t exist is the problem.
“ I'm quite sure you may think this, Craig. But you thinking that all claims are fact claims does not make it so. I - people - sometimes make claims that they believe are REASONABLE, but do so on topics which are not provably factual or not.”
If this is the case, then the claims should be phrased in such s way as to make clear the limits of the claim being made. As pointed out above (and still not addressed) there are a number of claims you have made that are phrased as claims of fact. Either acknowledge the fact that they are phrased poorly or back them up.
“ I believe it is entirely reasonable that a loving God such as who Christians worship would find marriage - gay or straight - to be a holy, beautiful and blessed thing.”
So, you are making a claim about what you believe God thinks about a topic, it seems reasonable to expect that you might have something to back up this claim about what God “finds”. Yet you don’t, I wonder why it is that causes you to hold this belief, in the absence of any kind of supporting evidence.
“I think this for reasons that seem sound to me: God is all things good, noble, pure, loving, true, etc and encourages us to think on such things... Marriage - gay or straight - seems to me to obviously fit in that category of those things that are good, noble, pure, loving, true, etc. Therefore, it seems entirely reasonable that the Christian God would support all such things.”
If this is anything more that your unsupported hunch, you should be able to provide some sort of support for your hunch, yet there is none. Again, you are making claims about God (couched as hunches or opinion), with nothing besides your beliefs to support your hunch. If this is the case, then how can you not admit that the opposite conclusion (which at least has some degree of Biblical support) is not equally likely to be true?
“Your side, on the other hand, do not agree with that thinking.”
Yes, I do not agree with your personal, unsupported, hunch about what God “finds”. The main reason I do not do so, is that your personal, unsupported hunch is just that. It’s “yours”, “personal” and “unsupported”. In the absence of any support I see no reason to even consider your hunch as anything but a whim of your own construction.
“ Your collective opinion is that God would NOT bless such unions, but only male-female marriages. Your side holds the opinion that God "defined" marriage as male-female and thus, you can't get past that, no matter how beautiful, loving, noble, etc marriages are.”
“My side” (why must everyone on the left argue in terms of groups, is it really that hard to deal with people as individuals? Or does it somehow depersonalize people if you can dismiss them as simply part of this or that group and unworthy of being treated as an individual?), would say that given the clear teaching of Jesus, the evidence of the fact that nowhere in the Bible is marriage referred to as anything but “Male/Female”, and the complete and total lack of any sort of evidence to the contrary, that it is reasonable to draw the conclusion best supported by the clearest evidence we have. You still can’t even demonstrate that “marriages” are uniformly “beautiful, loving, noble”, let alone demonstrate that those things are even meant to define marriage. I’d be glad to see you come up with a supported, definitive definition that describes “marriages”. But, obviously, your unsupported opinion is simply a waste of my time.
“But the thing is, Craig, these are UNPROVABLE opinions. We can't "prove" what God's opinion is about marriage as it relates to gay folk. Not as a fact. You can't prove that God was intending to "define" marriage when it comes up in the Bible in a male female context.”
No, but we can look at the evidence we have and come to the determination of what is more likely, given the evidence. Again, if you have evidence beyond your hunches and personal subjective anecdotes, present it.
“ The difference is that I'll be clear that while I find my opinion to be extremely reasonable, well-considered and moral and biblical,…”
Since you can’t provide a an objective definition of “moral”, and you’ve made it quite clear that you can’t provide actual support from the Bible from your position, I fail to see how your hunch can be considered in any objective sense either “moral” or “Biblical”. But once you clear that hurdle, I’d be happy to look at the evidence for the above claims. Unless, of course, this is simply the hunch that you find most attractive and really have no need to provide any sort of evidence to support it.
“I acknowledge that it is not a provable fact. Your side - or at least Marshall and a few others - appear to disagree. Marshall clearly thinks it is a provable/proven fact that God has defined marriage.”
Until you deal with the fact that this canard has been addressed by both Marshall and myself, I will delete any further comments along this line. It is intellectually dishonest for you to pretend as if we haven’t dealt with this and to continue to act as if it hasn’t been addressed.
“ Where am I mistaken, exactly?”
As usual with you, you are mistaken nowhere. Because for you to be mistaken would require that there be an objective standard against which to measure your claims, opinions, and hunches. As you do not acknowledge any sort of knowable, usable, objective standard of understandable recognizable Truth, it is therefore virtually impossible for you to be mistaken.
I have pointed out the areas where you have no proof, or act as if your objections haven’t been dealt with, but I suspect neither of those will get any traction with you.
“Do you think that Marshall is saying it is a "fact" but not a known/provable fact? What is the basis, then, for a claim of fact, if it can't be proven?”
I think that both Marshall and I have addressed this, and until you deal with those instances, I see no reason to do anything but delete this whenever it comes up.
“I suspect your answer, at least for you, is that it is "proven" in that you have a "feeling" of "confirmation" from God's Spirit in your soul, your heart of hearts... or words to that effect. Which is, of course, the definition of subjective opinion, not objective fact.”
I suspect that you drawing the conclusion is in direct contrast to what I have actually said over the years, and that it is what you have devised to allow you to dismiss what I say. If you can provide any actual proof of your claim, feel free.
The main reason I do not do so, is that your personal, unsupported hunch is just that. It’s “yours”, “personal” and “unsupported”.
I gave support quite clearly. Did you miss it?
I'll repeat:
God is all things good, noble, pure, loving, true, etc and encourages us to think on such things... Marriage - gay or straight - seems to me to obviously fit in that category of those things that are good, noble, pure, loving, true, etc. Therefore, it seems entirely reasonable that the Christian God would support all such things.
That IS support. And since I am quoting Truths found in the Bible ("whatsoever things are good, true, pure, etc"), it is even BIBLICAL support. Now, you may disagree with my conclusions, but you can't rationally say that I have not offered support.
Do you understand that?
And ultimately, the conservative problem comes down to this: We are BOTH offering supports for our positions. We are both offering biblical support for our positions. BUT, I recognize and state clearly that this is my opinion on an unprovable topic, since we can't confirm with God our understanding. You all seem to think, however, that your personal human interpretations are as facts, or at least that is what Marshall has stated.
Do you understand that?
DT
Until you deal with the fact that this canard has been addressed by both Marshall and myself, I will delete any further comments along this line. It is intellectually dishonest for you to pretend as if we haven’t dealt with this and to continue to act as if it hasn’t been addressed.
And as I noted, I do not see where you or Marshall have dealt with it or how I'm doing anything but noting that Marshall's position is that he thinks it is a "fact" that "God" "defined" marriage the way that Marshall believes it to be defined.
I'm sorry if, in reading your words, I am unable to find where anything I've said is a "canard" so it is, factually, NOT intellectually dishonest for me to "pretend" anything, since I'm not pretending. Not seeing your argument is not the same as pretending it does not exist.
Dan
Maybe I'm not as smart as you are. Use small words. Be direct and clear. Maybe then I'll see your point.
Or don't, I'm just telling you that I have no idea what you're talking about when you suggest I've got a canard in the mine.
Dan
If I were to take a guess at what you are referring to as having dealt with it already, I'd guess you're speaking of this...
The unspoken part of the claim being that since scripture is "God breathed", then it might not be completely unreasonable to conclude that when Scripture (specifically Scripture quoting Jesus), makes a claim that it just might represent God's actual thoughts on the matter.
The problem is the vague and flighty and vaporous manner in which this is used by fundamentalist types.
There are many claims/phrases/fragments of thoughts found in the Bible, but you don't take Jesus' claim "do not store up treasure" as a "definition" of God's opinion about investing. To do so would be to lift a phrase from an ancient document and irrationally make a claim that "THIS, THEN, is God's definition! No one can disagree and love God..." Just because there is a line some place does not make it a definition. You recognize this on many other lines in the bible, but want to lift this ONE random phrase (and a similar few others - one or two??) and make it "god's definition, not to be disagreed with and equivalent to a fact!"
That's irrational and you recognize it for other lines, which is why I'm not sure if this is what you think your response is to my supposed canard, because who could think that and be rational/sane?
dt
Dan, (this is in response to your comments through 7:56. I don't have time to keep up during the day, so the rest will have to wait)
I understand and acknowledged that you have offered some random out of context words from the Bible that you perceive to apply to all marriage, and that’s all well and good.
However, you haven’t offered anything that directly, in context, supports your specific point.
Now, if you’d like to address the specific things I’ve mentioned, fine. If all you are going to do is offer the same tepid out of context “biblical” junk, don’t waste my time.
One other option for you would be that you provide some actual rational reason why the conclusions I have drawn based on the evidence available are somehow faulty or less plausible than yours. To do that you would need to explain away the unanimity of the Biblical record in referring to marriage as male/female. Of course your explanation would have to be supported by some degree of actual evidence to have any credibility. In my personal subjective opinion (based on years of interaction with you and the fact that you have virtually never offered any support beyond “I believe it is national to me.”), I will be absolutely shocked of you were willing or able to do so.
I’m going to provide you with an example. I’m going to look at Matthew 19:4-6. There are a couple of reasons why I chose this one particular passage. So, we have Jesus saying the following.
““Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Contd.
There are a number of things about this passage that make it difficult to interpret so as to support your position.
1. Since this is in the “red letter” portion of the Bible, it cannot be dismissed as “myth” or something that only applied to the Old Covenant Hebrews.
2. There is virtually no debate about the accuracy of the contents of the Gospels.
3. There is more than ample evidence to conclude that the Gospels were the accounts of actual eyewitnesses.
4. There is ample evidence to conclude that the translation of the text into English has been done in such a way as to accurately preserve the meaning of the original.
5. Jesus is making a couple of claims here that must be dealt with or explained away to support anything but a plain reading of the text.
a. He is claiming that He has knowledge of how things were “in the beginning”.
b. He is claiming knowledge about the intentions and designs of “The Creator”
c. He is claiming that this knowledge is contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that it is something that can be read and understood.
I could go further, but I think that my point is made. What we have above is a list of things that must be explained away before one can credibly make any claims about how God feels about marriage.
I seriously doubt that you will do anything but a) pretend I didn’t write what I clearly wrote and continue to assert that your opinion is all you need or b) simply announce that I am wrong, presume that that settles matters and move on. I am willing to be shown otherwise.
Finally, if you can’t break this mindless liberal compulsion to only refer to people as part of groups, I will either delete or edit your comments to remove those references. If you are unable or unwilling t show people a basic level of respect, and deal with them as individuals, you can do it at your blog. But as for here I have tried to nudge you away from this habit, and I’ve asked nicely. So, from here on out I will have to do what you are unwilling to do.
"I gave support quite clearly. Did you miss it?"
Nope, it's just such a vapid out of context random bunch of words, I didn't give it much weight. It's not nearly the level of support you demand of others.
"I do not see where you or Marshall have dealt with it"
Not my problem.
"The problem is the vague and flighty and vaporous manner in which this is used by fundamentalist types."
Once again, there you go with being unable to deal with individuals. As I noted, if it keeps happening, I'll delete or edit comments.
As to the rest of the last comment, I think I just dealt with it.
I'll save you the trouble of deleting further messages by ending comments here, Craig. If it's not your problem that you have not communicated your point in a manner that I see it, well, it's certainly not my problem, either.
Suffice to make two points to your hunches about the Bible...
1. Primarily, our problem is that you are using the Bible as a rulings book and I do not think that is a rational or apt way to use the bible. Indeed, I think it is a misuse and abuse of the great teachings in the Bible and contrary to the gist of Jesus' teachings. I hold my opinions because I find them to be reasonable and I offered you why it is reasonable. A thing is right or wrong NOT because there is a line in the Bible saying yes or no, but because it promotes good or it takes away from good.
2. As to your reasoning out from Matt 19, using it as a rulings book, I'd say that you've missed the point that Jesus was making. "FOR THIS REASON..." Jesus said. What reason? To stay together. THAT was the point being discussed. Unjust divorce was the point being discussed. Abuse/mistreatment of women was the point being discussed.
BUT, very specifically and very literally, marriage between gay folk was NOT being discussed. A definition of marriage was NOT being discussed, except insofar as Jesus was saying "to stay together is the point..."
It is my opinion, then, that your opinions are 1. misusing the Bible as a rule book and 2. misunderstanding the point being talked about in this passage.
And with that, I'm done here.
DT
One last comment about your support.
I understand that you have taken a list of adjectives plucked them out of context and decided that you think they should or do apply to marriage in some generic universal sense. Yet, you cannot show any direct Biblical link between your list of adjectives and marriage. Yet, there are numerous direct links between the concept of marriage and male/female. In fact every single mention of marriage is in the context of male/female. Given that I hope you can see that your out of context list isn't very compelling.
"If it's not your problem that you have not communicated your point in a manner that I see it, well, it's certainly not my problem, either. to anyone but you."
Of course it's not your problem. It never is. It's also not your problem to actually engage with what people say, or to deal with people as individuals as opposed to members of a group. It's so much easier to broad brush someone as "one of that group", rather than to deal with people individually. I'm sorry of your offended that I won't let you do that here. I'm also sorry if your offended when I delete redundant and off topic comments.
1. I understand that this is your opinion, but it is wrong. If you can provide some proof of me doing this please do,
2. You are correct, the man and the woman were supposed to stay together. One key being man/woman.
"...marriage between gay folk was NOT being discussed."
Yes, I understand that you are making inferences based on silence. It's a common logical fallacy you engage in.
Funny, that you decide to be done here without really engaging any specifics, and by falsely representing my position with no evidence.
But, that's your deal, as long as the "evidence" meets the low standard needed to convince you, your just done. All the while demanding that others produce notarized statements from God or some such unreasonable crap.
My original point in this post was that you 1) hypocritically demand from others a standard of proof you don't expect of yourself and 2) cannot provide any evidence to back up your claims that demonstrate your claims about what you perceive others to be saying.
Now, you bail while not having demonstrated that my initial two points were wrong.
Shocking.
Indeed. The passage you cite absolutely connects the man/woman coupling to marriage. It is stated, "for this reason". "For this reason" is what connects the fact that God, in the beginning, made them male and female. It is to be united to each other. This is hardly ambiguous to any extent that permits the presumption that it also fits some idiotic notion of why God made them male and...male? No, He made them male and female. As in, that was done on purpose. He made Eve for Adam, woman for man.
Back in the discussion at Dan's, wherein he engages in all manner of nonsensical denials of reality, I presented a fine link that provides a plethora of passages and verses that explain the male/female connection, what a marriage represents with regards to how God relates to His creation, etc. Nothing so comprehensive in supporting my position that God indeed defined marriage as a one man/one woman proposition has ever been offered by Dan to support his laughable heresy regarding SSM. This has been discussed here, as Dan cobbles together the most vague and, actually, meaningless groups of words that he then tries to put forth as a serious analysis of Scripture.
And of course he likes to make this inane accusation that those like myself suffer from some confusion as to the difference between fact and opinion. In his desperation, stoked by the evidence presented that confirms his heresy, he demands a level of proof that, as you say, never is offered for his "opinions".
The truth, however, is that Dan isn't even offering a true opinion, because opinion must have some basis in reality. The reality is there is no Biblical support whatsoever that a union based on a behavior God has identified as an abomination could be a union God would ever bless or find pleasing. There is no logic to it, and Dan has agreed that God doesn't do "illogical". No. It's not an opinion Dan defends. It's a fantasy he wants God to abide for the sake of his depraved and morally corrupt friends, as well as for the sake of the pious image he seeks to project to all who don't scrutinize seriously.
Here's something else Dan cannot support Scripturally:
"A thing is right or wrong NOT because there is a line in the Bible saying yes or no, but because it promotes good or it takes away from good."
The exact opposite is true. It is indeed right or wrong because "the Bible tells me so". It is indeed moral or immoral because God has so declared it to be. An act or behavior is good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral based on whether it pleases of displeases God, not whether or not it promotes anything for us.
Post a Comment