I know this is a bit strange, but I wanted to get this settled before things went any further. So, I'd like to try to clarify something.
You frequently use the term "rules", many times it seems that you use the term in an almost dismissive fashion. What I would like to have you clarify is what you mean by the term "rules". I presume that you are using the term as a shorthand for what the Scripture refers to as Law(s), The Law, Commandments, and Ordinances. I have no problem using the shortcut, I just want to be clear about what meaning your are assigning to the term and whether or not you see some sort of differences between the terms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
If this is for me, Rule: a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.
That is, just the normal English definition. Thus, when I say...
since many of us don't believe in a God whose Way is Rule-Following, but in a God whose Way is Grace, we would not tend to embrace that idea of God.
I mean, we don't believe in a God whose Way is one of hewing to regulations governing conduct, action, procedure, etc, but one of Grace.
Or, when I say...
Rules found in the Bible are a fluid and changing thing, largely cultural.
I mean regulations concerning conduct and action, etc are fluid and largely cultural. For instance, killing adulterers is a rule that ancient Israel embraced, but it is NOT a moral ideal that we can agree to today. Or regulations that allowed or encouraged polygamy were rules that ancient Israel embraced, along with other cultures in the OT and NT, but are not necessarily moral in our view today. Or that rules that regulated slavery (the owning of people, forcing them into marriage or labor against their will) may have been an improvement in the days that ancient Israel embraced them, but that does not mean that slavery is a moral good, at least in our understanding.
So, when we are speaking of biblical rules, we are often speaking of "the Law, Commandments and Ordinances," although there are probably mixed in with cultural ideals, moreso than their ideas of what God wanted them (ie, specifically the ancient Israelis) to do.
Does that clear it up for you?
Dan
No, it doesn't. For starters, you didn't really explicitly answer the specific question I asked.
It seems as if you are taking one of the following options.
1. There are no transcendent God given rules (Commandments, etc.) at all, and all moral constructs are completely driven by social mores, rendering them fluid.
2. There have been God given rules, but they were explicitly time and place specific and have no bearing other that on the time/place they were specific to.
3. There are some God given rules, that may or may not be transcendent, but we can't know with any degree of certainty what they might be.
4. There are some, general and nonspecific rules which God would appreciate it if we followed, but it's really not a big deal.
If you could choose one of the above or clarify your position, it would help. If we can't even agree on whether or not the term "rules" encompasses all or any of the other synonyms, then we'll have a hard time communicating.
First of all, you asked me what definition I was using and I gave you that definition. Period. I did answer the question that was asked of me. Period. Now, I will answer your additional question - none of the above.
My position on the Bible and rules:
1. There are rules in the Bible.
2. Those rules, contextually, were given to a specific people and a specific time. Period.
3. The people of the OT time believed that God gave them those rules, or at least that's how the story goes. I don't know one way or the other if God did or not give them those rules or if that was just their understanding. Nor do you know, not authoritatively, one way or the other if God gave them those rules or if that was just their understanding.
4. The Bible, in addition to the various rules found within the Bible, contains clarifications, setting asides, caveats, exceptions and various stories taking various stances on the rules in the Bible.
5. It is my opinion that one of the over-arching lessons of the various books of the Bible and of Jesus specifically, is that God is NOT a God of rules. The Way that Jesus came teaching was not a Way of Rules, but of Grace.
Thus, while generally speaking, it is wrong to damage someone else's car (and not because of a rule in the Bible or from God, but just because it is not ours to damage), in grace, we recognize that some times some people may find themselves in a "Sound of Music" situation and in that scenario, DAMAGING the car IS (or is potentially) the right thing to do.
The Rule is the Rule of Love, in the Bible and, I think, rationally speaking. Thus, generally speaking, we will not steal, but maybe there are some situations where stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving person would be the better option. Thus, not a hard and fast rule, but the rule of Love, the Way of Grace.
Are you not understanding me or are you understanding me and disagreeing?
That is, I think clearly, slavery is wrong - a great moral evil, but that is not the Rule as found in the Bible. IF the Bible were a rule book, where the various rules given to various specific people and places were universal and they determined what is and isn't moral, then slavery would have to be, at least some times, moral. But no, it's not. Are you agreeing with me that slavery is a moral wrong, regardless of how it was treated in the Bible, or do you think it is not a sin? Or some other option?
DT
"The Rule is the Rule of Love.."
So, where does one find the Rule of Love?
"Are you not understanding me or are you understanding me and disagreeing?"
Both.
I understand that you essentially rephrased and combined my #'s 2&3, while adding in some mysterious unspoken "Rule of Love". Further, I disagree with your premise.
1. I disagree with your premise that anyone ever takes the Bible to be a "rulebook. So, failing some offer of actual evidence of anyone actually saying that I reject your premise as an unsupported parody of your opinions of what others might think.
2. I disagree with your binary approach which places "rules" and "love and grace' at odds. Again, feel free to offer some objective support for your hunch.
3. I disagree with the fact that you make emphatic statements of fact ("Those rules, contextually, were given to a specific people and a specific time. Period."), yet refuse to provide objective support for said statements.
"...a great moral evil,..."
You continue to make this claim, without having established any objective transcendent, standard of either "moral" or "evil".
So, before this goes any further, you need to take a step back and do a few things. How I'm going to handle this is I'm going to temporarily close the comments on the other two posts. Then I am going to compile a list of items that remain unaddressed, which I will place in a comment on this thread. Once the items on that list are dealt with, (clearly, specifically and in detail), then I will re open the comment threads as necessary.
"Are you agreeing with me that slavery is a moral wrong,..."
Yes, My opinion is that at least some forms of what is called slavery are more than likely morally wrong. However, I would ground my opinion in Scripture, specifically that God made man in His own image.
"..regardless of how it was treated in the Bible,..."
This doesn't make any sense. You can't apply the catch all modern term "slavery", in a blanket wooden literal way to lump the different arrangements that the Bible refers to into one incredibly loaded modern term.
"...or do you think it is not a sin?"
What I think isn't really the issue, you've made it clear that in your opinion the status of slavery as a "sin" is subjective and has no objective grounding. I also renew my objection to your use of the term slavery with all of its modern baggage and emotional loadedness, as a catch all to describe multiple forms of servitude in the Bible, especially as the Biblical record deals with different kinds of arrangements differently.
"Or some other option?"
You will note, that I have already dealt with this in my earlier answers, and decided to show some forbearance in not deleting the comment for you asking the same question multiple times.
I'd ask, Dan, that you respond to THESE questions first of all, please, before making other commentary. I insist. Don't offer comments on other topics until you've answered this line of questions in questions 1 and 2 above. Or, if you do, be sure to make copies to save for later, because I want these questions answered first and will delete other comments until you have answered these questions.
My blog, my rules.
1. Can you explain, and clarify in some detail; with citations and evidence what the “Rule of Love” is that you refer to? It seems as though you are suggesting that there is one “rule” despite your insistence that there are no rules.
2. Can you provide any sort of objective transcendent definition of “moral” and “evil”?
3. Can you provide any sort of objective evidence to support your hunch that “rules” and “love’ and “grace’ are incompatible? (Your attempt didn’t actually answer the question, especially not with any evidence, objective or otherwise)
4. “Please define "biblical culture"?” (I’m still waiting for a definition. You provided some random examples, but not any sort of overarching “biblical culture)
5. Please provide objective evidence of any reasonably mainstream Christian conservative who has said anything that would justify this claim you made “"The only Christian Dwarwinian/survival of the fittest types I know of are conservatives who might argue that helping the poor is not a good thing,..."
6. Please provide objective evidence to support the following claim “"king" is a metaphor, by the by.”
7. Please provide objective evidence to support the following claim “God as King is a metaphor, just as God as Father is.”
8. And this one “God is not literally a monarch ruling a kingdom…”
9. Can you provide any objective proof of an instance where anyone has suggested that “that killing people for adultery, for working on the Sabbath, for being disrespectful children...” are anything other than the punishments laid down for a specific people in a specific place and at a specific time? Further, can you provide any objective proof that anyone has said that these things are “moral” (at least outside of their context)? Can you provide any objective transcendent standard that would make these things “immoral” for all times and in all circumstances?
10. Do you understand that the way you phrase your comment “killing people …for being disrespectful children” does not really accurately convey the entire context of the commandment? If you disagree, please provide evidence.
11. Are you seriously trying to suggest that rules about murder and theft are of the same nature as the rules about cutting hair? If so, then, provide evidence.
Another series of questions to answer, please, before continuing down whatever path you're wanting to comment upon. Thanks.
There is a reason for my taking this approach, I am incredibly busy and while I don’t want to cut off these conversations, I do need to manage them to some degree. That being the case, I have decided that until you can lay some foundation for some of your presuppositions, and provide objective evidence for some of your claims and assumptions, I see no reason to allow these things to meander down whatever path you choose led by your unsupported and unchallenged assumptions. So, you can address/answer the numbered items above at your leisure. I will ask respectfully that you address/answer each in a separate comment and using as much detail, specificity, and objective evidence as is necessary. If you choose to assert that any of your quotes are opinions (which they are not currently phrased as), that’s fine. However, if you continue to state opinions in simple declarative sentences that do not include the words “my opinion”, those comments will be deleted or edited to correct your errors.
Again, I apologize for having to take these measures, but my current situation really demands that I exercise, at least some temporary, controls on these conversations.
So again I say with all possible respect, don't offer comments on other topics until you've answered this line of questions in questions 1 and 2 above. Or, if you do, be sure to make copies to save for later, because I want these questions answered first and will delete other comments until you have answered these questions.
I doubt that I'll bother to answer all your questions, but I'll be glad to take on a few.
1. When asked what the most important commandment was, Jesus offered this... "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and [a]foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
It is my opinion that this is sound reasoning. It is my opinion that this is a reflection of the Way of Grace. It is my opinion that IF one says "Here are all the valid rules found in the Bible... IF you break one of them, you are sinning..." that one is missing the point.
It is my opinion that when Jesus said that the sabbath was made for humanity, etc, that he was uttering a very real truth: That if we get hung up in legalism and obeying a bunch of rules, but don't take into consideration grace and circumstances, that we will have embraced a way of deadly legalism, not a way of Grace. It is my opinion that the Way of Grace is the kernel of Jesus' teaching and that the way of legalism is the way of death and hell.
Feel free to disagree with my opinion if you want.
2. No. Can you? If so, please do.
It is my opinion that those behaviors that take away from life, liberty, health and well-being are wrong. It is my opinion that these facts are self-evident, but if you refuse to accept that reality (what seems to be reality, to me and many others, at least), I can not prove it authoritatively. Nonetheless, I think it is sound reasoning.
3. No. It is my opinion that they can be mutually exclusive. It is my opinion that, for instance, Jesus rejected the rule and embraced grace with the adulterous woman because that is his Way, not legalism. It is my opinion that if one insists upon killing adulterers because the rule says so, then one is engaging in a greater evil than the adultery.
Can you provide any objective evidence that demonstrates that love, grace and rules are always mutually compatible? If so, please do.
4. BIblical cultures - the attitudes, beliefs, mores and values of the various peoples found in the Bible. In context of what I have said: The Israelite culture in the OT believed that God wanted them to kill people who were adulterers, to kill disrespectful children, to sometimes enslave other peoples and force them to do their work, against the slaves' will, to sometimes capture virgin girls and make them their wives, even against the girls' will, that polygamy was an acceptable moral option.
In that culture, they believed those things were at least sometimes moral. Do you disagree? If so, based upon what, since clearly God commanded those behaviors in some situations? Do you think that God didn't actually command those behaviors? Or do you think God did, and so, BACK THEN in that culture (those cultures), it was moral, but now it is not to, for instance, own a human being and force them into labor against their will or to forcibly wed a virgin girl captured from a foreign land?
I'll wait now, and give you a chance to address the questions raised to you.
#1. So your best argument that there are no rules in the Bible is to cite not 1 but 2 commandments. Well done, you've just undercut your entire position.
#2. So, if you can't provide an objective, transcendent definition of either "moral" or "evil", how can you possibly have the grounds to label anything "moral", "immoral", or "evil". I don't think you understand how this works. So again I say with all possible respect, don't offer comments on other topics until you've answered this line of questions.
#3. Yet, despite your inability to produce evidence to support your contention that "rules","love" and "grace" are mutually exclusive, you still insist they are. Why?
#4. You claimed that there was a "biblical culture", all you've done is cherry picked a few things that you find offensive and tried to pawn that off as some sort of a definition. Weak, try again.
"I'll wait now, and give you a chance to address the questions raised to you."
I'd ask, Dan, that you respond to THESE questions first of all, please, before making other commentary. I insist. Don't offer comments on other topics until you've answered this line of questions in list of questions above. Or, if you do, be sure to make copies to save for later, because I want these questions answered first and will delete other comments until you have answered these questions.
I'm shocked you missed that it was the first part of my comment.
As I thought, you're wanting to ask questions but not answer clarifying questions when I do answer your questions directly. You're not even answering your own questions, Craig, why should I play this game?
You are a divisive and bitter man, Brother. Seek Grace.
I want to jump in here to say, first of all, that I am totally interested in this discussion, if for no other reason than to witness Dan two-step his way around actually providing the clarification of his position long sought but never received.
In the meantime, I think it is essential to point out that the conservative view of "grace" is very likely no different, at least superficially, than what appears (to be gracious) to be what Dan is saying. As darn near every link I can find has said, grace is that which is undeserved but given freely by God. It relieves us of our just punishment...it is the salvation we don't deserve.
What grace isn't is the license or liberty to ignore God's clear revelation of what is or isn't pleasing behavior to Him. We really don't need to confirm why a behavior might be prohibited, but only obey as is so often encouraged throughout the whole of Scripture. I provided a link that discusses this concept. Thus, there are indeed still rules of living that must not be rejected as superfluous, irrelevant or no longer binding on us. Dan's double-talk confirms this even when he pretends it is not so.
A question, then, that I would like to see Dan answer is, "Where does Scripture ever say that 'harm' is the defining criterion for determining sinful behavior?" I think a far more accurate criterion is whether or not one's intentions serves the self, or serves God. If I kill someone to profit, that is clearly wrong and it is murder. If I kill someone to protect and defend innocent life, that, generally speaking, is a very good thing indeed.
Dan's position clearly denotes a self-serving or "of the world" mindset when speaking of how to manifest Christian ideology.
Carry on.
Dan,
Perhaps you didn't read my lengthy and detailed explanation of why I was choosing to temporarily do things to focus our conversation. Had you done so you would understand what I was doing and why I was doing it. The fact that you have chosen to ignore my request, and then to chastise me for doing exactly what I said I would do, doesn't speak well for your powers of comprehension.
So, if you want to play by the temporary rules, then great, if not that's fine too. But, stop acting like I'm somehow out of bounds for setting some parameters for the conversation.
It doesn't surprise me that you have taken this approach, it is fairly typical of your tactics.
I am going to cut and paste a few things from an earlier comment for your edification, and so that you can't credibly whine that I'm being mean to you.
"I'd ask, Dan, that you respond to THESE questions first of all, please, before making other commentary. I insist."
"Don't offer comments on other topics until you've answered this line of questions in questions above. Or, if you do, be sure to make copies to save for later, because I want these questions answered first and will delete other comments until you have answered these questions."
"My blog, my rules."
Dan,
As a courtesy to you I copy pasted your comments. Once you are done doing as I asked, they will return.
I suspect that if you post them at your place, you will be less than accurate about why I deleted them.
"The hatred and oppression and taking away of human liberty that you encourage..."
Dan, the above is a direct quote from one of your comments. You need to address this in addition to what you have chosen to ignore.
1. This is a claim.
2. This is a claim of fact.
Therefore, you need to provide actual in context linked quotes to prove that Marshall (or I) is in any way shape or form engaging in or supporting "hatred", "oppression", or "taking away of human liberty".
I am going to give you one opportunity to get this right, you have two options.
1. Provide unequivocal definitive proof. (Links, with context)
2. Retract and apologize.
Any comments without one or the other will disappear.
Your comment is a flat out lie, and will not be tolerated.
MA
Dan is unwilling or unable to define the terms he uses with such certainty. I agree that harm is a nebulous and subjective standard.
For example, I think we could agree that committing suicide is harmful. I also think that we could agree that encouraging someone to engage in a behavior which increases their risk of suicide by 40% or so is a bad idea. Yet Dan has done just that.
I suspect we could agree that engaging in a behavior that materially increases ones risk for physical damage, infection, and disease is harmful. I also suspect we could agree that encouraging someone else to engage in said behavior would be facilitating harm. Yet, Dan has argued that to do is is "healthy".
I have asked multiple times for the objective transcendent standards that underpin Dan's contentions that certain things are or are not "harmful", "moral", "evil", etc. but so far to no avail.
As you can see, I have severely limited Dan's commenting privileges in order to gain some clarity on these things before we move on, and you can see what his response has been.
It is my hope, that we can get some clarity on these things and move on, or convince Dan to be more precise in how he expresses himself.
I know you don't believe it exists, and I'm sure you didn't do the research, but I'll give you a taste.
"Moving beyond doctrines of Original Sin, The Fall, and maybe even the Doctrine of Grace, so that we can embrace our role in the Evolution of Humanity"
"...for millions of years the universe has been conspiring to create her and she is no more the product of the survival of the fittest than she is inherently sinful and broken."
"Humanity is not inherently sinful, humanity is not broken, humanity is incomplete. We, like all of creation are still evolving."
"Creation has been groaning for billions of years so that we might evolve. Creation continues to groan as we continue to evolve into all that we can be."
Dan,
Just for the record. All of the conditions I set for you on this post, are the exact same conditions you set for Marshall at your blog. In fact, I just copy/pasted (and slightly edited) your own words.
"I'd ask, Dan, that you respond to THESE questions first of all, please, before making other commentary. I insist."
"Don't offer comments on other topics until you've answered this line of questions in questions above. Or, if you do, be sure to make copies to save for later, because I want these questions answered first and will delete other comments until you have answered these questions."
"My blog, my rules."
Thank you so very much for so graphically demonstrating the fact that not only will you live up to what you demand of others, you have no problem getting offended when someone else uses your own standards against you.
Just for the record, the temporary rules are still in effect, so before you try to justify your hypocritical inconsistency, you have plenty to answer.
Dan chose to respond to this at his blog, I doubt he'll comment further here. I doubt he'll leave my response to his excuses up. I doubt he'll apologize for lying.
I am, as always, prepared to be proven wrong.
Just to address the false claim of a lie on my part (and it IS a false claim), I'll address that to demonstrate your mistake and then we can see how quickly you'll apologize. You said...
1. This is a claim.
2. This is a claim of fact.
The first point was correct. It WAS a claim that I made. The second line is incorrect. As I have noted repeatedly to you, not every claim is a claim of fact. There are claims of opinions, too. YOUR CLAIM ITSELF that I lied was a claim of opinion, not fact.
I did not say it was a verifiable fact. It is a claim of MY OPINION.
That claim, in part - removed from context because you conveniently deleted the comment, but the part you quoted...
"The hatred and oppression and taking away of human liberty that you encourage..."
When some group encourages, as conservative Christians do, the removal of liberties from a people, that is an oppression, in my opinion. It is hateful, although I can not speak to the heart's intent, its results are hateful. I have seen this reality in person.
People have told gay people "leave our church if you won't agree with our opinions about your sexuality." I am sure I can find quotes if I look, but for now, I'm talking from personal experience, personal testimony that we, at our church, have heard repeatedly. Mr X, for instance, whose Christian family and church kicked him out of their community for refusing to repent for being gay. That is oppressive behavior, it has hateful, damaging, demonizing results. It removes liberties. I have seen the damage done to the individuals, the self-loathing, the doubt, the distrust of Christians... which is itself a damage to the name of Christ.
My claim was a claim of opinion and that opinion is not without data to support it, even if it may not be entirely provable. It is NOT a lie. To demonstrate that it is a lie, you would have to demonstrate/provide data that shows I intentionally misrepresented facts, and I have not.
I have my personal testimony of others' testimonies who have experienced this real oppression, demonization, etc to know of this reality for myself, but for at least a couple of examples of this reality from other sources... Christians in the state of Texas have vowed that EVEN IF the Supreme Court recognizes the right for gay folk to marry, they would still deny that right...
http://www.texasobserver.org/bill-aims-to-bar-texas-clerks-from-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses/
That is a denial of civil liberties being attempted by those on the religious right. Or so it seems to me.
Denying people this liberty is "unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power," ie, the very definition of oppression, in MW. Or so it seems to me. You almost certainly would find it oppressive if you had "unjust or cruel" exercise of power against you.
Oppression and denying civil liberties is hateful. Or so it seems to me. YOU would find it hateful if people started unjustly denying your liberties or otherwise oppressing you.
So, while I can't "prove" that denying marriage is denying civil rights which is oppressive, which is hateful (any more than you can prove it's not), that is how it seems to us, and I believe reasonably so.
Thus, again, no lie. Disagreement about what is and isn't unjust or a liberty, but not a lie. That I disagree with you is no more evidence of a lie than that you disagree with me.
And with that, and your refusal to answer questions in kind in a respectful conversational manner, I am done here. But here's hoping you will have the decency to admit your mistake and recant your false claim.
Dan
"The hatred and oppression and taking away of human liberty that you encourage..."
As long as you won't provide proof that anyone in this conversation has actually done what you accuse of your statement, your statement is at best false and unsupported, at worst a lie.
"...you would have to demonstrate/provide data..."
The above statement clearly demonstrates the problem, you demand that others "provide data", while you do not. Simply asserting something unprovable (I know some people that heard something) is not data, evidence or proof. As long as you continue to insist on that bizarre lack of balance, I'm going to call you on it.
"And with that, and your refusal to answer questions in kind in a respectful conversational manner, I am done here."
One more false claim.
I have clearly NOT refused to answer questions. I have established some temporary rules (based on and quoted from your won rules), to avoid wasting time of digressions. I have explained what and why things need to be this way temporarily, and I have even saved your comments to re post after you have done what I asked. Once we get past those things I will move forward and answer questions. Honestly had you asked questions that were because you didn't understand my questions or concerns, I would have answered them. Instead you chose to ignore and bitch because you thought that (your) rules shouldn't apply to you.
If it somehow makes you feel better to blame me and make false and unsupported charges, fine. But, when the proof to the contrary is in writing in the very thread where you make these foolish claims, it's hard to take you seriously.
Since your last comment was a weak attempt to justify your false claim, I haven't decided whether or not to delete it yet. It is at least an attempt to deal with an issue I wanted you to, in order to restore your unrestricted comment privileges.
"I doubt he'll comment further here."
To the extent that Dan did comment further here (at least to the extent of trying to justify his comment and reiterating his misstatements about how I am dealing with him here), I guess I was wrong.
It still remains to be seen how he handles my comments elsewhere.
Dan,
I just had two more thoughts that I figured were worth putting out there.
1. Honestly I am incredibly disappointed in you. You gave me everything I needed, the rules, the verbiage, the attitude, everything. Then once I laid it out, you did exactly what I thought you'd do and stepped in it. Once I laid it out you had some choices; a) push back and blame me, b) pretend that it didn't happen, c) humbly admit that maybe you overstepped a bit and apologize. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you chose a&b, but I am disappointed.
2. Your use of the "Even though I don't have a quote from Marshall or you that supports my claim, I will just throw out some anonymous unattributed "people" who can somehow be loosely lumped into a group with you that I can attribute to you what others in "your group" have (in your opinion) done. As long as you can establish, in your mind, some general loose tangential linkage you are comfortable ascribing behavior to Marshall and I that we haven't engaged in. This tendency is something about y'all on the left that baffles and disgusts me at the same time. I have repeatedly asked you to stop this compulsion to lump people into groups, and deal with people as individuals. I realize that it's easier to do so, but it's lazy, it's demeaning, and it's dishonest. Seriously, you are blaming Marshall for something that you perceive that someone else has done, do you not see how immoral that is?
Again, I suspect that you'll ignore this and once again blame me because I am doing exactly what I warned you (using your own words) that I would do.
Honestly at this point it's just sad that you are so steeped in this that you can't help yourself.
Problems found without looking from Dan's last comment:
1. "When some group encourages, as conservative Christians do, the removal of liberties from a people, that is an oppression, in my opinion. It is hateful, although I can not speak to the heart's intent, its results are hateful. I have seen this reality in person."
So have I. Dan believes abortion should be legal. In doing so, he encourages the removal of the basic liberty of the unborn...without life, the unborn have no liberty at all to do anything. What could possibly be more oppressive? It is hateful. To presume that the life of another can be determined by the whims of another is hateful indeed toward the unborn.
2. " Mr X, for instance, whose Christian family and church kicked him out of their community for refusing to repent for being gay. That is oppressive behavior, it has hateful, damaging, demonizing results. It removes liberties. I have seen the damage done to the individuals, the self-loathing, the doubt, the distrust of Christians... which is itself a damage to the name of Christ."
a) "Mr X, for instance, whose Christian family and church kicked him out of their community for refusing to repent for being gay. That is oppressive behavior..."
No. It's called casting out the unrepentant sinner, a teaching of the Christian faith. I would wager that Mr. X was booted for more than simply being a homosexual, but likely for either engaging in homosexual behavior (with no effort to cease), or for insisting that homosexual behavior is not sinful. But for simply being one? Very doubtful. Imagine if this dude said to his family and church, "Hey, it's not like I intend to get kinky with some dude...I'm just saying I have these desires." No way they banished him for that.
b) "...it has hateful, damaging, demonizing results."
I'm sure it does for those who insist on rejecting Christian teaching with regards to homosexual behavior. And I'm sure it would for someone who is merely suffering from homosexuals desires without acting on them who is rejected as a result, which likely rarely happens, if it ever happens at all.
c) "It removes liberties."
Nonsense. It removes nothing but the arrogant intention of openly living in a manner contrary to church teaching, thereby impacting the entire congregation in a negative way. Liberty does not give license to act in opposition to the culture of a church regardless of what the church family might prefer. That would remove the liberty of the congregation to associate and worship without the presence of a sinful influence tainting their relationship with their God.
d) "I have seen the damage done to the individuals, the self-loathing, the doubt, the distrust of Christians..."
You've seen the consequence of their rebellion, not anything inflicted upon them by the church that righteously stood their ground against their selfish indulgence. BTW, the "self-loathing"? That's their conscience struggling to guide them back to Christ. They reject it. Their distrust of Christians? That's their realization that Christians won't buy into their crap.
3. "I have my personal testimony of others' testimonies who have experienced this real oppression..."
You have your personal testimony of the whining of those who were called on their sin and didn't like it. Since you've never offered the testimonies of those who cast them out, I'm forced to regard their testimony as less than honest, and largely self-serving. I regard your support of them as reprehensible considering your cheap rationalizations put forth as serious and prayerful Biblical study.
4. "Christians in the state of Texas have vowed that EVEN IF the Supreme Court recognizes the right for gay folk to marry, they would still deny that right..."
Texas defends the true definition of marriage against the rulings of a morally corrupt SCOTUS majority. But denying homosexuals a license for their union, which by definition is not a marriage, does not deny any "right" of a pair of homosexuals to commit to each other in whatever manner homosexuals might do such a thing.
5. "That is a denial of civil liberties being attempted by those on the religious right. Or so it seems to me. "
Only if you're so in the bag for the sexually immoral that you believe civil liberties means less than 2% of the population can force the other 98+% to regard as marriage what isn't. In other words, you'd allow them to deny the civil liberties of those that know what the real definition of marriage is and knows maintaining that definition is beneficial to society and the culture.
6. "Denying people this liberty is "unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power,""
Bullsh*t and an abject lie. Denying homosexuals the "liberty" of forcing their self-serving and false definition of marriage upon the rest of society is neither unjust or cruel, but the rest of us being forced to comply with their whiny demands would be both.
So you're a liar, as you insist on a reality that is unreal and from that fantasy accuse the righteous of all manner of heinous intent. Shame on you.
"Christians in the state of Texas have vowed that EVEN IF the Supreme Court recognizes the right for gay folk to marry, they would still deny that right..."
"That is a denial of civil liberties being attempted by those on the religious right. Or so it seems to me. "
Denying people this liberty is "unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power,""
Marshall,
Let's be very clear about what/who Dan is talking about here. He's not suggesting that there are a bunch of Simon Legree wannabees who can't wait to round up all the "darkies" and force them back to the plantation chopping cotton, or something nefarious like that.
What he's suggesting is that a bunch of christian folks; folks who have sincerely read and studied the Bible (some for as much as 50 years), have sought the guidance of the Lord through prayer, studied Church History, and really tried hard to hear the voice of God, are evil. What makes them evil, that they after much prayerful study (at least some of them) have reached a conclusion that differs from Dan's opinion. They have reached a conclusion that they feel is most completely in line with what the scriptures DO say about marriage and appropriate sexual expression. But, not only that, these folk even have the temerity to engage in the political process and allow their sincere well founded Christian beliefs guide how they vote. Can you believe the nerve of these hateful oppressors, how dare they.
Ir seems that we've reached a point where people who disagree with Dan's opinion about a behavior are now to be called hateful oppressors and vilified at every opportunity.
SIN'NER, n.
1. One that has voluntarily violated the divine law; a moral agent who has voluntarily disobeyed any divine precept, or neglected any known duty.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/sinner.html
The Easy English Bible dictionary defines sinner...
sinner ~ (A) ~ a person who breaks God's rules; a person who does not obey God.
sinner ~ (A) ~ a person who does bad things against God and other people.
sinner ~ (B) ~ a person who breaks God's commands.
sinner ~ (B) ~ a person who does not obey the rules of God.
And, of course as hopefully you know, the Hebrew/Greek words translated as "sinner" mean either "one who transgresses" or "one who misses the mark..."
It would appear that when it suits you you will use terms like "sinner" and trot out the above as "the" definition of sinner, yet you deny the essence of what constitutes "sin". Fairly typical for you to argue vehemently that there are no transcendent laws, yet cherry pick a definition with which you disagree in order to try to make a point.
Okay, one thing here, for your consideration, should you consider it. You cite a definition...
One that has voluntarily violated the divine law; a moral agent who has voluntarily disobeyed any divine precept, or neglected any known duty.
I'm not what the context is that caused you to cite the definition, but it's a good thing to consider and hopefully considering its meaning will enlighten us all.
"one that VOLUNTARILY VIOLATES..." "...who VOLUNTARILY DISOBEYED..."
The person who, for instance, truly believes that loving another person in a marriage relationship - gay or straight - is a beautiful, wonderful thing is NOT "voluntarily disobeying..." Worst case scenario, they are unknowingly disobeying a rule (if we're a bunch of rule followers, as if that were the key to our salvation).
Would you call such a person a sinner? The soldiers who bombed Hiroshima presumably thought they were doing the right thing. If they were mistaken and it was a grossly immoral act, one that caused countless harm, maiming and suffering, are they sinners?
When you say voluntarily "violates" and "disobeys" there is, it appears to me, the implication of a deliberate act, not an unwitting one. So, looking at that definition at least, would Marshall's desire to "put out" the unwitting sinner be appropriate? Would grace be appropriate?
I don't know, it might depend on harm done.
Merely disagreeing over non-harmful behaviors where one side can't prove or disprove they are correct... I'm not sure is cause for kicking people out. I do know the great harm that is done when people are kicked out, the harm to the shunned one, the harm to the local church, and the harm done to the catholic (universal) Church.
So, for whatever reason you're citing the definition, I'd suggest it's something worth considering.
And you are factually mistaken about what you're claiming about me, fyi. Should the facts matter to you.
Dan,
The point of my posting this definition is that YOU used it as proof of some point at another blog. Despite the fact that the definition that YOU used clearly disagrees with your position regarding the Law. You have been quite clear that you don't believe that the Bible is "a rule book", and that the Biblical laws don't apply to us, unless they happen to coincide with some vague definition of harm or some other cultural more.
So when you say "When you say", your more proper comment should be "When I say", since I am using something you posted to point out your hypocrisy.
Now, I guess that you could argue that some unsuspecting gay dude is unaware of what the Bible says about gay sex, and just jumps in for the hell of it. But in real life what we have is people who say "I know what the Bible says, but it doesn't really mean that." or "I know what the Bible says, but that was for then." or whatever the excuse du jour is. The problem is that willfully choosing to interpret the Bible to allow for you to engage in whatever your sin of choice is, is tantamount to willfully disobeying.
Now, I will let this last comment stand, as well as my response. But, if you want to continue to comment, then you need to back up, finish what you started, and then we can move forward.
Dan likes to run with this "unknowingly disobeying" crap. What a liar. In this day and age, there is no way anyone could "unknowingly disobey" because there is too much out there that clearly explains that homosexual behavior is a great sin. Thus, even if a homosexual wants to try to make the case that he doesn't agree (and clearly they don't, though they do not provide a logical, Scripture-based argument to defend the proposition), they cannot say they don't know. Scripture is crystal clear on the subject.
BTW---Bombing Hiroshima? Not a sin. Not in the least.
BTW---Putting out the unrepentant sinner? Totally appropriate and Biblical. In fact, it is taught as our duty. Remember how Paul chided that church for tolerating the sinful relationship one man was carrying on? We're not talking about someone who is struggling with a temptation, sometimes indulging it, but later suffering from remorse and regret. We're talking about homosexuals (or any other sinner) who insists his lifestyle is NOT sinful and has no intention of forsaking it for His sake. UNREPENTANT.
BTW---That unrepentant sinner? Any "harm" he suffers from being cast out for his reprobate ways is on him, not the church family that expels him. Dan would blame the congregation for the self-inflicted negative consequences of the sinner's actions. That's how in the bag Dan is for sexual immorality.
Post a Comment