Life has been incredibly hectic lately; work, home renovations, houseguests, 2 family members involving me in their car buying process, and the fact that it's the one week of the summer when it get genuinely hot up here, so that mean that blogging and commenting has taken a back seat. I hope to at least get Dan a long promised "rational bases" for believing that God is real, that He communicates with us, and that we can actually correctly understand Him done this weekend.
28 comments:
Just to help you out some...
1. I believe we have a rational basis for believing God is real. Do you understand that?
2. I believe God communicates with us. Do you understand that?
3. I believe we can actually understand God...
Where we part ways, it appears, is that I also believe it would be arrogant to say we PERFECTLY understand God, even on some limited number of ideas.
The problem, I believe, is that YOU ALL wish to claim that on some things you all have perfect understanding of God when you have no proof of it. You all would like for everyone to agree with you that you all have perfect understanding of those ideas.
Is that a correct assessment?
Take your time.
I'm sorry that you haven't understood my explanations for answering the first version of your question first and why it undergirds any further answers that may happen.
1. Yet you won't assert it as fact.
2. Yet you won't assert this as fact either. Nor will you assert that any communication there might be can be completely understood.
3. Yet, not perfectly on even the most basic or smallest things.
I understand that you have offered 3 statements of your opinion with absolutely zero evidence that might support your opinion as fact. In reality it might be more accurate to say that you hope those things are true.
While I don't know that I'm all that attached to the word perfectly, I do believe that we can understand that certain things about God or communicated by God are objectively True, even if we can't know that ehhaustively.
Again, when time permits I will, as promised, provide a rational basis to conclude that God exists, that God has spoken, and that we can understand Truth.
If you want to nitpick semantics or find other reasons to dislike my answer how about you wait until you see it.
There is a difference between having reasonable considerations for holding an OPINION on an unprovable ideas and claiming something that is unprovable is a known fact.
"You all would like for everyone to agree with you that you all have perfect understanding of those ideas."
What I would like is actual evidence to demonstrate that a clearly articulated, unambiguous command of God does not mean what the words clearly and unambiguously mean. All you really do instead is force tougher standards on what constitutes perfect knowledge of that clear and unambiguous command or teaching when you don't like the implications of the command or teaching.
What I would like is actual evidence to demonstrate that a clearly articulated, unambiguous command of God does not mean what the words clearly and unambiguously mean.
"If your eyes cause you to lust, pluck them out."
Or
"DO NOT store up for yourselves treasures here on earth."
Jesus uttering a clearly articulated unambiguous command.
YOU do not take either literally.
Why not? Because it seems "obvious" to you that Jesus couldn't mean this literally, it's "clearly" hyperbole.
And you're right (on the first one, less so on the second one, but a case can be made).
Likewise,
"If two men lie together (you know, to have sex), God hates that. Kill them."
I do not take that literally as to what it might seem to a shallow reading. Why not? Because it is "obvious" to me that Jesus did not say that gay guys shouldn't get married. It's "clear" that marriage is a good thing, entering into a loving, healthy, respectful marriage relationship and enjoying sex in that context is a healthy, positive, loving, wonderful thing.
We both reject the "clear" teaching because it is "obvious" that the literal teaching can't be taken literally and that it would be WRONG to take it literally.
I'm doing the same thing as you are, giving a clearly articulated reason, a reasonable and understandable reason, as to why I don't take the line at face value.
Just like you are doing.
1. Yet you won't assert it as fact.
You DO understand that I'm saying "We have reasons to believe X, Y and Z" and that this is different than saying, "I can demonstrate as a 'known fact' that my opinions on X, Y and Z ARE perfectly known as facts by me...," don't you?
Look, I'm relatively certain - given a wide range of reasonable and observable data - that the earth has never been visited by intelligent aliens from a distant planet. I feel comfortable standing by that, given the evidence and the reasoning. Can I claim this as a "known fact..."? No, I can't. Do I "know perfectly with absolute confidence" that my opinion is right on this? No, I can't say that.
It seems that you all are wanting to conflate, "I feel really confident about this for what I think are good reasons..." and "...therefore, it is a 'known fact...'" That you believe so much in your opinions that you think you can just elevate it to a "known fact" status based on your sheer confidence of your opinion.
All I'm stating is the obvious and the demonstrable: IF we have no way to prove it, then we can't claim to "know" it perfectly and absolutely as a "fact." How can you, especially when we're speaking of what you think God thinks about stuff that God has not told you? I'm open to being shown how you can "know" what is unknown," but it sounds self-defeating.
Dan,
You continue to cite hyperbole and metaphor to avoid dealing with that which is neither. That you continue to think that will relieve you of the obligation, that it will make your position legitimate, such makes you either a liar or stupid.
""If two men lie together (you know, to have sex), God hates that. Kill them.""
Is it so hard to copy and paste an actual verse from an actual Bible? God hates all sin, such as homosexuality, which is a sinful behavior that He also says is an abomination, which is why He forbids it.
"I do not take that literally as to what it might seem to a shallow reading."
An example of "shallow" reading results in idiots suggesting "pluck it out" should be taken literally. An honest and serious reading does not, nor does it equivocate on Lev 18:22 or Lev 20:13. An honest and serious reading does not pretend there is any hidden meaning in the clear and unambiguous prohibition of homosexuality. A liar does.
"Why not? Because it is "obvious" to me that Jesus did not say that gay guys shouldn't get married."
It's equally obvious that Jesus didn't say you couldn't marry your daughter or your goat. But if He said that sex with your daughter or your goat was forbidden, what makes you think He would approve of you doing it in any context? Only your desire to ignore the Will of God would lead you to employ the childish "Jesus didn't say" argument, and then expect adults to regard it as legitimate.
"It's "clear" that marriage is a good thing, entering into a loving, healthy, respectful marriage relationship and enjoying sex in that context is a healthy, positive, loving, wonderful thing."
It is even far more clearly apparent that all references to marriage and family affirm the man/woman definition while never suggesting a union based on behavior regarded as abomination to God. It is a willful and eager lie to suggest that there is any question as to what "marriage" means in Scripture. That means you're a liar and proud of it.
"We both reject the "clear" teaching because it is "obvious" that the literal teaching can't be taken literally and that it would be WRONG to take it literally."
No we don't. I reject your lying about what Scripture means or could possibly say due to the fact that Scripture itself doesn't support your corrupt preferences. What you do, in the meantime, is pervert the concept of "taking the Bible literally" in order to support sexual perversion. That makes you a liar.
"I'm doing the same thing as you are, giving a clearly articulated reason, a reasonable and understandable reason, as to why I don't take the line at face value."
You're not at all doing what I do. You're injecting meaning where it doesn't belong in order to support sexual immorality (as well as other corruptions of Scripture). That makes you a liar, as well as does saying we're doing the same thing.
Marshall, on what basis do you not take Jesus' commands literally, the two I cited?
We've been through this many times before, Dan. Do you have any intelligent questions for a change?
Yes I do know what your answer is. It is, if I'm not mistaken, just as I've said in my point... That those passages are "obviously" - to you - not to be taken literally. Am I mistaken?
Well, they're obvious to anyone who's not trying to serve a sexually immoral agenda. For you, you question whether or not they should be taken literally in order to provide for you permission to reject taken verses like Lev 18:22 literally.
"plucking out eyes" is clearly hyperbole considering there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that anyone at the time it was said took it literally either. No stories of people plucking out their own eyes, cutting off their own hands...nothing whatsoever. The people hearing it understood the point that it would be better to lose an eye or a hand than to sin indicates the seriousness of sinning.
In a similar fashion, honest people who are truly seeking God's will as opposed to validating their socialist leanings know that the lesson in which "laying up treasure" appears is teaching that doing for God should take precedence over doing for the self. It is more important to lay up treasures in heaven, but it doesn't teach one should never secure one's financial situation. There is no teaching that poverty, or living in a manner that a catastrophic situation might easily put one into poverty, is in any way desirable or expected of Christians. It's absurd.
So I don't fail to take those lessons literally, but to rip out small sections of the lesson and pretend that small section itself is the lesson, is not how "taking the Bible literally" works for those who do.
In the meantime, there is no metaphorical technique at work with Lev 18:22. No hyperbole. There is no other way to take that teaching expect to totally deny one's self any homosexual pleasures. There is no way to assert and insist that there is some context or scenario (SSM) that makes engaging in the behavior any less sinful. Only a liar would so suggest such a thing.
I have to say, it's stuff like this which is quickly and effectively sapping what little motivation I have to answer Dan's question.
The fact is that no matter how much effort I put into it, no matter how rational my basis might be, Dan will either be unsatisfied or complain that I haven't answered the way he wanted or the question he actually asked.
I'm struggling between, keeping my word and answering the question and breaking my word and opening the door for loads of additional crap.
Just being honest.
? I don't know why not or what your complaint is... Because I'm not willing to call an unprovable theory a fact?
Dan,
I have to say, it's stuff like this which is quickly and effectively sapping what little motivation I have to answer Dan's question.
The fact is that no matter how much effort I put into it, no matter how rational my basis might be, Dan will either be unsatisfied or complain that I haven't answered the way he wanted or the question he actually asked.
I'm struggling between, keeping my word and answering the question and breaking my word and opening the door for loads of additional crap.
Just being honest.
? Stuff like what?
Stuff like this ridiculous putting ? at the beginning of a sentence.
Stuff like "Yes I do know what your answer is".
Stuff like "Because it is "obvious" to me that Jesus did not say that gay guys shouldn't get married. It's "clear" that marriage is a good thing, entering into a loving, healthy, respectful marriage relationship and enjoying sex in that context is a healthy, positive, loving, wonderful thing."
Stuff like you repeating the same tired old crap over and over again.
Look, I've seen enough of your "stuff", in the past and in this thread to know to a high degree of certainty what (out of your stock responses), your response is going to be. The fact that I simply wrote this post to explain my absence and busyness and to reassure you that I would do what I said I would do, and you quickly turm it into something else.
So, yeah, I'm tired of your "stuff" and your "stuff" is a big part of my lack of motivation to answer you.
It's pretty simple. If you don't like it I don't particularly care at this point, I'm just trying to honestly express my frustration with your "stuff".
So, by my "stuff," you are saying you are tired of my opinions? Fair enough. I put a ? at the beginning of a comment when I honestly don't know what you're talking about and am confused. If you have some preferred way for me to express that, please tell me.
I did know what Marshall's answer was going to be, as he has told me before, and it was what I had already said. That bothers you? Why?
Stuff like my having opinions about what Jesus taught (and didn't teach)? Why does that bother you?
As to repeating my reasoning to show Marshall how it is the same as what he is doing (saying that you interpret something less literally because it obviously should be taken less literally), why does that bother you?
Anyway, you can answer or not. If it's stressing you out, don't do it for my sake. I gladly release you of any obligation to answer if that makes you feel better, brother.
Peace.
More your attitude than your opinions. Your insistence that you know better than we, what we think. Your lack of humility and double standards.
Ultimately, I think it's the fact that I've spent time trying to come up with an answer for you that is rational, supported by facts and reality, and coherent, yet that probability is that you will respond either negatively or will not respond at all. The fact that you don't seem to understand that when you demand answers, then ignore or criticize the answers you get that it tends to diminish the willingness of people to respond to you in meaningful ways.
In short, the fact that you took a post where I simply explained my lack of response and started with condescension, then felt the need to go way off topic is pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back on this one.
"...don't do it for my sake."
You just don;t get it. Not everything revolves around you. I was not doing it for "your sake", I was doing it because following through on something you said you'd do is the right thing to do. It's about my integrity, not your narcissism. It's about doing what I said, while knowing that it's a waste of time.
I knew all of that, I would prefer to do the right thing.
For right now, I'll say this.
I think the "partially perfect" language is an oxymoron and your insistence on using it is more than likely tactical.
Given your insistence that I use your language, and that I not answer your first question first, I think that it's reasonable and rational to have a fair degree of confidence that you will be dissatisfied with my answer.
At this point, what I can say with confidence is that I'm not going to answer your question now.
Your insistence that you know better than we, what we think. Your lack of humility and double standards.
I asked Marshall a simple question so I could KNOW what his answer was. He opted not to answer, saying he had already answered in the past. In the past, he had said what I said he said.
I'm not saying I know what you think better than you do. I am saying that when you've answered this question, I am assuming you meant what you gave as your answer before. And if not, by all means, answer it again so I can know.
Where is there a lack of humility in asking you what your answer is to a question? Or, when you answer as I've said you had answered? What double standard?
And what going off topic? I only tried to help by explaining that you probably didn't need to answer your first or second question, since we agreed on them already. That was trying to help, trying to save you some labor.
Yes, I agree that partially perfect is an oxymoron and I do think it elegantly points to a whole in the argument. But, so far as I can tell, it is an accurate description of the claim being put forth by your side. Bubba appears to be saying that we can't know everything, but some things we can know with absolute confidence. Is that not partially perfect? I await clarification from anyone if they wish to correct but I am not understanding aright... but if I'm understanding correctly and it is self contradictory then that does make my point.
Hole, not whole. That's the problem with trying to do this on my phone.
Hole, not whole. That's the problem with trying to do this on my phone.
As to off topic, virtually every comment on this thread is off the topic of the post.
Thanks for confirming that you've used the partially perfect term as a way to recast Bubba's concept in a more negative way.
As far as lack of humility, it's not necessarily specific to this thread, but a more general direction you've taken recently, I just see no reason to deal with it. Same with the double standard, I'm increasingly put off by your refusal to live by the standards you demand of others.
Look, I understand why you don't understand why I'm not excited to answer one more question, knowing that you won't be satisfied with the answer. i even kind of understand that you don't understand that your past actions bring people to the point of understanding that it's often not worth the time and energy involved.
Not "more negative. Accurate. how is that not Very specifically explicitly literally accurate? Feel free to answer if you want.
Post a Comment