"The design of the whole of Scripture, and all the parts of it, hath an impress on it of divine wisdom and authority; and hereof there are two parts: first, To reveal God unto men; and secondly, to direct men to come into the enjoyment of God."
John Owen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Of course, then one must assume that the words in the above phrase in bold, mean something other than their most common obvious meanings.
That “complete” means something other than “complete”, (perhaps “complete” really means incomplete) and that “thoroughly” doesn’t mean “thoroughly”, and that “every” means something less than “every”.
While, as an individual dependent wholly one one’s individual “Reason”, I guess one could concoct a scenario where the meanings could be adjusted to mean something other than what the plain text says. But that scenario simply allows individuals to arbitrarily assign meanings to words and phrases independent of both common definitions and usage, and independent of acknowledgement of the intent of the author.
We’ve seen repeated assertions the SS is somehow inadequate or nonsensical. What we haven’t seen is a coherent, rational alternative.
Clearly the appeal to individual, flawed, imperfect, human, Reason isn’t adequate because how can it be rationally asserted the the word “every” can mean “every” or “less than every” solely at the whim of the reader.
Maybe if there was more effort put into making a positive, affirmative case for one’s position instead of asserting that the other position is “wrong”, things might be more productive.
One last thought, Dan criticizes Art for what he believes is selectively taking small phrases or words literally without regard to their context. Yet, initial post which spawned all of this died exactly that. I addressed this multiple times early in the thread to no avail, yet the rank hypocrisy is quite amusing.
Not that it’ll do any good, but please point out one specific false claim I made, along with proof it’s false.
Oh, I did answer your question. I just pointed out how you twisted what I actually, provably, observably said into something entirely different.
But, if hiding behind the delete button protects you, be my guest. Just be honest about it.
One reason I think it’s reasonable for you to cite scripture to support your claims, is your repeated insistence that God “blesses” gay marriages or the gay marriage is specifically covered in the “good, noble...” list you trot out. Until you stop trying to give God’s imprimatur to homosexual acts, I’m going to ask you to support that with scripture.
And, no. I’m not going to dignify your switch from homosexual acts to gay marriage with a significant response.
You’ve offered proof regarding what fallible, imperfect humans, believe to be true. Yet, you offer human opinion to bolster your claims about God “blessing” or approving of gay marriage.
Here’s the deal. If you want to stop invoking God in the discussion of homosexual activities and simply admit that you are asserting your personal opinion based on your observations, great.
But, if you insist on invoking what God thinks or blesses, you would need something beyond two random links.
I’m sure your links are much better than the CDC study about disproportionate rates of domestic violence in the gay community.
Post a Comment