My original plan was to try to identify this "one question" you keep bitching that hasn't been answered, and put it in a separate post with an answer. But, upon trying to untangle the convoluted mess of multiple versions of this "one question" and all the extraneous crap, I decide to do this instead.
You have one opportunity to ask this "one question" right here and right now. I would hope that you could edit it down to something manageable and reasonably direct and specific.
But, unlike you, I refuse to engage in prior restraint.
Your call. I want you to have the chance to ask the question you want, not my attempt to tease it out of multiple off topic comments.
16 comments:
You cite, in quotations, "One question..." I don't know that I have "one question," and looking back in the previous post or two, I don't find that I or anyone used that phrase.
There are instances of you not answering all manner of questions. Feel free to pick one. I will allow that, given the way that you and Marshall so very rarely answer questions directly and make so many false claims about what I have and haven't done and said,, that indeed, the previous posts ARE pretty convoluted.
If you can tell me what YOU mean by "one question" (since it's not a quote from me), then I'd be glad to help out.
Some questions that have been asked and gone unanswered (in a direct and clear fashion) include:
1. IF you knew that a gay couple marrying would help them increase their odds of living a happier and healthier life and a longer life in this state of better health, would you gladly affirm the couple in this decision? "Well, OF COURSE, you should marry, IF it's going to mean that you live a happier, healthier, longer life!" Could you bring yourself to saying something like that, if you knew that this is what the data said?
or, given...
A. You have a right to swing your fist. [The right of self determination.]
B. Your right to swing your fist, however, ends at another person's nose [the right of the OTHER person to self determination/ie, the right to not be harmed or oppressed.]
2. Do you recognize this basic human liberties philosophy as just and rational and moral?
3. Are you all SERIOUSLY arguing against self determination (of course, not including the "right" to cause harm to others, because that is NOT a right, but a violation of rights)?
if you are arguing against the moral righteousness of self-determination...
4. If so, do you recognize how evil that is? How anti-biblical? How anti-morality? How anti-Christian?
5. If you would counsel a gay couple AWAY from marriage, even knowing that it would likely make them less happy, less healthy and more likely to die younger, do you recognize how evil that is? How anti-biblical? How anti-morality? How anti-Christian?
Those look like some of the questions that went unanswered in recent conversations.
I was hoping that you could excercise some degree of restraint and distill your multitude of repetitive re asking of variations of the same thing over and over. I guess you’ve chosen overkill.
But, that’s not who you are, so I’ll have to break this huge pile of crap into manageable pieces. Hopefully you’ll be uncharacteristicly patient.
1. If I knew that there was a 100% guarantee, in a vacuum, you might have a point. But it’s clearly not anywhere near 100% , we don’t live in a vacuum, and people make other people happy. Given that, I have some things I need you to address so I can give you a specific and detailed answer to a vague, broad, hypothetical question.
A, I don’t “know” that 2 specific gay people getting married to each other is a guarantee of all that you claim it is.
B. I know nothing about this hypothetical couple you’ve conjured up.
C. I’m not going to offer life advice to people outside of the context of a personal relationship.
D. You’re sepating the institution of marriage from the individuals who enter into it.
E. Are you referring to sacramental/covenant marriage or civil marriage?
F. Are there differences between sacramental and civil marriage in these “definitive” stats you keep treating as gospel.
G. The introduction sentences that you pasted with the links, are clear that they aren’t making the claims you are. Why would I believe you over them?
H. Wouldn’t these alleged benefits of marriage be related to the couple’s commitment to monogamy?
I. If I had the level of friendship to discuss whether or not someone should get married, I would have already had the more basic discussion of a biblical view of sexuality.
J. Are these hypothetical people Believers or not?
K. Why would I assume facts not in evidence?
L. Does every marriage experience the same miraculous benefits?
M. If yes, then why is the divorce rate so high?
N. If no, then how does one predict which marriages experience these magic benefits?
O. If you were to counsel someone about this wonderful news, and their spouse started abusing them, how would you respond?
P. Does this wonderous equation apply equally to everyone?
I’ve got to leave this here for now, I’ll be back at some point.
1. (contd). Why should I assume that’s it’s possible to “know” the future of any couple before they get married? Who would presume to tell them that they “know” the future of their relationship?
If it was possible to “know” the future in the manner you are advocating, then I would advise couples who asked me on a case by case basis. I would never presume to make such a sweeping generalization and broad prediction and try to apply it to individuals I don’t know.
Just to jump in, I must remind all that the only correct answer to that question for a Christian is to advise that both homosexuals reject the homosexual lifestyle, repent and live a Christian life instead of either sinful choice in Dan's hypothetical question.
Art, you make an excellent point. I hadn’t necessarily gotten there yet. In Dans example, he’s presuming the homosexual and heterosexual sex are of equal worth in God’s eyes.
As I hope my comments will tease out, he’s certainly presuming that the marriage conversation takes place in a vacuum, and that it’s not related to any other conversation and relationship.
He’s also trying to use social/opinion poll data to prove something it can’t prove.
Well that's what "progressives" do...they jump on absolutely everything and anything that even so much as slightly hints support, proof or validation of their preferred world view, and more often than not, without any solid research of their own to verify any of it. Conversely, they do the same for that which stands in opposition to points of view they find inconvenient or in conflict with their own.
As to comparing homo to hetero sex, he's not presuming anything. He's insisting, despite all evidence to the contrary, and without any evidence whatsoever in support, that they ARE equal morally. In short, he's lying.
Art, I know you’re just abbreviating, but in the future if you could avoid the abbreviation for homosexual, we don’t want to needlessly offend anyone.
Maybe we don't, maybe we do. ;)
You'll note that I've only used when also using "hetero" at the same time. But then again, normal people in general aren't so easily offended, so point taken.
I completely understand, and I noted exactly what you just said, I am just asking nicely for the future.
I'll comply, but note that you are enabling by such a request. It's isn't an offensive act, it's fascistic demands by those who protest against it...another attempt to control dialogue to their advantage. But again, I'll comply. Sadly.
2. I realize the “self determination” is a construct of the political arena, but that it has inherent conflicts with the teachings of Jesus. I realize that in our legal/political system it has some degree of validity as a philosophy.
3. I’m arguing (as are you) that:
A. Self determination has limits imposed by external agencies.
B. Self determination has limits imposed by internal morality.
C. Self determination is not and should not be unlimited.
D. In a worldwide where Humsn Reason is the final word, self determination is highly valued because the “self” is highly valued.
E. In a worldview based on “Love others as you love yourself”, “Die to self”, “Deny yourself and follow Me”, etc. Self determination is subordinate to following Jesus.
F. You have multiple areas where you would limit others self determination, why are your limits more proper than others limits?
G. Or more proper than the Biblical limits.
H. No, I’m not. You should read before you ask stupid questions.
I. Limiting self determination is not arguing against self determination.
J. One “fruit of the Spirit” is self control, that seems a much more worthwhile and Biblical pursuit than “self determination”.
K. In a worldview where Darwinian theory is revered, “self determination” explains why “Nature is red in tooth and claw”.
L. Self determination implies that the self always knows the proper determination. Please prove that to be the case.
M. Self determination says that things like suicide, substance abuse, self mutilation, and other behaviors are appropriate.
Again, all the time I have now. Lots of direct, specifics for you though.
4. Yes, I realize that “self determination” and “die to self” represent worldviews that are in conflict.
A. I realize that denying the (limited) political degree of “self determination” to others might be all you claim. I also realize that placing a psych hold on a person who’s “self determined” that suicide is the answer to their problems is the definitely not “evil”.
B. I realize that “counseling” someone to follow a particular behavior is not the same as limiting their “self determination”. That counciling them away from their “self determined” behavior just might be the antithesis of “evil”. It might be the highest expression of love.
C. I realize that your approach of imposing limits externally, and my approach of asking God to change the heart are fundamentally different.
5. First off, this question presumes way too much and is predicated on unproven assumptions. Further, it presumes that how my actions appear (to you) is a motivating factor in my relationship with actual individual people who I might talk to.
A. Your question presumes a binary choice. 1. Marriage=good health and long life. 2. Non marriage =poor health and an early death.
B. For your binary choice to have validity, you would have to prove (objectively) that those are the only two possible options.
C. For your binary choice to have validity you would have to prove (objectively) that your two options are both equally true across all circumstances.
D. For your binary choice to be valid, you would have to ignore the objective fact that many people make choices outside of your binary options and still live long, happy, fulfilled lives.
E. Do you realize that some might conclude that your exclusion of people who make other choices from your construct is actually evil?
F. The example of Jesus, Paul, and many in Jesus immediate circle of disciples would indicate that other options exist.
G. Paul explicitly commends those who choose celibate singleness and devotion to God.
H. Your false binary choice ignores the fact that people still have to live their lives and that they need an ethic that encompasses their entire life, not just marriage.
I. You are making two separate arguments, yet trying to conflate “evidence” of one for proof of the other.
J. If one simply looks at social/societal/utilitarian/secular metrics, or casts the situation as a simplistic monogamous marriage is relatively good compared to promiscuous singleness, your point (limited though it is) would be valid. Yet,it ignores (among other things) the anti-monogamy trend in much of the gay community.
K. These sorts of broad, vague, generalizations are more often than not false. As your extensive attempts to qualify your statements demonstrate.
L. Since you haven’t offered an explicit Biblical case that directly addresses the life and health benefits of “gay marriage”, nor a Biblical case that homosexual behavior is not sinful, I fail to see how you can support your “anti Biblical” claim.
L. How does one offer secular opinion polling results as an attempt to demonstrate that something is Biblical?
M. The qualifying statements about the “data” you’ve offered explicitly deny that claims you’re making about what the data says.
N. There is ample data that demonstrates that homosexuals have disproportionately high rates of multiple physical and mental health issues, why should we ignore that data?
O. How is encouraging people to engage in unhealthy behavior loving?
P. Please show me the objective, universal moral code that you are referring to.
Q. Given Christ’s own words on marriage, sexual immorality, on obeying His commandments, and his actions (and those of His closest followers) suggest options beyond your binary choices, I’m not sure “anti-Christian” is accurate.
R. Given this historic stance of The Church, I’m not sure your “anti-Christian” claim holds water.
I’ve answered some of your questions, I’ve responded to all of them. I’m sure I’ll come up with more as time goes on. In any case, there is ample material for you to work with right here.
Dan's question is based on what is for him a self-satisfying assertion of what is Christian or Biblical, without any actual basis in Christianity or Scripture that doesn't require a twisted and tortured definition of words, sentences and passages in order to hold the view he holds.
Post a Comment