Quotes or the ability to copy/paste is one of the wonders of outr technology. It completely eliminates the chance of a transcription or spelling error when quoting someone. It even allows instant context. What a great thing this is.
“Otherwise, it is obviously good that we should be allowed to be self-determining. This is a overt obvious good. Marriage to the person of our choice is good.
In all seriousness, does anyone seriously believe that the above is True as stated?
42 comments:
What if that person is one's mother or adult child? Or one's sibling? Or someone in addition to one's current spouse? Or if the person of one's choosing is an A-hole?
What if one is determined to be an A-hole? Or promiscuous sexually? Or a thief? Or constantly stoned out one's mind?
Those are all good questions. As you can see, the original quote in the context of the paragraph certainly leaves virtually all of those options open.
It's simply a matter of recognizing that the excuses and rationalizations for supporting the LGBT agenda can be applied to most any behavior with equal legitimacy.
Of course. Who are you to tell people they can’t love whoever they choose to?
Why just one? What about non-persons? (There are stories of people marrying animals or inanimate objects, for instance.) If "it is obviously good that we should be allowed to be self-determining," why marry? How about polyamory? If "self-determining" is good, why not determining my own gender, race, or other factors? They tell me I can choose my own gender, but limit it there. Why?
Good God, people. OF COURSE, self determination is a good thing.
Are you seriously arguing AGAINST self-determination???!
If so, do you recognize how evil that is? How anti-biblical? How anti-morality? How anti-Christian?
And the point is self determination for all involved. Non-persons can't give consent, and, thus, be self-determining.
Given the reality of how polygamy has often been operating from a place of oppression (men, in charge, opting to marry multiple women) that I think it reasonable to be wary of the lack of harm in those arrangements.
Given the reality that the Bible does not condemn polygamy, however, I don't see how biblical literalists such as yourselves could argue AGAINST polygamy. Those who oppose harm and look for observable harm as a criteria for morality/lack of morality, WE have a case against polygamy, but you all don't really.
Me, I support human liberty. I support self-determination WITH LIMITS around where it causes harm to others (at which point, it's no longer self-determination, it's oppression against others and that is counter to human liberty.)
Good Lord, have mercy.
What a fascinating reply. Dan just wants to impose HIS limits, based on what HIS Reason tells him.
I needed a good laugh after a day that started out pretty bad.
SO, yes, you are coming out against self determination?
Or at least against self determination where you get to choose who to deny liberties to... but NOT if it happened to you?
Got it. That explains a lot.
Unfortunately for me, that doesn't strike me as funny.
Just sad and a bit pathetic. Not to mention, evil.
You see, Dan. You're defining the term in a manner pleasing to you personally, and thus denying "self-determination" to those who define it in a manner of their own "self-determination". You can't have it both ways. There is nothing "Biblical" about what you describe, particularly if you limit it as you do, for in your limiting, you are imposing your "morality" upon others...which I'm told is intolerant and immoral.
Your term is a perverse pseudo-liberty. There's nothing Biblical about that as Scripture teaches we are to live in a manner pleasing to God, which neither homosexual or polygamous scenarios can accomplish. Your "self-determination" by definition focuses on the self. What Scripture teaches is denying the self in favor of that which pleases God.
The Bible most certainly condemns polygamy. It's called "adultery". The most important aspect that formed the bond between husband and wife was intercourse. The two become one flesh. To then "take another wife" makes one an adulterer. This is pretty basic stuff and anyone who is a serious, prayerful student of Scripture is well aware of it.
Lord have mercy, indeed!
The Bible never condemns polygamy. GOD GAVE DAVID HIS WIVES. PLURAL. For the irrational bibllcal literalist, there is NO condemnation of polygamy at all, anywhere in the Bible. It isn't there.
You just had to make something up out of whole cloth to find your "adultery" explanation. It is not in the Bible.
I'd ask if you recognize that reality, but clearly, you don't.
Stan? Craig? Are you willing to set the record straight on this point?
You ARE aware that the Bible nowhere condemns polygamy and that the bible says God gave David his many wives, right? That doesn't sound like a condemnation of polygamy.
Lord have mercy, indeed.
"The Bible never condemns polygamy. GOD GAVE DAVID HIS WIVES. PLURAL. For the irrational bibllcal literalist, there is NO condemnation of polygamy at all, anywhere in the Bible. It isn't there."
I don't know about "irrational biblical literalists", since I don't deal in such things. I only speak about what rational, honest and actual Christians believe, know and understand. As such, and as I indicated above, polygamy is indeed prohibited even though it was tolerated for a time. What's more, I've addressed the ludicrous "GOD GAVE DAVIS HIS WIVES" ploy in the past. One who takes Scripture literally does not necessarily mean "literally" in the way you need it to mean in order to promote and protect your corruption. God David everything that was Saul's. It doesn't mean David was married to those women, but only that they came with the package. It also doesn't indicate that polygamy was pleasing to God or a part of His plan.
And I've made nothing up whatsoever. What do you think "one flesh" is supposed to mean? This reference is made in several places in both Testaments.
The more you talk, the less I believe your crap about having studied Scripture seriously and prayerfully.
You can't point to a single verse in the Bible where ANYWHERE it says ANYTHING like "Polygamy is bad," but you "know" that it's bad because, well, you just know. You can find a verse and make it say something it doesn't say.
You can't point to a single verse in the Bible where ANYWHERE it says ANYTHING like "Gay folk marrying is bad," but you "know" that it's bad because, well, you just know. You can find a verse and make it say something it doesn't say.
You can't point to a single verse in the Bible where ANYWHERE it says ANYTHING like "We should be able to find a Bible verse to support our positions on stuff and, you know, stuff...," but you "know" that it's so because, well, you just know. You can find a verse and make it say something it doesn't say.
But the people who point to common sense morality like, "People should have the liberty to marry who they wish, especially if that choice helps them to be healthier, live longer and more fulfilling, happier lives - according to the data..." you all want us to find a Bible verse to support it, EVEN THOUGH the Bible doesn't say anything like that.
Good grief.
Goid grief indeed...to hear someone who gives such weight to reason insist we must see specific words he demands before coming to conclusions honest, rational, objective and sincere people devoted to the Will of God draw from His clearly revealed teachings.
The fact that ONE man uniting with ONE woman is what constitutes a marriage and that their consummation is what binds them one to the other, making them "one flesh" in such a union is clear. That such sexual behavior between husband and wife within that marital context is the only sexual behavior NOT prohibited is also crystal clear. With these unmistakable, unequivocal, clearly taught FACTS found so easily in Scripture by any who honestly, sincerely, objectively put the Will of God above their own, there is no rational "reasoning" that can possibly conclude both polygamy and homosexual behavior have any place in a true Christian's life.
All others rationalize their way around these facts...these "truths"...in order to please themselves, those around them and the decaying culture by choosing, as Dan does, to force meaning where honest and rational people couldn’t in order to pretend a different reality...a different god...exists to grant license to placate their every desire.
I haven't a single verse to support my position? I have far more than a single verse, Danny-boy, while you have far less...nothing, in fact...to support yours.
.to hear someone who gives such weight to reason insist we must see specific words he demands before coming to conclusions
Indeed. You KEEP saying this when I have NEVER EVER AT ANY TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD ONCE made the argument that the specific words must be there. That is NOT my point. You can tell it by the way I have NEVER SAID THAT.
And by the way I have repeatedly DENIED that suggestion.
It's not anything I've said or think. Do you understand that?
The fact that ONE man uniting with ONE woman is what constitutes a marriage and that their consummation is what binds them one to the other, making them "one flesh" in such a union is clear.
Good, Lord, no. The mere sexual merging does not make a good, healthy marriage and it does NOT define a good, healthy marriage. Marriage is two people, coming together to share a life together in mutual love, respect and support, blessed by and supported by the community of family and friends and neighbors around them. THAT is what makes for a marriage.
And by THAT definition (which I would posit is the moral and rational definition), it could be two gay fellas, two lesbians or a guy and a gal.
Here's the thing: YOU don't own "marriage." YOU don't get to say who is and isn't marriage or what "defines" marriage. So, mere sexual merger may make a marriage for you, not so, for me.
1. Is it me or is this deification of self determination counter to the teachings of Jesus.
2. Dan, bitches about us “wanting to limit self determination”, when he specifically said that self determination was limited. I guess that HIS limits are OK, but anyone else’s are not.
3. Jesus specifically teaches what marriage was “from the beginning”, but why listen to him.
And you don't get to redefine marraige to appease the sexually immoral.
I didn't say intercourse makes a marriage as you inferred. I said it is what binds a man and woman into a marital union which is how an honest and objective study of Scripture teaches.
Craig:
1. I'd be curious as to what words of MINE you somehow took to be a "deification of self-determination..."?
Do you recognize that I never said anything like that?
Indeed, do you recognize that my argument is PRECISELY an argument against deifying human opinion?
That is, YOU don't get to tell others what God wants them to do (placing YOU in the place of God, deifying YOUR human opinion)... rather, each person should determine for themselves right and wrong, what is and isn't God's Ways or the good ways... NOT some humans. My point is a blow AGAINST the deification of human opinion. I'm just noting that YOU don't get to tell others what is and isn't God's Way/Will.
That I don't want others to dictate their human opinions of God's will is not a deification of human opinion. Rather, it is championing self-determination, INCLUDING having the right to determine what is and isn't good and Godly.
1a. It is interesting, I hope you see then, that when I champion Self-determination (i.e., that OTHERs don't get to dictate to YOU what is and isn't good and right), that you somehow conflate that to a "deification" of self determination. Makes it sound as if you have a pretty low opinion of human liberty and self determination.
2. I note the commonly held notion that we DO have the right to self determination, BUT that our right to swing our fist (self-determination) ends at another person's nose (THEIR self-determination). This is really a pretty common view. Did you not understand this is the point I'm making or do you disagree with that common basic philosophy?
3. Again, that YOU read the words of Jesus and think it is defining marriage a certain way does not mean that you get to decide that IS the way and all should heed your opinion.
1. It’s hyperbole
2. When you place self determination on this pedistal and hold it up as the ultimate good.
3. It’s hyperbole
Yes, clearly “Male and Female from the beginning” is so ambiguous and flexible. Unless you want to define male and female as anything and anything.
"That is, YOU don't get to tell others what God wants them to do..."
It's called preaching and you've just crapped on every minister in the Christendom.
"The mere sexual merging does not make a good, healthy marriage and it does NOT define a good, healthy marriage"
It's pretty pathetic that you said this immediately after pasting a quote of what I actually said. If you can't even tell the truth about what I said when you have the quote right there in front of you, I have no confidence in your accurate retelling once you've deleted a comment. I simply said it's what makes the union a marriage. To commit is only part of it. To consummate seals the deal. Get it now?
"Marriage is two people, coming together to share a life together..."
It is legally in this craven culture, but not in the eyes of God. In the eyes of God a marriage is two people, one being a man and the other a woman, uniting. Along with verses describing why God created us male and female, there is no description or example of a marriage that deviates from this definition. None whatsoever.
"Indeed. You KEEP saying this when I have NEVER EVER AT ANY TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD ONCE made the argument that the specific words must be there."
Now you're just lying again. You do this all the time, such as when you said, "You can't point to a single verse in the Bible where ANYWHERE it says ANYTHING like "Polygamy is bad,"" And that's just in this thread.
"But the people who point to common sense morality like, "People should have the liberty to marry who they wish, especially if that choice helps them to be healthier, live longer and more fulfilling, happier lives - according to the data..." you all want us to find a Bible verse to support it, EVEN THOUGH the Bible doesn't say anything like that."
Good grief indeed. We're not seeking any verse for that purpose. We're seeking the verse or verses that justifies your position that God would bless an SSM. Still waiting in fact.
I give up. You guys don't answer questions that are reasonable and critical regarding your comments. If you DID answer these reasonable questions, you'd either recognize how irrational your comments are or own up to, "you know, that really doesn't make a bit of rational or moral sense..." so, I guess it's not surprising that you don't answer these questions.
Craig, the question put to you were...
1. Do you recognize that I never said anything like that?
The direct answer appears to be, "Yes, I recognize that you didn't say that, or anything like that... but I acted like you did so I could use it as an attack anyway,..."
and...
2. Indeed, do you recognize that my argument is PRECISELY an argument against deifying human opinion?
The direct answer appears to be, "No, I didn't really understand that was your point. That was why I used hyperbole in the opposite direction to suggest what is clearly the OPPOSITE of what I now see was your intent." which, for an honest person involved in a discussion, would be followed by, "Sorry, I didn't understand that. I retract my comment, it was clearly wrong."
But rather than answer directly, you just vaguely waved off your false claims as "hyperbole."
Great.
So, instead of acknowledging that I answered your questions, and taking issue with what I actually said, you choose to falsely represent what I actually said and lay the groundwork for your inevitable retreat. You’ve reached the point where you really don’t have any actual on topic or substantive response, so you just work enough faux outrage so you think you can retreat and save face.
For someone who spends so much time using hyperbole as an excuse for every thing possible, the fact that you have the gall to accuse me of lying twice is interesting.
Dan:
"That is, YOU don't get to tell others what God wants them to do..."
Marshall's response...
It's called preaching and you've just crapped on every minister in the Christendom.
So, Marshall, are you saying that preaching IS "telling others what God wants them to do..."?
If so, do you find this to be an extremely ugly, detrimental, embarrassing description of "preaching," Craig?
Summarizing some of the major points in this post, then...
DAN believes...
1. it is obviously good that we should be allowed to be self-determining.
2. This is a overt obvious good.
3. Marriage to the person of our choice is good.
in short, Dan believes in the dignity and value of self-determination.
On the other hand, Craig appears to think that the legitimacy and value of these things is not "seriously true..." (his literal response... "does anyone seriously believe that the above is True as stated?"
Dan's response: Hell to the yes! Of course, ALL decent thinking people should believe that the dignity and human right of Self-Determination is True, and just as I stated it should be!
Dan's response to Craig's question:
4. Are you seriously arguing AGAINST self-determination???!
5. If so, do you recognize how evil that is? How anti-biblical? How anti-morality? How anti-Christian?
Craig and Marshall, I do not believe, have ever answered any of these questions directly, while Dan HAS clearly answered Craig's question.
Craig did respond (but not answer) the questions above by saying...
Dan just wants to impose HIS limits, based on what HIS Reason tells him.
Of course, the only place I want to impose limits is in people causing harm to others. In other words, people TAKING AWAY human liberties like self-determination. This is hardly unique to Dan, it is the largely the basis of modern notions of human liberty recognized by rational and moral people the world around.
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.]
6. Do you recognize this basic human liberties philosophy as just and rational and moral?
7. Again, Dan asks: 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)?
Again, Craig does not answer. Instead, he responds with...
Is it me or is this deification of self determination counter to the teachings of Jesus.
So, Dan argues in favor of self determination and freedom from oppression/harm by others. Craig responds by questioning if this notion of self determination as it is commonly understood (and not just by me) is a "deification" of self determination (it's not) and "counter to the teachings of Jesus" (Good God, no, no, damn that notion to hell! NO! Self determination is NOT counter to the teachings of Jesus!)
I am just gobstopped. What are you all arguing against? Self determination? Freedom from oppression?
What are you arguing for? Counseling people to submit to oppression? TO be doormats to be stomped on by bullies and oppressors?
Do you recognize how evil this sounds?
So, no, Craig, you have not directly answered any of my questions/actual points (numbered and placed in bold above, to help you understand and see). Feel free to begin.
I find it to be an incomplete and limited description of one aspect of preaching.
As to the rest, I need to determine whether or not I want to repeat myself.
Dan,
Before I consider answering your questions again. Do you not understand that you commenting here, off topic; and demanding that I answer your off topic questions is just a bit strange? Especially given the arbitrary “rules” you selectively impose when people go “off topic” at your blog.
You quoted MY words...
1. it is obviously good that we should be allowed to be self-determining.
2. This is a overt obvious good.
3. Marriage to the person of our choice is good.
Where I was talking about the value of self-determination. You cited my words and then asked, rather incredulously, "does anyone seriously believe that the above is True as stated?"
I answered right up front, YES! Of course I think it's true, as stated!
Was that off topic to answer your question about my words in a clear and direct manner?
Please.
THEN, finding it hard to believe that you were somehow suggesting that the human liberty of Self Determination (i.e., what I was talking about) was somehow NOT a highly valued belief, I ASKED you a question, giving you a chance to clarify if you were, indeed, mocking the very basic human liberty value of self-determination.
Was asking you to clarify your point off topic?
Please.
Rather than answer directly and clarify your position, you then MOCKED my position as if I was being inconsistent ("Dan just wants to impose HIS limits, based on what HIS Reason tells him.").
My point, of course, was that human liberty and self determination were HIGHLY important and vital values... but that, of course, the right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose. Again, this is just common sense traditional view that human rights/self determination are moral goods and that the right to self determination ends when it inflicts harm on someone else's right to self determination.
Was it off topic to point out that obvious point, in response to your mocking?
Please.
You simply can't point to a single thing I've said that has been off topic. Asking questions/for clarification is not off topic. Answering your questions is not off topic.
So, no, my comments here are not strange. Your response to them, however, is odd beyond belief.
"So, Marshall, are you saying that preaching IS "telling others what God wants them to do..."?"
For the most part, yes. Are you going to try and pretend it's not? I'd love to see you try to make that case. Most specifically, explain exactly how it's "an extremely ugly, detrimental, embarrassing description of "preaching,"". Maybe it's creepy, too? You love saying crap like this and pretending it's obvious to everyone, rather than having the stones to explain yourself.
The Gospel and preaching the Gospel is NEVER, in the Bible, defined or described as "We're going to tell YOU what God wants YOU to do..., what YOU are doing wrong. We are the ones who know that!"
When Jesus talked about his purpose for coming, he said that he'd come "to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the day of God's Jubilee... (or "the year of the Lord's favor...")"
When John's followers asked Jesus about the legitimacy of his ministry, Jesus responded, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor."
When the Pharisees and religious zealots were preparing to stone a woman to death for adultery (i.e., they were telling her what God was condemning her for...), Jesus said let those without sin cast the first stone and to the woman, he said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more..."
Preaching the gospel of Jesus is to preach the gospel of grace, of forgiveness, of struggling with and for the poor, the marginalized and oppressed... i.e., those who have historically been told, "THIS is what you are doing wrong, according to God!"
The rule-breaker approach to preaching is one that is counter to Jesus' message of Grace. That is what is deviant and ill about the notion of "preaching is telling others what God wants them to do."
Beyond that, it is what "the world" at large sees as wrong with the church... the same thing that Jesus found wrong with the Pharisees... that it's just a bunch of rule following and "WE are the ones to let you know what the rules are" death-dealing anti-Christian sickness, NOT the gospel of Jesus' grace.
"Come unto me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest..." This is what Jesus taught.
"Here is the list of things that WE are letting you know that GOD doesn't want you to do. Stop doing them or we'll stone you to death..." This is the philosophy of the Pharisees.
Off topic, so it may be deleted. And really, it seems as if you should recognize this, but I'm tossing you a bone.
Fellas, I'm going to be mostly away from my computer for a few weeks. You're going to have to manage without me!
Peace.
"Preaching the gospel of Jesus is to preach the gospel of grace, of forgiveness, of struggling with and for the poor, the marginalized and oppressed... i.e., those who have historically been told, "THIS is what you are doing wrong, according to God!""
Among all your distortions of your last comment, I've only time for this one. You continually ignore Jesus' command to obey God's commandments. This is Jesus telling people what do to in order to live a Christian life.
I've more, but it's good to know I won't be distracted by more nonsense until I'm satisfied I've addressed all the nonsense you've presented thus far.
Dan,
The fact that you spent literal paragraphs explaining how you really didn’t mean what your quote says, and specifically stated the limits you believe are appropriate on other peoples “self determination”, simply points out how accurate my original point was and is.
Dan, “Answer my question, now!!!”
Also Dan, “I’ve retreated behind closing comments, so you can’t do what I demand that you do.”.
That's how he rolls, of course. The sad part is a fine bit of research for a students thesis provided solid data tgat responds to my speculations regarding suicide rates among the black population, included in which is suicides among slaves pre-Emancipation, post-Emancipation up to the Civil Rights Era and even afterwards. It bears out my hunch (an actual hunch, not the Dan Trabue definition) that despite their more severe and blatant oppression and experiences with discrimination, suicide rates have always been low...lower than the general population, which is opposite the situation with the LGBT population. I am planning on a post that includes this research and an explanation for why bringing it up was relevant to Dan's claims in support of sexual immorality.
Aldo, Dan, who pretends he has a problem with ad hom attacks we never actually make, has thus far refused to explain why bringing up the slavery angle is "creepy". This is something Dan likes to do when confronted with facts and logic that confound him. He accuses us falsely and then pretends there's something wrong with us for not seeing what he pretends exists in order to smear our character. "Well, if you don't know, I'm certainly not going to tell you."
What a bunch of crap. Just because we have numerous examples of Jesus, the prophets, the disciples, Paul, James, etc preaching sermons and sharing the gospel by telling people “what they’re doing wrong” and “we know...”, Dan needs a “definition”.
Apparently anything not in the form of a dictionary entry, doesn’t count.
You continually ignore Jesus' command to obey God's commandments.
This is Jesus telling people what do to in order to live a Christian life.
What Jesus said about commandments...
"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love. "These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.
This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you..."
=======
"which is the great commandment in the Law?"
And He (Jesus) said to him,
"'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 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..."
=====
Like that. Also, you DO have Jesus telling the religious and very moral Pharisees where THEY are going wrong, condemning the religious ones strongly.
Where, however, are the places where Jesus sees an adulterer and says, "Hey, you're doing wrong on these points. God wants you to stop doing those actions..."? Where does Jesus say that this is what preaching is?, this "telling others what God wants them to do..."?
Do you recognize that Jesus NEVER approached a sinner, an adulterer, a gay person engaging in sex (if you think that's a sin, which we know Marshall does), a prostitute, a drunkard... WHERE in the Bible do we find Jesus approaching the "regular sinners" to tell them what they're doing is wrong and that God wants them to quit? Where does Jesus or anyone else in the Bible define preaching as that?
It isn't in there.
Just fyi.
That style of preaching to "the regular folks" is not a product of the Bible or the early church. It has more in common with Jonathan Edwards than with Jesus.
Are you freakin' kidding? Jesus needs to say "You're wrong, don't do that anymore" in order to please your notion of what "telling people what to do"? If one says, do this, it necessarily means, don't do that. Particularly when dealing with God's will.
"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love" Only a Trabue would suggest that the reverse is not implicit> "If you do NOT keep My commandments, you will NOT abide in My love". Do this, don't do that. Jesus is telling us what to do in order to abide in His love, to be saved, to please God. He's preaching, and contemporary GOOD preachers do exactly the same thing, repeating Jesus' message (and the Father's as well).
"WHERE in the Bible do we find Jesus approaching the "regular sinners" to tell them what they're doing is wrong and that God wants them to quit?"
For starters, everywhere He told someone, "Go and sin no more". You really need to actually read Scripture some day. You'll learn so much about the God in Whom you claim to believe.
My suggestion is, and that you spend some time reading reading the sermons of Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the rest of the New Testament authors before you comment any further.
I have yet to note with some amusement, that Mr. the Bible isn’t a rulebook, and is now lecturing us on the commands of Jesus. I’m pretty sure that command and rule are synonyms. But the irony just never quits .
So, moving one...
""'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.'"
This is Jesus telling someone what how they should behave with respect to God. You can tell by the fact that He said "You shall. Then He does it again when He says, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "
"Also, you DO have Jesus telling the religious and very moral Pharisees where THEY are going wrong, condemning the religious ones strongly."
...which is Jesus telling them what NOT to do.
"Where, however, are the places where Jesus sees an adulterer and says, "Hey, you're doing wrong on these points. God wants you to stop doing those actions..."?"
I covered this in my previous comment, but it's worth repeating. The answer is when he tells the invalid by the Pool of Bethesda ), "Go and sin no more", or where He told the woman threatened with stoning, "Go and sin no more".
And of course, telling anyone to obey God's commandments implies that one must not do the opposite. That's just logic. If Mom tells you to clean your room, she's also telling you not to leave it a mess. But of course, you're infantile mind might still be struggling with what Mom tells you, too.
"Where does Jesus say that this is what preaching is?"
This is a stupid question. It's like all those other stupid demands that something must be spelled out in specific words to YOUR liking in order for a premise to be true and factual. Childishness. Jesus just preaches. We don't need Him to tell us what we can clearly see Him doing. We don't need a list of directions as His doing it stands as example for how preaching is done.
"...a gay person engaging in sex (if you think that's a sin, which we know Marshall does)"
I don't "think" it's a sin. Homosexual behavior is in FACT as sin, one of those that brought about the death penalty in the Old Testament and continues to this day to be worthy of death. That's how sinful it is, despite your bastardization of Scripture to pretend otherwise.
"And of course, telling anyone to obey God's commandments implies..."
1. That commandments exist.
2. That they are to be obeyed.
3. That we are able to know what they are.
4. That there a consequences for failing to obey them.
5. That God has the authority to give commandments and expect obedience and impose consequences.
6. That Jesus spoke with the authority if God.
Just a few.
Post a Comment