I was just reading a Twitter thread by Neil Shenvi and he makes an interesting point. He's arguing that the same arguments being used to further the trans agenda regarding the binary separation of genders, will likely be applied to other binaries as well.
If the biological gender binary is discarded as false, what would stop the same logic being used to declare the adult/child binary false as well. In both cases we have biological evidence that all of humanity is divided into two groupings (M/F, Adult/Child). Stan has an excellent video detailing the biological differences between men and women, so I see no reason to spend time on that well documented science. But, we also see biological, physical, neurological differences between adults and children, and if we can ignore biology in one case why not in the other case.
I might dig deeper later, but given how we've seen the logic used to normalize homosexuality, co opted to normalize other behaviors, it definitely makes sense that we'll be seeing more attacks on the aduly/child binary in the future.
186 comments:
Homosexuality hasn't been normalized, it IS normal. We're just pushing to recognize that reality and stop the oppression and attacks on human rights that some bigots still cling to.
Dan
If the biological gender binary is discarded as false, what would stop the same logic being used to declare the adult/child binary false as well.
The realization that gender is more fluid than we might have thought is based on scientific research and data.
IF we found out that children were somehow the same as adults because that's what the data shows, then we SHOULD acknowledge it as a reality.
Just like recognizing that the world isn't flat because that's where the data leads us or that Pluto isn't technically a planet if that's where the data leads.
That we don't like where the data leads or are uncomfortable with it because it's not how we were raised is not how adults should make their decisions. It should be based upon data and doing no harm, as a minimum.
Do you think that we should ignore data and simply go with how we were raised or what we are comfortable with or what our traditions tell us to think, in spite of science and data?
I don't.
JUST because you were raised with human traditions that taught you it was okay to denigrate or deny rights to LGBTQ people doesn't mean that the science agrees with you or that you are right.
Can I presume you agree with the reasoning, at least, even if not the conclusion? That is, IF science shows the world is round, that homosexual orientations are natural, that gender is not as simple as a binary "What's between their legs?" notion, then we should acknowledge the science involved over our traditions and personal opinions and what makes us comfortable or uncomfortable?
Do you agree that if your human traditions cause harm to others, that those traditions should be abandoned for the sake of human rights?
Interesting hunch Dan. Claiming that something engaged in by less than 3% of the population as "normal" seems to stretch the definition of normal. Of course, you just agreed with me, although you phrased in in terms that make y'all sound like heroes.
"The realization that gender is more fluid than we might have thought is based on scientific research and data."
If you mean that "gender scientists", have interviewed some people and chosen to believe them, whatever. If you have actual rigorous, scientific, repeatable/falsifiable, evidence that this is True, please let's see it.
"IF we found out that children were somehow the same as adults because that's what the data shows, then we SHOULD acknowledge it as a reality."
You literally just argued that the human brain is not fully developed until age 25, yet you now seem to be allowing for some other possibility. Having said that, if hypothetically we were to magically find that children are 100% equal to adults, then we would have to deal with that situation. Of course, if that fantasy comes True, wouldn't they just be adults?
"It should be based upon data and doing no harm, as a minimum."
Are you suggesting that if the data suggested one thing, but that one thing caused "harm", that we should forsake what the data suggests?
"Do you think that we should ignore data and simply go with how we were raised or what we are comfortable with or what our traditions tell us to think, in spite of science and data?"
No. If the data tells us certain things about race and crime, don't you think we should accept and follow the data?
"I don't."
I don't care.
"JUST because you were raised with human traditions that taught you it was okay to denigrate or deny rights to LGBTQ people doesn't mean that the science agrees with you or that you are right."
Irrelevant to the topic of the post.
"Can I presume you agree with the reasoning, at least, even if not the conclusion?"
No, when you presume things about me you are almost inevitably wrong, so it's probably best not to presume.
" That is, IF science shows the world is round, that homosexual orientations are natural, that gender is not as simple as a binary "What's between their legs?" notion, then we should acknowledge the science involved over our traditions and personal opinions and what makes us comfortable or uncomfortable?"
Sure. Are you actually saying that if Science tells us that biological sex is binary and impossible to change, and the gender is also binary will you wholeheartedly embrace what the science tells us?
"Do you agree that if your human traditions cause harm to others, that those traditions should be abandoned for the sake of human rights?"
No.
Do you understand that virtually nothing you've said here relates directly to the topic of the post. Do you really deny that there are no binary distinctions that exist and that everything described as a binary distinction is really a spectrum?
Ultimately, do you agree with lowering the age of consent?
Craig...
"Claiming that something engaged in by less than 3% of the population as "normal" seems to stretch the definition of normal."
No. It just means that you're failing to understand the nuances of word definitions.
Consider:
"Sociologists distinguish between the terms norm, normal, and normative.
The norm refers to what is common or frequent. For example, celebrating Christmas is the norm in America.
Normal is opposed to abnormal. Even though celebrating Christmas is the norm, it is not abnormal to celebrate Hanukkah. To celebrate Hanukkah is perfectly normal."
https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2016/09/23/norms-normality-and-normativity/
Dan
Craig...
"Claiming that something engaged in by less than 3% of the population as "normal" seems to stretch the definition of normal..."
Also...
1. I don't think I used the word, normal. I said it was natural. And of course, it is.
Right? You're not trying to claim being LGBTQ is not natural, in spite of reality, are you?
2. It is 100% normal for straight people to be attracted to the opposite gender. Right?
AND, likewise, it's 100% normal or the norm for gay folks to be attracted to the same gender. Right?
The only way it's not the norm would be if you were trying to suggest that gay folks must or ought to be attracted to the opposite gender. But that's irrational. Why should a minority group be defined by the majority?
It's an irrational claim, even if you mean the norm instead of normal.
Dan
Craig...
If you mean that "gender scientists", have interviewed some people and chosen to believe them, whatever. If you have actual rigorous, scientific, repeatable/falsifiable, evidence that this is True, please let's see it.
Science (Harvard, linking to multiple research studies and actual scientists doing actual science, as opposed to whatever it is non-scientist conservatives think they're doing)...
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
That you don't understand the science or why it's NOT a "scientific claim" to say that "science doesn't agree with transgender people..." is not evidence that the science doesn't exist.
When you've read through the results and data from the attached research and when you've understood it and when you have some credentials to discredit it, let me know. But, "I REALLLLLLY don't think it's scientific to say that some people are transgender..." is not science.
You don't trust "Harvard" and their "science experts" who've "researched and demonstrated their data to form rational observable conclusions..."? How about Scientific American:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
Or the National Institute of Health...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
So, until you can understand the various research and explain why your hunches are more reliable than their educated data-driven conclusions, you've been answered.
Look, isn't it POSSIBLE that you are just not educated on gender studies and in your ignorance on the topic (no disrespect intended... I'm not expertly educated on the topic, either... but I HAVE read what the experts are saying and what their data demonstrates), you just don't understand why or how their could be more than two genders and yet, it's only your ignorance keeping you from acknowledging it?
Craig...
You literally just argued that the human brain is not fully developed until age 25, yet you now seem to be allowing for some other possibility.
I'm not saying that I think that children are the same as adults. One more time: I AM NOT SAYING that I think children are the same as adults. I'm saying, quite clearly, that IF that was what the data showed, then we should acknowledge that data and that reality. We shouldn't bury our heads in the face of research and data.
I do not THINK there is any reason to think that science will show us that children are the same as adults. Just noting the importance of research and not hiding ourselves from science and embracing ignorance for the sake of nostalgia and how I was raised.
Ultimately, do you agree with lowering the age of consent?
No. There is no data to make me think we should change the age of consent and there is data that makes we think we shouldn't.
Are you suggesting that if the data suggested one thing, but that one thing caused "harm", that we should forsake what the data suggests?
Yes, of course. Not forsake it so much as note the reality that there are some lines that should not be crossed for reasons of human rights, justice and morality.
IF the data showed somehow that wiping out thousands of innocent men, women and children in another nation to "save" some people in my own nation, I would not support that. Deliberate harm towards innocents is wrong. Period. If the data showed that slavery was a net benefit for economies and ultimately, decades from now, it would benefit even the slaves, I would still oppose it because causing harm to innocents and oppression and denial of human rights is not acceptable.
Do you disagree?
Are you actually saying that if Science tells us that biological sex is binary and impossible to change, and the gender is also binary will you wholeheartedly embrace what the science tells us?
Sure. But at the same time, if "science" were telling us that there were only two genders - male and female - and yet, if Alice wanted to identify as a female even if she were born with a penis, I would embrace the science and accommodate Alice's desire to be called Alice. Why? Because I'm not a jackass. Because what's the harm?
Now, if the science were showing that Alice was hurting herself or others by being called Alice, then I would probably change my opinion because, "harm." Of course.
I know you seem extremely puzzled by moral questions if you don't rely upon what you think the Bible is saying about morality to you even though you can't prove a thing about it, but I really don't see any of this as difficult to understand.
First thing: Do no harm.
I asked...
"Do you agree that if your human traditions cause harm to others, that those traditions should be abandoned for the sake of human rights?"
You responded...
No.
! Do you recognize how vile and evil that makes you appear (or just simply shows that you are) that you would value your human traditions over human rights and causing actual harm to others? WTF is wrong with you?
There's only one answer to this: IF my human traditions and personal opinions cause harm to others, then that's a problem with my traditions and opinions! Period.
That you don't even pause or hesitate but plunge straight into affirming your personal human hunches and opinions over causing actual harm to others... well, Damn that to hell.
Dan
I would suggest, Craig, that Neil Shenvi is doing nothing more than restating for the current day what Rick Santorum said years ago, and which has come to fruition...manifesting further in the case Shenvi suggests.
"Homosexuality hasn't been normalized, it IS normal."
Activists insisting it's normal never has, doesn't now and never will make it normal. As Craig stated, the very fact that it manifests in such a tiny percentage of the population is the very definition of "abnormal". The only possible way to legitimately say it is normal is to include it in the more broad understanding of human depravity and how common it is for so many people allow their sexual urges to dictate their behaviors. And just like all of it, there is no biological drive to appease those urges which cannot be overcome, denied, rejected in favor of moral behavior. No one's saying it'll be easy, but at least those who insist they care about Scripture knows it is among many unholy urges for which the Holy Spirit can provide aid and assistance.
But yes indeed. It has been normalized by the very abnormal people who wish to indulge such urges, and their enablers. Liars all who are just pushing to recognize that fiction and stop the fictitious oppression and attacks on fictitious rights they insist exist. But they aren't "rights". They're only desires they demand must be respected as rights akin to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"The realization that gender is more fluid than we might have thought is based on scientific research and data."
No it's not. It's based on the desire to make it so, when the reality is this mental/emotional disorder is forced upon us as normalcy to be accepted as morally benign. This is a case where Dan's "experts" pretend their mere stating it as fact makes it unassailable, despite no true facts or evidence to truly support the premise...as Craig referenced as well.
"That we don't like where the data leads or are uncomfortable with it because it's not how we were raised is not how adults should make their decisions."
But there's no data which leads to where you are, and what's uncomfortable is dealing with liars who pretend there's something wrong with honest people who disagree with you. True adults do NOT make decisions on desires and mere preferences as you and those you enable do. They cling to truth regardless of the burden truth lays upon them. Christians refer to that as "taking up one's cross" in service of Christ and His Truth...which you roundly pervert and mock.
"It should be based upon data and doing no harm, as a minimum."
And here's where we see the rejection of truth, as what data exists backs our position. You dare condescend in suggesting our adherence to truth...both scientific and Christian...does harm. Another lie, but one you perpetuate constantly.
"Do you think that we should ignore data and simply go with how we were raised or what we are comfortable with or what our traditions tell us to think, in spite of science and data?"
All science and data rejects the LGBT agenda narratives. You ignore it in favor of fiction.
"JUST because you were raised with human traditions that taught you it was okay to denigrate or deny rights to LGBTQ people doesn't mean that the science agrees with you or that you are right."
Here's another lie. The Christian traditions based on God's Law and Will as presented so clearly in Scripture are dismissed falsely as "human traditions" as if there's no Scripture or science behind it. Both are inextricably tied to what you demean as "human traditions", while you promote what is no more than false human traditions favoring the immoral and disordered LGBT agenda. So that's Lie #1.
Lie #2 is that our Christian tradition teaches us that it's OK to denigrate or deny rights to the immoral and disordered people you champion. It neither does, nor do our actions suggest we've ever inferred such a thing.
Lie #3 is the suggestion that we denigrate and deny rights to the immoral and disordered LGBT people you favor as pure. Telling the truth, standing with the truth isn't denigration in any sense of the word. That the truth causes the immoral and disordered to whimper in petulant protest is of no consequence. Better they be uncomfortable in coping with their disorder than to lose their salvation...something about which you clearly don't care. There are no rights which we deny these people. There are only irrational and unjust demands they expect we appease...demands we are under no obligation to respect or acknowledge as worth defending. The wicked don't get to dictate to us what constitute "rights" which are not universal, but unique to their perverse desires, none of which they have the inability to overcome.
Lie #4 is the suggestion that our declaration of revealed truths doesn't align with science. But that isn't the case, because as with Scripture, science informs our positions far more directly than the scams of "experts" who are no more than activists in lab coats. There has been far more harm done to LGBT people by the fake science to which they cling as fact, and by their own refusal to reject their disordered and immoral urges and indeed by each other, than has ever been perpetrated by the likes of us.
...and I do see where I say homosexuality is normal, and I'm not wrong, as I've already explained. I just didn't see it at first.
Art,
I think the bottom line in all of this is that once a binary distinction that is as well attested as the biological differences between men and women is done away with, then anything and everything else is at risk.
All of Dan's bullshit is just his way to dodge this reality.
Look, isn't it POSSIBLE that you are just not educated on gender studies and in your ignorance on the topic (no disrespect intended... I'm not expertly educated on the topic, either... but I HAVE read what the experts are saying and what their data demonstrates), you just don't understand why or how their could be more than two genders and yet, it's only your ignorance keeping you from acknowledging it?""
Anything is possible. As a general rule, I give more weight to scientific endeavors that are able to demonstrate that their premises are testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and the like. I also tend to be skeptical of scientific endeavors which start from a position of supporting an agenda.
"Right? You're not trying to claim being LGBTQ is not natural, in spite of reality, are you?"
If your argument is that anything that is "natural" is a positive thing, then I guess you could make that case. It's strange that the pro homosexual folks have spent years making the argument that "loving, monogamous, etc" weren't what scripture was talking about, but now you're arguing that homosexuality is "natural"/good because bulls exert their dominance by mounting other bulls. Hell, my beagle used to mount the leg of virtually everyone who came into our house, which makes that "natural", I don't think that you're advocating that as good behavior for humans.
"2. It is 100% normal for straight people to be attracted to the opposite gender. Right?
AND, likewise, it's 100% normal or the norm for gay folks to be attracted to the same gender. Right?"
While that might be true, I doesn't demonstrate that homosexuality is a good thing.
"Why should a minority group be defined by the majority?"
Well, because the majority is usually the group that is in control. Why should the minority be able to impose their will on the majority?
"It's an irrational claim, even if you mean the norm instead of normal."
Impressive. It's now irrational to note the reality the homosexuals represent a tiny minority.
"Do you disagree?"
Not necessarily, I'm just trying to determine where your tolerance for contradiction ends. It's good to note that your wasting my time arguing for something you are convinced will never happen.
"Why? Because I'm not a jackass. Because what's the harm?"
Interesting. What if "Alice" wanted to identify as a dragon and walked around breathing fire, would you accommodate their beliefs then?
Isn't encouraging and enabling people who embrace beliefs that conflict with reality an unhealthy thing?
The problem with your example is that we're not talking about you as an individual to encourage "Alice" in their delusions, that would be strange but relatively harmless. What we're talking about now is forcing EVERYONE to treat "Alice" as if their delusion is reality, including using the force of the state to mandate this behavior. The fact the you don't see the difference between someone making a personal choice, and the state mandating a behavior is incredibly concering.
Are you really suggesting that because homosexuality is (in some sense) "natural", that it is therefore automatically good/healthy/normal/right?
Craig...
Are you really suggesting that because homosexuality is (in some sense) "natural", that it is therefore automatically good/healthy/normal/right?
I'm saying quite clearly that ANY behavior or orientation or state that occurs naturally AND that causes no harm to others, then we have no reason to consider it bad, rationally speaking.
Can you provide ANY examples that would illustrate objectively that a non-harmful natural behavior is innately bad or immoral?
Someone who is left-handed is not the norm, but it's completely normal and natural for that to be the case and we have no rational reason to consider it immoral (even if you were a part of a religious group that considered it of the devil.)
A woman of a certain age will bleed roughly once a month on her menstrual days, even though most people don't bleed. It's not the norm for humanity, but it's normal and natural and does no harm, so we have no reason to consider it immoral or unclean, even if your religion might consider it so.
Can you offer ANY objective instances that illustrate this, if it's your hunch?
Dan
Are you really suggesting that because homosexuality is (in some sense) "natural", that it is therefore automatically good/healthy/normal/right?
To be clear and even more direct, Generally speaking, ALL natural things are either innately good or at the worst, not immoral. Especially/specifically, as long as it's causing no harm.
A hurricane might be destructive, but it's not rationally called immoral.
Mental illness is natural and thus, not rationally called immoral. BUT, if someone with a narcissist or sociopath diagnosis causes HARM to someone, that harm, that abuse, that assault is immoral, as an attack on human rights. It's not immoral, however, because there's a line in the Bible that calls it wrong. That's not how we reasonably assess harm. After all, the Bible allows slavery even though that IS harmful and an assault on human rights and thus, is wrong.
Dan
"I'm saying quite clearly that ANY behavior or orientation or state that occurs naturally AND that causes no harm to others, then we have no reason to consider it bad, rationally speaking."
What an interesting way to dodge around a sort of answer to the questions. Therefore..
1. Is homosexuality in nature something that is harmful, or harmless?
2. How does this formula apply to the natural world that evolutionary biologists tell us exists?
3. Are you basing this semi answer solely on your ability to determine what is "rational"?
"Can you provide ANY examples that would illustrate objectively that a non-harmful natural behavior is innately bad or immoral?"
Since these arbitrary conditions are your, why am I limited by your hunches. As I've pointed out before, there are experts in evolution who argue that rape is an evolutionary beneficial act, who are you to say they are wrong?
A woman of a certain age will bleed roughly once a month on her menstrual days, even though most people don't bleed. It's not the norm for humanity, but it's normal and natural and does no harm, so we have no reason to consider it immoral or unclean, even if your religion might consider it so."
It's the norm for human women. While I don't necessarily agree with the "unclean" thing, I'll note that "unclean" is a temporary thing, not a permanent condition.
"Can you offer ANY objective instances that illustrate this, if it's your hunch?"
Interesting that you can't even really answer the question asked (all you can get to is a mealy mouthed, "it's not bad"), why would I waste my time defending a hunch that you made up out of this air and decided to attribute to me.
"To be clear and even more direct, Generally speaking, ALL natural things are either innately good or at the worst, not immoral. Especially/specifically, as long as it's causing no harm."
That is quite the claim, I have to note that you've offered no proof beyond "Because I said so.". Which is not very convincing.
"A hurricane might be destructive, but it's not rationally called immoral."
You do know that a hurricane is not a sentient being and lacks the agency necessary to be held accountable.
"Mental illness is natural and thus, not rationally called immoral. BUT, if someone with a narcissist or sociopath diagnosis causes HARM to someone, that harm, that abuse, that assault is immoral, as an attack on human rights. It's not immoral, however, because there's a line in the Bible that calls it wrong. That's not how we reasonably assess harm. After all, the Bible allows slavery even though that IS harmful and an assault on human rights and thus, is wrong."
Blah, blah, blah, self serving, self justifying, repetition of a bunch of catch phrases.
If things that are natural are objectively not bad or immoral, does that make them good or moral?
What if a natural behavior only causes a little bit of harm, surely that wouldn't be bad or immoral?
What is someone demands that you do something to them that might cause harm (let's say 60% chance of causing minor harm), is that immoral or wrong?
If things that are natural are objectively not bad or immoral, does that make them good or moral?
Whatsoever things are true, are pure, are loving, are wholesome and helpful, are healing and just... Whatsoever things that promote good and decency and wellness... think on these things. This is what is self-evidently good and moral, because of course it is. Do you disagree?
Dan
I have to note something. You've very quickly taken this conversation away from the topic of the post (the reality of binaries), and turned it into one more homosexuality is good screed.
If we look at nature, we see a binary divide between male and female, in biology, behavior, appearance, etc. We see certain animals, that are naturally created in a certain way, and with certain specific parts, who fill certain roles. We don't see "trans" in nature, and really only in first world countries. (at least not in any significant numbers)
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if you have a materialist worldview, then the only possible option is to conclude that nature simply is. It's not good or bad, it's just nature. The most you could say is that things which improve the ability of a species to reproduce are "good" (at least for that species), and things which don't help carry on the "selfish genes" re "bad".
Again, is you view the world through the lens of one of the Eastern religions, it's pretty much the same thing. Nature simply is, and we must accept it as it is.
Christianity, suggests that YHWH created nature and nature exists for His pleasure and His purposes, and any good or bad derives from His character. (rough approximation)
I guess part of my problem is the fact that you seem to think that you have enough knowledge to determine what parts of nature are bad or immoral, what parts are good or moral, or what parts are neutral. I don't see how you asserting your Reason or Rationality in and of yourself, puts you in a position to do so.
"I guess part of my problem is the fact that you seem to think that you have enough knowledge to determine what parts of nature are bad or immoral, what parts are good or moral, or what parts are neutral..."
Well, generally speaking, yes, I do think what is and isn't moral and good. At the very least, I trust my judgment more than yours. And so, what I support is you making your own moral decisions for yourself and am opposed to any of you all trying to force your moral opinions on others. Fair enough?
Dan
Nature simply is, and we must accept it as it is.
Well, it's true that nature simply is. What's the alternative? That nature isn't?
Christianity, suggests that YHWH created nature and nature exists for His pleasure and His purposes, and any good or bad derives from His character.
I don't know that Christianity suggests that, but you're certainly welcome to suggest it for yourself. I certainly would tend to think that God loves a God’s own creation and is pleased by it, and us. As to your last line, it would depend on what you mean by it.
I certainly think that God is perfectly good and that ALL good things reflect God's character, but then that would include loving, respectful, beautiful relationships, gay straight or otherwise. Would you disagree?
Dan
Homosexuality, by definition is abnormal. God created man and woman for mating and creating families. Remember Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve. God called homosexual behavior an abomination; if it was “normal,” why would God call it that?
Homosexual behavior is a perverted and destructive use of the human body.
Gender has to do with language structure. Sex has to do with human anatomy. A man can never be a woman nor a woman a man. Those who say differently are liars denying reality. It’s called biology, which is a legitimate SCIENCE!
No one is denying any rights to LGBQT people who themselves demand normal people to give up THEIR rights of free speech, freedom of the right to refuse to make produces celebrating perversion, etc.
I guess part of my problem is the fact that you seem to think that you have enough knowledge to determine what parts of nature are bad or immoral, what parts are good or moral, or what parts are neutral.
As I've already noted, I do think I have that capability, generally speaking. I and all of humanity. Generally speaking, I don't think understanding moral concepts are just that impossible to understand.
But my question would be: Do you? Do you think that understanding not to harm others and how to do good, generally speaking, is hard to understand?
That might explain a lot.
You answered this comment from me on another post, I presume by accident. I'll address your comments here. I had said:
"Do you agree that if your human traditions cause harm to others, that those traditions should be abandoned for the sake of human rights?"
You responded...
No.
I responded:
Do you recognize how vile and evil that makes you appear (or just simply shows that you are) that you would value your human traditions over human rights and causing actual harm to others?
You responded:
I know you are narcissistic and full of hubris, but I never thought I'd see you say that failing to be in 100% agreement with one of your hunches is "evil".
I had said:
"There's only one answer to this: IF my human traditions and personal opinions cause harm to others, then that's a problem with my traditions and opinions! Period."
You responded:
"Because I say so." is still not proof of anything.
This has nothing to do with agreeing with my personal opinions. I'm asking a relatively easy to answer question: Do you agree that causing harm to others because of your religious traditions is a moral good, that you'd choose to cause harm and follow your traditions rather than choosing NOT to cause harm and you answered, NO.
Help me understand: Are you saying that you would choose your personal religious traditions EVEN IF it caused harm to other humans, to innocent humans who had done nothing to deserve you harming them?
If so, do you see how that's not a moral good? Or how do you explain that answer?
By all means, make your case and explain yourself or clarify, but you have to understand that deliberately causing harm to innocent people is generally going to be regarded as a moral evil.
"Well, generally speaking, yes, I do think what is and isn't moral and good. At the very least, I trust my judgment more than yours. And so, what I support is you making your own moral decisions for yourself and am opposed to any of you all trying to force your moral opinions on others. Fair enough?"
Excellent response. The fact that you acknowledge that your hunches about what is moral or not are limited to you deciding what you personally find moral/immoral and that your hunches apply to no one other than yourself really leaves me to conclude that I have no reason to accept your ability to determine the morality of others actions.
"Well, it's true that nature simply is. What's the alternative? That nature isn't?"
No. That "nature" in and of itself is neutral. Nothing is nature is good/moral or bad/immoral, nature simply is, with no value attached to what happens.
"Christianity, suggests that YHWH created nature and nature exists for His pleasure and His purposes, and any good or bad derives from His character."
If you mean that Christianity is explicit about than then sure.
"I don't know that Christianity suggests that, but you're certainly welcome to suggest it for yourself. I certainly would tend to think that God loves a God’s own creation and is pleased by it, and us. As to your last line, it would depend on what you mean by it."
If you're gong to accept the view above, then that changes things. I've never seen you accept that construct, so I wasn't coming from that perspective. From that perspective, nature would be considered an extension of YHWH's being, and moral/immoral would be grounded in YHWH's character. Again, I've never heard you accept this construct and didn't waste my time arguing something you wouldn't agree with.
"I certainly think that God is perfectly good and that ALL good things reflect God's character, but then that would include loving, respectful, beautiful relationships, gay straight or otherwise. Would you disagree?"
No.
"But my question would be: Do you?"
I personally have the ability to discover what morality is for myself, as you seemed to claim to be able to. If I wanted to apply my moral standards to others, then I would need for those moral standards to be grounded in something or someone beyond myself.
"Do you think that understanding not to harm others and how to do good, generally speaking, is hard to understand?"
It's a fine hunch to have and to apply to yourself personally, unfortunately you still have no grounding to apply your personal moral hunches to anyone else.
It's always amusing when you manage to find something to bitch about when I give you simple, direct, specific answers.
"This has nothing to do with agreeing with my personal opinions. I'm asking a relatively easy to answer question: Do you agree that causing harm to others because of your religious traditions is a moral good, that you'd choose to cause harm and follow your traditions rather than choosing NOT to cause harm and you answered, NO."
Unfortunately, it has everything to do with your personal hunches. You have offered absolutely no reason to explain how you would impose your personal moral hunches on others, and why you doing so would compel them to accept your personal moral hunches. I would not agree that I bear responsibility for the behavior of others, nor would I agree that you can accurately communicate what these "religious traditions" you claim are mine.
"Help me understand: Are you saying that you would choose your personal religious traditions EVEN IF it caused harm to other humans, to innocent humans who had done nothing to deserve you harming them?"
I'm not sure what these "personal religious traditions" you speak of are. Unfortunately I have no desire to try to read your mind. I would point out that Jesus, Peter, and Paul were pretty clear that following the way of Jesus was going to result in harm.
"If so, do you see how that's not a moral good? Or how do you explain that answer?"
I have no idea by what standard you could possible declare my (unspecified) actions to be objectively not a "moral good". I have no reason to believe that your personal moral hunches can be applied to anyone but yourself. I have no idea what exactly your question is, therefore have no specific answer to explain. I also have no real desire to follow you any further down this bizarre rabbit hole.
"By all means, make your case and explain yourself or clarify, but you have to understand that deliberately causing harm to innocent people is generally going to be regarded as a moral evil."
You won't, but you demand that I do what you won't.
If I wanted to apply my moral standards to others, then I would need for those moral standards to be grounded in something or someone beyond myself.
You're making this way too hard. OF course, we want to have some moral boundaries as a society and of course, we need some way to create those and of course, we can create them through our collective moral reasoning.
Do you agree with the importance of having collective moral reasoning or are you an advocate of moral anarchy and if someone wants to rape children, you're fine with it?
Of course, you believe in setting moral boundaries. Right? And of course, you can't do it based on your hunches about what God thinks based upon what you think the Bible has to say about it - you almost certainly recognize that isn't a workable solution, given the number of people who don't buy into the Bible and the wide range of opinion about what the Bible does and doesn't say. Is that a fair assessment?
"Help me understand: Are you saying that you would choose your personal religious traditions EVEN IF it caused harm to other humans, to innocent humans who had done nothing to deserve you harming them?"
I'm not sure what these "personal religious traditions" you speak of are. Unfortunately I have no desire to try to read your mind.
ANY personal religious traditions and opinions. SOME religious opinions say we should stone to death or imprison homosexuals. You don't agree with that because of the harm, right?
SOME religious traditions say we should not have a military at all, but you don't agree with that, do you? You don't think we should implement that as a rule because some religious folk think that, right?
SOME religious traditions say that we should criminalize abortion, even going so far as putting women, doctors or those who help them in prison for having an abortion. That would be harm to doctors and women for doing what they thought was best. Do you want to implement that harm because your religious tradition says "abortion = murder..."?
SOME religious traditions say that we should not allow gay folks to marry or transgender people to make decisions about their gender and health. LGBTQ folks (and their allies) say/recognize the harm that would come about because of attempts that are currently happening from religious conservatives. Do you favor doing that harm (measurable, life and death harm) so that you can legalize your religious traditions.
Should ANY religious traditions be implemented by force of law because the believers in that particular tradition want to see it done because, they say, God wants it done? EVEN WHEN it causes harm to others?
"You're making this way too hard. OF course, we want to have some moral boundaries as a society and of course, we need some way to create those and of course, we can create them through our collective moral reasoning."
No, I'm not. Yes, each and every individual society will usually establish some sort of a consensus regarding there moral code. This happens in almost all social groupings. The problem is that it's subjective, it changes, and it can only be applied withing the group or society. There is no grounding for one society to expect another society to accept their moral code. Obviously one society can force it's moral code on another society, but you seem to object to that.
"Do you agree with the importance of having collective moral reasoning or are you an advocate of moral anarchy and if someone wants to rape children, you're fine with it?"
I have nothing against moral reasoning as a way to come up with a subjective moral code for a relatively homogeneous society. I do have a problem expecting another society to accept that subjective moral code. The problem is, what if one society uses their "collective moral reasoning" to conclude that (for their society) they will accept the rape of children as a moral good. Short of imposing your subjective moral standard by force, why would that society be obligated to abide by your subjective moral code.
Better example. According to Sharia law, and countries/societies that use Sharia as their legal code, the following are "immoral": Homosexuality, pre marital sex, following a non Muslim religion. By their "collective moral reasoning", informed by the infallible Quran and the authority of the mullahs, they are completely right to enforce their particular moral code in their societies.
"Of course, you believe in setting moral boundaries. Right?"
I believe that moral boundaries exist, yes.
"And of course, you can't do it based on your hunches about what God thinks based upon what you think the Bible has to say about it - you almost certainly recognize that isn't a workable solution, given the number of people who don't buy into the Bible and the wide range of opinion about what the Bible does and doesn't say."
Yet strangely enough, that's exactly what the Jews and Muslims have done and still do. As do the Mormons. I believe that the Amish live according to the rules they live by because they think that YHWH wants them to. So, you are assuming that it's impossible to do something which multiple societies are clearly doing.
"Is that a fair assessment?"
I don't think I've ever seen you give what I would consider a "fair assessment". In this case you appear to be basing your assessment on your personal assumptions about morality, which are not proven nor shared by everyone. You want so badly to be able to have a moral code that you can apply to others as if it was a universal/objective moral code (You seem to enjoy declaring things or people to be "immoral"), without actually having a universal/objective moral code. This isn't a problem as long as it's your personal moral code, and you live and let live.
"ANY personal religious traditions and opinions. SOME religious opinions say we should stone to death or imprison homosexuals. You don't agree with that because of the harm, right?"
I don't agree with your hunches about religious traditions.
"SOME religious traditions say we should not have a military at all, but you don't agree with that, do you? You don't think we should implement that as a rule because some religious folk think that, right?"
No, I personally don't agree with that. But if those folks were in a position to implement their views, I wouldn't begrudge their doing so.
"SOME religious traditions say that we should criminalize abortion, even going so far as putting women, doctors or those who help them in prison for having an abortion. That would be harm to doctors and women for doing what they thought was best. Do you want to implement that harm because your religious tradition says "abortion = murder""
No, my views about abortion law are not based on my solely on my religious beliefs. Are you suggesting that those who's religious beliefs are that abortion should be completely unrestricted and funded by the government, should be able to force their religious beliefs on others?
"SOME religious traditions say that we should not allow gay folks to marry or transgender people to make decisions about their gender and health. LGBTQ folks (and their allies) say/recognize the harm that would come about because of attempts that are currently happening from religious conservatives. Do you favor doing that harm (measurable, life and death harm) so that you can legalize your religious traditions."
I fail to see how your religious beliefs should be allowed to trump the religious beliefs of others. In other words, I fail to see why a Muslim country should not enforce Sharia withing their country. Nor do I see how you have any standing to tell them not to.
"Should ANY religious traditions be implemented by force of law because the believers in that particular tradition want to see it done because, they say, God wants it done? EVEN WHEN it causes harm to others?"
I depends on the society, religion, country and numerous other things. Should you be able to tell Israel that they are forbidden from setting up a government according to Jewish law? Should you be able to tell Iran, Iraq, Saudi, and the rest that they can't live under Sharia? I would never say that a law that has a solely religious basis should be imposed y force in a secular country. But you are a complete idiot if you think that current laws against murder don't have their basis in "Thou shall not murder".
"Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario?"
I have absolutely zero information to draw any conclusions about these two women you claim exist. The only thing I have is your biased, selective, incomplete, portrait designed to support your hunch. "Because I say so.", is not proof.
"Now, I think your answer is an instructive object lesson in the difference between what is referred to in the Bible as deadly legalism vs life-affirming Grace."
Of course you do, because your lack of trustworthiness, biases, prejudices, and incomplete picture of these two alleged women isn't enough for any rational person to make any rational judgement about these women.
"I GAVE you information about these two sweet grandmothers. Lesbians, living together, volunteering to help others, pouring out their lives in service to the least of these. For YOU, you think, "Well, that's not enough information..." But WHY is that your drop back position?"
Because it's literally not enough unbiased, objective, information to make a rational assessment. You are clearly painting a picture of these women that is intended to force people to the conclusion you want them to draw. The fact that I don't trust you to provide an unbiased, complete, accurate, non rose colored view of these women, is just the beginning. The fact that you've chosen to present these women in such a biased, slanted, light just makes it worse.
"Is it because you consider humanity to be depraved and evil at our roots and even in the face of reports of two wonderfully loving, giving women, YOU think, "BUT, maybe! Maybe they're secretly eating children at night, baking them into pies! Or maybe, their only SAYING that they're working on behalf of the poor because they believe in helping/allying with the poor, but it's all about their egos...""
No, but feel free to keep making shit up to blind yourself to the fact that your biased, incomplete, slanted, picture of these women is not in any way shape or form enough information to make a rational judgement. "Because I say so." is not proof. You vouching for yourself, isn't helping you at all.
"IS that why you think you don't have enough information? Because secretly you're thinking there may be some secret evil in their lives?"
No. No.
"While folks like me who believe in grace can see lovely women pouring out their lives in love to the least of these and thank God for it, because I have NO reason to think there's some secret evil in their lives."
But you're not biased or anything. It's not like you didn't pick these women to idolize because you could construct a narrative that you found compelling.
"What more information do you need to say, "Yes, these are lovely, Christ-like women..."?"
You offer a sentence or two if a biased, idealized, picture of these women, as if your picture is to be taken as being 100% accurate and complete, just because you say so.
At a very minimum, I'd want to see something from a completely unbiased source with nothing to theoretically gain from painting an overly positive picture of these women.
I do believe that your bias and prejudice is driving you to an irrational conclusion about my answer. It appears as if you are choosing to view my answer as an attack on these women, rather than a simple statement of fact. It's obvious that you expect us to simply accept your picture of these women at face value, simply because you "say so". The problems is that "Because I say so." isn't worth jack squat in the real world.
Hell, I could tell you abut a good friend of mine who was raised by a single mother, got through undergrad and med school, has turned his medical practice into a multi million dollar business, yet gives away vast sums of money, medical equipment, and medical services to those in need. He's graduating from seminary and might be looking to enter full time missionary work. I'd expect for you to not believe me, and to focus on how rich people are evil, so I wouldn't waste my time trying to construct what might be in incomplete picture of a wonderful person, just to try to make a point.
It's not like you didn't pick these women to idolize because you could construct a narrative that you found compelling.
WHAT bias? I see good, decent people and I can acknowledge it. I see that they're (and here, I'm not even talking about one specific couple, I know multiple people and couples that fit this description) GOOD people with GOOD hearts with REAL concern for the poor and marginalized.
WHERE is the bias?
Prove it you lying son of a bitch or admit you're making up a stupidly false attack claim because of YOUR bigotry and bias, which has nothing to do with me.
You offer a sentence or two if a biased, idealized, picture of these women
Prove it, you lying son of a bitch. WHERE is the evidence for your damned stupid lie that I am biased on this front or that it's idealized? It's a stupidly false claim that is evident for anyone.
Can you just admit that you have not one single shred of real world data to support your damned attack lie?
At a very minimum, I'd want to see something from a completely unbiased source with nothing to theoretically gain from painting an overly positive picture of these women.
But WHY? THIS is that deadly, vile legalism that I'm telling you about. That Saint Paul and Jesus Christ our LORD told you about. YOUR graceless, hateful, damned diabolical distrust and bigotry exposes your pharisaism as the hateful anti-Christ, anti-Grace reality that it is.
I'm speaking beyond just my own experience, boy. MANY people can testify about their two beloved lesbian aunts who pour out their lives in grace and love. MANY people can and do testify about their wonderful Godly gay uncles who adopted children and saved lives and volunteered to help the homeless, the mentally ill, the children in need of support.
Do you REALLY have such limited exposure to reality that you aren't aware of the countless number of good, loving, decent LGBTQ people out there pouring out their lives in love to the least of these?
IF that's the case, then maybe you should be asking why your graceless, pharisaical life is so empty and hateful and devoid of decency and grace.
Good Lord, have mercy on your soul.
Admit your bigotry and bias and lies and apologize or be exposed as the true bigot acting out of actual partisan hate and ignorance.
You offer a sentence or two if a biased, idealized, picture of these women, as if your picture is to be taken as being 100% accurate and complete, just because you say so.
How much do you need? Do you need me to tell you about Ms X who was raised in a conservative Southern Baptist church and spent her life teaching children Sunday School in her various Baptist churches (although she eventually had to leave Southern Baptist churches because largely THEY kicked her out!)?
Do you need me to tell you how she played piano at various churches throughout her life, volunteering her skills and time to praise God and minister to the church? How she played in a combination of old time ragtime, and CCM music style, with grace and deep loving heart?
Do you need to tell me about her decision to spend her career in social work, helping poor and marginalized families find housing, find resources to avoid being evicted, to find tutors for their children who were struggling in school, to assist in drug rehabilitation, in finding jobs?
Do you need me to tell you about her life devoted trying to change policies so that being evicted wouldn't lead to homelessness? In finding solutions for the affordable housing crisis that so harms the least of these? In giving time and money to aid programs in Nicaragua and Morocco and other places around the world? How she regularly sends birthday cards at her own expense to church members and get well cards to those who are ill (in church and not)? How she cooks and delivers meals to shut ins and sick people?
Is there ANY amount of information that would make you overcome your bigotry at the simple notion that she's married to a woman and thus is - gasp! - a lesbian?
Your bigotry exposes you, Craig. Your hatefulness is impossible to deny. It doesn't matter if you are acting based upon your ignorant religious bigotry that causes you to gracelessly suspect and accuse people you don't even know. You are on the side of the Enemy, the accuser, the attacker, the oppressor.
Open your eyes. Repent.
I could tell you abut a good friend of mine who was raised by a single mother, got through undergrad and med school, has turned his medical practice into a multi million dollar business, yet gives away vast sums of money, medical equipment, and medical services to those in need. He's graduating from seminary and might be looking to enter full time missionary work. I'd expect for you to not believe me, and to focus on how rich people are evil,
You're projecting. IF you ask me about this guy and testify about what he's done, I'd accept it. Period. I have no reason to doubt your testimony about this guy.
And that, my bigoted, hateful, pharisee friend, is the difference between grace and legalism.
The question is not what I'd say about such a guy (good on him!). The question is which side are you on? The side of life-giving grace or deadly legalism. It's a question with you answered already.
And so, the question is: Will you repent or will you continue with your deadly oppressive graceless legalism?
It appears as if you are choosing to view my answer as an attack on these women, rather than a simple statement of fact.
It IS an attack on these women and on LGBTQ folk in general, as well as more progressive Christians. It's a graceless attack. I'm giving you an example of people who I can tell you are not the exception - that the description of these people is common to most LGBTQ folks I know, with differences only in the specifics but not on the theme. These are GOOD, MORAL, LOVING people pouring out their lives in love to the poor and marginalized. GIVEN THAT INFORMATION, then do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers, this gay couple, that transgender woman, etc are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario?
Again, there is no amount of information about their basic loving goodness that would satisfy the legalist, the Pharisee, the Enemy. But is that where you want to land?
I'd expect for you to not believe me, and to focus on how rich people are evil,
Another example of projection. Another example of the death-dealing, irrational legalism of the Pharisees and their descendants. WHY would I guess you're making up a story? I have NO reason to make that guess, much less to say, "Well, I have no reason to believe such a thing is possible."
IF you knew gay folks, lesbian folks, transgender folks, then you'd KNOW that of course, there are good, loving LGBTQ pouring out their lives in love to the least of these. Your own bigotry is exposing your bigotry in your own graceless words and false assumptions.
Tell me, Craig: Is it the case that you know of absolutely NO lesbian grandmothers who fit this description? (Because I personally could cite numerous similar examples within my own limited friend set). If so, don't you think your own ignorance might be part of the problem?
The problems is that "Because I say so." isn't worth jack squat in the real world.
No, the problem is your bigotry isn't worth jack squat in the real world. You have made yourself meaningless, along with the ghosts of all those dead legalistic Pharisees. Gracelessness is a tomb.
"IS that why you think you don't have enough information? Because secretly you're thinking there may be some secret evil in their lives?"
Their evil clearly is not secret. It's quite out in the open such that some jerk friend of theirs speaks of their private lives openly on a blog. That evil, of course, is their lesbianism. More directly, the implication they engage in lesbian sexual behavior (or did when they were younger. Who knows? Maybe they still get it on.). Doesn't matter. The mere living together as so-called "spouses" is enough to indict them as living evil lives. Or say "wicked" if "evil" gets your panties in a twist.
On another note, this nonsensical ploy of crafting hypothetical scenarios to disparage the proper understanding and expression of Christianity is just another form of Trabue lie. "If your religious beliefs led to harm..." Stuff it. You want to accept the bullshit whining of your LGBT cretins that the faith of their families and friends led to some harm in their lives, when the harm they suffer is more than likely the result of their clinging to their perv compulsions rather than to the Will of God their friends and families would prefer for them.
Then of course is another of Dan's pat statements regarding a homosexual relationship being "beautiful" and worthy of God's blessing and acceptance because the two sinners love each other. This notion that a sinful behavior might be moral because the participants are nice is about as childish a notion as one can imagine, but oh so typical of one who has no legit argument for believing the sinners aren't sinners. There's certainly no Scriptural backing for this lunacy. It's just one of many BS arguments Dan pulls from his backside expecting others must regard it as "reasoned" or "adult" or "good faith arguments". But it's just Dan lying with intent once again.
"How much do you need?"
It's not a question of how much I need, it's a question of the source. Anecdotes based on "Because I say so.", are not proof. Not objective. Not Truth. Not anything.
"Do you need me to tell you about Ms X who was raised in a conservative Southern Baptist church and spent her life teaching children Sunday School in her various Baptist churches (although she eventually had to leave Southern Baptist churches because largely THEY kicked her out!)?"
No, but apparently you are going to anyway. "Because I say so." is not proof.
"Do you need me to tell you how she played piano at various churches throughout her life, volunteering her skills and time to praise God and minister to the church? How she played in a combination of old time ragtime, and CCM music style, with grace and deep loving heart?"
No, but apparently you are going to anyway. "Because I say so." is not proof.
"Do you need to tell me about her decision to spend her career in social work, helping poor and marginalized families find housing, find resources to avoid being evicted, to find tutors for their children who were struggling in school, to assist in drug rehabilitation, in finding jobs?"
No, but apparently you are going to anyway. "Because I say so." is not proof.
"Do you need me to tell you about her life devoted trying to change policies so that being evicted wouldn't lead to homelessness? In finding solutions for the affordable housing crisis that so harms the least of these? In giving time and money to aid programs in Nicaragua and Morocco and other places around the world? How she regularly sends birthday cards at her own expense to church members and get well cards to those who are ill (in church and not)? How she cooks and delivers meals to shut ins and sick people?"
No, but apparently you are going to anyway. "Because I say so." is not proof.
"Is there ANY amount of information that would make you overcome your bigotry at the simple notion that she's married to a woman and thus is - gasp! - a lesbian?"
It's not a question of how much I need, it's a question of the source. Anecdotes based on "Because I say so.", are not proof. Not objective. Not Truth. Not anything.
"Your bigotry exposes you, Craig. Your hatefulness is impossible to deny. It doesn't matter if you are acting based upon your ignorant religious bigotry that causes you to gracelessly suspect and accuse people you don't even know. You are on the side of the Enemy, the accuser, the attacker, the oppressor."
More "attack lie"s.
"Open your eyes. Repent."
I only repent from sins I actually commit, not ones you make up.
"You're projecting. IF you ask me about this guy and testify about what he's done, I'd accept it. Period. I have no reason to doubt your testimony about this guy."
Yet, you so frequently doubt my testimony about so many other things.
"And that, my bigoted, hateful, pharisee friend, is the difference between grace and legalism."
If you say so.
"The question is not what I'd say about such a guy (good on him!). The question is which side are you on? The side of life-giving grace or deadly legalism. It's a question with you answered already."
No, that's not the question at all. I'm clearly not going to choose to be on the side of whatever you've made up as the criteria to meet your hunches about those things. because you don't define the sides, and "Because I say so." isn't proof.
"And so, the question is: Will you repent or will you continue with your deadly oppressive graceless legalism?"
And the answer still is, that I only repent of the sins I commit. Not the ones you make up and attribute to me.
I could be wrong, but it seems like your vile attack on my deceased mother was the epitome of "graceless".
"Another example of projection. Another example of the death-dealing, irrational legalism of the Pharisees and their descendants. WHY would I guess you're making up a story? I have NO reason to make that guess, much less to say, "Well, I have no reason to believe such a thing is possible.""
Not so much a projection, I'll leave that to you, than an assessment of what you've said about "the rich" over an extended period of time.
"IF you knew gay folks, lesbian folks, transgender folks, then you'd KNOW that of course, there are good, loving LGBTQ pouring out their lives in love to the least of these. Your own bigotry is exposing your bigotry in your own graceless words and false assumptions."
This idiotic bullshit is simply absurd. I do "know gay folks", I have excellent friendships with many. But you go right ahead and project and spew "attack lie"s.
The problem is still with you acting as if your anecdotes should be taken as 100% accurate representations of the Truth, and your insistence that "Because I say so." is somehow proof coming from you.
"Tell me, Craig: Is it the case that you know of absolutely NO lesbian grandmothers who fit this description?"
No it's not the case. It's totally irrelevant. The only relevant issue is you continuing to act like "Because I say so." makes your anecdotes true.
"(Because I personally could cite numerous similar examples within my own limited friend set). If so, don't you think your own ignorance might be part of the problem?"
No. You continuing to "cite" more anecdotes as if "Because I say so." makes your anecdotes True won't help at all.
"No, the problem is your bigotry isn't worth jack squat in the real world. You have made yourself meaningless, along with the ghosts of all those dead legalistic Pharisees. Gracelessness is a tomb."
No, this would be wrong. My refusal to simply, blindly accept your anecdotes with "Because I say so." as your only proof has nothing to do with bigotry, and everything to do with you demonstrating that you are not to be blindly trusted. You demand that others prove literally everything, while expecting that your anecdotes be blindly accepted.
From you, "Because I say so." is literally worth nothing in the real world. The problem isn't them, the problem is you.
You continuing to spew "attack lie"s, bullshit, crap you've made up, in an attempt to build up your "credibility" by attacking me with falsehoods doesn't help you at all.
"Because I say so." isn't proof.
"WHAT bias?"
If this is to suggest that you have no bias, then I see no reason to waste any more time with your idiocy. The reality is that you specifically chose these two women as your idealized "
"WHERE is the bias?"
See above.
"Prove it you lying son of a bitch or admit you're making up a stupidly false attack claim because of YOUR bigotry and bias, which has nothing to do with me."
Prove what? That you've painted an incomplete, idealized, portrait of these two women in an attempt to extrapolate some point about every gay couple in the world from this one couple. That there is no possible way that you have painted a 100% accurate picture of these women is 2-3 sentences. The fact that you have to concoct this false "attack/bigotry" bullshit tells me all I need to know.
"Prove it, you lying son of a bitch. WHERE is the evidence for your damned stupid lie that I am biased on this front or that it's idealized? It's a stupidly false claim that is evident for anyone."
1. Since when do you demand proof for opinions.
2. If you weren't biased towards these people, you wouldn't have used them as an example.
3. Your bias leads you to conclude that "God blesses gay marriage".
4. This exaggerated outrage is pretty damn hilarious.
"Can you just admit that you have not one single shred of real world data to support your damned attack lie?"
1. No "attack lie" from me.
2. I guess calling me a lying sons of a bitch could never be considered an "attack lie"?
3. Please prove the Truth of your vile attack on my deceased mother.
4. You are correct that you have provided not one shred of real world evidence in your idealized unproven claims.
5. "Becasue I say so." isn't proof.
"But WHY? THIS is that deadly, vile legalism that I'm telling you about. That Saint Paul and Jesus Christ our LORD told you about. YOUR graceless, hateful, damned diabolical distrust and bigotry exposes your pharisaism as the hateful anti-Christ, anti-Grace reality that it is.
Again with the "attack lie"s. Do you really not understand why I would want something other than "Because I say so."? The fact that absolutely nothing in your preceding rant is true, should make you ashamed. I suspect you'll just double down on your false, bullshit, hate filled, "attack lie"s.
"I'm speaking beyond just my own experience, boy. MANY people can testify about their two beloved lesbian aunts who pour out their lives in grace and love. MANY people can and do testify about their wonderful Godly gay uncles who adopted children and saved lives and volunteered to help the homeless, the mentally ill, the children in need of support."
Anecdotes based on "Because I say so." aren't proof of anything.
"Do you REALLY have such limited exposure to reality that you aren't aware of the countless number of good, loving, decent LGBTQ people out there pouring out their lives in love to the least of these?"
My experience, is irrelevant. I'm not the one trying to offer an unsupported anecdote based on "Because I say so." as a way to try to prove some bullshit claim about all homosexuals.
"IF that's the case, then maybe you should be asking why your graceless, pharisaical life is so empty and hateful and devoid of decency and grace."
It's not. This is just some bullshit you made up.
"Good Lord, have mercy on your soul."
As someone who frequently acknowledges my many sins, and would never make claims about how good I am, I absolutely rely on YHWH and His limitless grace.
"Admit your bigotry and bias and lies and apologize or be exposed as the true bigot acting out of actual partisan hate and ignorance."
Beyond the reality that everyone on earth is bigoted to some degree, why would I "admit" to a bunch of bullshit "attack lie"s, that you made up?
"It IS an attack on these women and on LGBTQ folk in general, as well as more progressive Christians."
No, it literally is nothing of the sort. I have said absolutely nothing, zero, about these women. Either positive or negative. My ONLY issue is with you pretending like you relating an anecdote based on "Because I said so.", as if that makes it unassailably True. The problem is 100% you and your lack of credibility and 0% anything about them.
"It's a graceless attack. I'm giving you an example of people who I can tell you are not the exception - that the description of these people is common to most LGBTQ folks I know, with differences only in the specifics but not on the theme."
1. Still not an attack, "Because I say so." doesn't make it an attack.
2. You claiming that these people are "representative" of the vast number of gay folks you know, doesn't mean a thing when you try to extrapolate to the entire gay population.
3. This anecdote is based on your opinions, based on your limited observations, based on your friendship. It's in no way a provable objective claim.
4. Yet none of this is actually an attack.
" These are GOOD, MORAL, LOVING people pouring out their lives in love to the poor and marginalized. GIVEN THAT INFORMATION, then do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers, this gay couple, that transgender woman, etc are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario?"
Given the fact that this "information" is second hand, anecdotal, unverified, and based on "Because I say so.", I have absolutely zero basis to draw ANY conclusions abut these people. I'm sorry that you are too narcissistic to understand that "Because I said so." doesn't magically make your anecdotes True, factual, and 100% accurte.
"Again, there is no amount of information about their basic loving goodness that would satisfy the legalist, the Pharisee, the Enemy. But is that where you want to land?"
Anecdotal stories based on "Because I said so." , aren't proof.
I appreciate your heartfelt apology for for unprovoked, vile, attack on my deceased mother. Such vile behavior only emphasizes your untrustworthiness.
"You see, the difference between us is that you offered a tentative "What of the rich man who gave money to the poor and went into the ministry..." and I said, "Okay," and took you at your word. WHY would I think you're making such a story up."
Because I freely admit that my portrait of my friend was crafted in such a way as to magnify the focus on the things he does that you would think are "good" and to minimize or exclude the things that you would object to. I crafted the portrait to make a point.
"YOU and Marshal, on the other hand, don't accept as likely or reliable my illustration of the two lesbian grandmothers. Marshal went on and denounced them as evil and you suggested as much."
Look, if making shit up and accusing me of that made up shit helps you maintain your self esteem or something, I understand. But for you to continue to ignore what I actually said, in favor of made up bullshit about "evil", is simply you choosing to live in a fantasy world where you are persecuted or some such nonsense.
"That is the difference between the Good News of Grace and the death-dealing news of legalism. You all can't even allow that possibility without questioning or rejecting it out of hand."
Why, because you say so?
"But fine, you don't want to trust me and my examples, because your bigotry precludes that sort of grace. Then look at any two lesbian grandmothers you know pouring out their lives in service to others. Then return to my questions:"
It's not my bigotry at all. It's your actions, behavior, and words that are the problem.
"Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario? Or MUST they agree with your religious bigotry first in order to be moral people?"
I have no rational reason to say anything about people I don't know, have never met, have no proof that they exist, and only have your anecdotes based on "Because I say so". I have no reason to say anything negative, nor any reason to say anything positive.
"What if they dare to disagree with you, are you the determining factor in morality?"
IF this is true, why would I care? What difference does it make if these two women disagree with me? It's not like I've claimed that everyone must agree with me or be wrong. They, and you, have the ability to choose what to believe and how to act. I simply have no investment at "Now, are you going to drop back to something like, "I know of no such scenario... I don't know of any such lesbian grandmothers living lovely graceful lives..." Is that what you'll say?"
No."
"If so, why not?'
It's not so.
"They exist, of course, I could no doubt point to many I know personal or dozens in my extended circles and no doubt thousands with some research. Are you saying that you're doubtful that two such sweet loving lesbians exist?"
"Because I say so." is not proof. Of course, anything is possible.
"If so, why is that? Because you personally don't know of them? (And again, WHY is that?)"
It's not.
"And just as a control group: Do you know of any sweet loving grandmothers who are NOT lesbians who pour out their lives in service to others?"
I do, but fail to see the relevance. I also know some who are quite the opposite. Again, who the hell cares?
"Or are you suspicious of all humans? If so, why is that?"
No.
I do realize that "Because I say so." is not proof of anything, and that you have demonstrated that trustworthiness is not one of your strengths.
Again, thanks for the apology for the incredibly vile, hateful, graceless, attack on my deceased mother, and for acknowledging the vileness and gracelessness of your "attack lie".
With Trabue, TRUTH is hate and bigotry! Proving he is an abject godless fool.
I think you missed my question. I had said (and note where I've emphasized and added your name so you don't miss it this time):
"But fine, you don't want to trust me and my examples, because your bigotry precludes that sort of grace.
Then look at any two lesbian grandmothers
YOU, CRAIG KNOW PERSONALLY,
pouring out their lives in service to others. Then return to my questions:"
You responded...
It's not my bigotry at all. It's your actions, behavior, and words that are the problem.
Presumably, even though I've never been anything but honest with you and never once in all our discussions have made false claims about people I know, you're suggesting that because YOU gracelessly find my actions, behavior and words are a problem that somehow cause you to doubt I'm talking about real people and representing them fairly.
BUT, note the question: IF YOU GRACELESSLY don't trust MY example, then look at any loving lesbians pouring out their lives in service to others that YOU, CRAIG, KNOW PERSONALLY and then apply the questions to THEM.
Understand?
Then, given two loving lesbian grandmothers that YOU know, answer:
"Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario?
Or MUST they agree with your religious bigotry first in order to be moral people?"
You continued:
I have no rational reason to say anything about people I don't know, have never met, have no proof that they exist,
I'm asking you about PEOPLE YOU PERSONALLY KNOW and thus, know exist.
And really, you get offended that I called you a lying son of a bitch? But YOU are the one suggesting I'm making up these stories even though you have
NO proof of it and
the reality is, of course, I'm not making them up!
Why would I? It doesn't help if I'm arguing a non-existent case. I'm interested in real world situations and analysis.
So, I'll apologize for using the phrase son of a bitch - I certainly meant it colloquially and not about your mother and the point was that you are a lying defender of oppression, but that probably doesn't help. At any rate, I can gladly apologize if you thought I meant your actual mother is an actual dog. I didn't.
So, the question to you then is: Will you apologize for suggesting that my cases are not likely to be true or that they can't be trusted to be true, with the implication being that I've often made up false stories (hasn't ever happened with us, not one time) and the further suggestion being that the notion of loving, committed lesbian grandmothers (and by extension, LGBTQ people in general) is like a fairy tale, not likely to be true. To hell with that demonization.
The church and others have used those perverted lying tools of attack and deception to oppress people for centuries. Stop doing that, man. It's wrong. It's clearly wrong. You can't expect people to take ANY concerns you have about morality seriously if you continue to lie and demonize to oppress people. Stop it.
Dan:
"And just as a control group: Do you know of any sweet loving grandmothers who are NOT lesbians who pour out their lives in service to others?"
You responded:
I do, but fail to see the relevance.
So, you DO know loving grandmothers pouring out their lives in service to others.
DO YOU KNOW loving lesbian grandmothers doing the same? Or are you suggesting that somehow it's impossible or unlikely that lesbian grandmothers would be as sweet and hard-working for justice and kindness as straight grannies?
The relevance is that you and your ilk continue to assault and oppress the good name of LGBTQ people with dirty, diabolical lies and slander. The "evil gay people" is a trope straight from the pits of hell that Marshal and the Westboro creeps like to use to oppress and kill and cause harm and people like you lend aid to these attacks when you refuse to acknowledge the reality of loving LGBTQ folk pouring out their lives in service to others.
You will know them by their love, says John, says Jesus.
What you do for the least of these you do for me, says Jesus.
By their fruit you will know them says Jesus.
We recognize the followers of Jesus by their actions of love to and for the least of these and others, not by their bedroom practices or wedding partners. Biblically speaking. THAT is why it's relevant.
I just realized that what appears here also appears in another thread. I just can't keep up!!
"IF you know of no loving, giving, devoted lesbian grandmothers or gay uncles or other LGBTQ people of good will and intent, then INDEED, your experience is irrelevant. You, yourself, are irrelevant as regarding giving ANY opinions about LGBTQ people."
Again, irrelevant. A small sample size of personal experience has virtually zero value to extrapolate. It's interesting that you normally demand "scientific data and proof", but now think that your anecdotes about a small sample size support your extrapolation to a larger group.
"BUT,
IF you are going to criticize people like me talking about the reality of loving, giving LGBTQ people,
IF you are going to say that homosexuality is a sin (ie, it's a sin for two people in love to have a life together which might include sexuality)
IF you're going to give a platform to people like Marshal and Glenn who abuse and molest and attack directly our dear LGBTQ siblings...
THEN you have already chosen a side and it's time to take a dump or get off the pot."
You opinion means nothing. "Because I say so." isn't proof.
"YOU have no objectively proven reason to consider LGBTQ immoral, is that fair?"
No, fair is not something I usually associate with your claims. You have no universal moral standard by with you can support this blanket claim. "Because I say so." is not proof. You have no objectively proven reason to consider LGBTQXYZPDQ moral. It might not be fair, but it's True.
"IF you don't have ANY proven reason to consider them sinful (and you don't, as a point of fact), and
IF the continued oppression of an historically oppressed group like LGBTQ people is still continuing,
THEN it's time for you at the very least to step aside and do nothing (like Germans living in Nazi Germany when Hitler was in power)
But as a better option, you should call out the Glenns and Marshals for their perverse attacks against good, innocent people. It's causing harm and you're on the wrong side of morality and history."
"Because I say so." isn't proof.
"The harm is demonstrable. The assault on human rights is provable."
This claim is laughable, and false.
"Your religious bigotry that can't even allow the POSSIBILITY of two wonderful loving lesbian grandmothers is just that, religious bigotry leading to oppression and harm based NOT on data, but just personal unproven religious biases and bigotry."
Again, with the made up false claims that you can't prove. "Because I say so." isn't proof.
"Be a better human than this Craig."
Sorry, I'm just a sinful, imperfect, human who's relying on YHWH's grace.
"Of course, in the real world, I made NO claims about "all homosexuals." That is a lie or at the very least, a stupidly obtuse misunderstanding of what I did and didn't say."
Interesting. So are you claiming that only certain, specific, Dan defined, homosexual relationships are "moral" and "blessed by god"? Or are you saying that homosexuality is "natural", "normal", "moral" and "blessed by god"?
"I offered a VERY SPECIFIC scenario about TWO very specific people (to be fair, I'm doing an amalgamation of many LGBTQ folks I know who generally fit this description - in some cases, it may be that they adopted and raised two (or four) lovely children, in other cases, they were social workers and other cases they were teachers or nurses or mental health workers... but ALL of them generally fit this general description: Lovely, loving, pouring out their lives in service to others). The point was NOT to make a general point about all LGBTQ people, but to just start with two very real examples of two very real people in the real world. I'm just wondering if you can acknowledge the reality of two such loving, giving people who happen to be lesbians (or gay or trans...)."
Again, don't care. Your (now admittedly made up) anecdote is not proof, not provable, a small sample size, cherry picked, vague, and filtered through your biases. "Because I say so." is not proof.
"You balk at dealing with the scenario because, you say (I think), you don't trust me. But it's not about me at all. Unless you're depraved enough to suggest there are NO such loving, giving couples in the world who happen to be LGBTQ, it's about the specifics of some of those many loving, giving people. Hopefully, you can acknowledge you know such people yourself. You tell me. But given the reality of such people (and again, NOTHING to do with me at all):"
Yes, I balk at blindly accepting your (admittedly false) anecdote as Truth, because you have proven yourself unworthy of that level of trust. You have made your bed, now you have to lie in it. "Because I say so." is not proof. Unfortunately is IS about you because you are the one offering these anecdotes as if they are representative of homosexuals in general. The only "proof" you offer is that you've said these things. It's all about the source, which is you. But at least you finally got s small hint that you are the problem.
"Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario?"
I have no rational reason to believe that "the scenario" (anecdotal) is 100% accurate and fully describes the people in question. (Especially now as you've admitted that you've used numerous people as fodder for the "two" people in your anecdote) I have no rational reason to make any positive or negative judgements about the "two" people. Theoretically, IF your anecdote is reasonably correct, I could guess that these "two" are "pretty good" people by your subjective standards.
"Or MUST they agree with your religious bigotry first in order to be moral people?"
Again, I'll answer this. No.
"ANY time you make stupidly false claims about real people, then I WILL push people like you to support it. The reason this is vital is that stupidly false claims of this sort are a deadly cancer. They are wrong, abusive, harmful. And when they're done to attack LGBTQ folks, they're also oppressive."
The problem is that I haven't made ANY claims about these two (composite) people. Which actually means that your initial claim that these were two specific, individual people, was actually less than 100% True.
2. If you weren't biased towards these people, you wouldn't have used them as an example.
"Bullshit. That's a dumbass claim that you can't support. I could point to my very conservative parents or other conservative family members and just as easily said, "What of these people who are pouring out their lives in service to others..." It has nothing to do with bias but the reality of good people pouring out their lives in love and service, which happens across the political spectrum and whether gay or straight."
If you say so. Of course to deny that you are biased in favor of people you clearly are fond of makes you sound like an idiot. You chose these people (or this composite of lots of people) in an attempt to prove your point. Given that why would you not show bias is selecting the "two" (or compromise of many) people that you thing best make your point?
"Do you disagree?"
yes.
"3. Your bias leads you to conclude that "God blesses gay marriage".
No, reason leads me to conclude that a good and loving God would bless ANY activity that is good and loving, which would include healthy marriages of gay or straight people. You have no data to suggest otherwise and once again, it has nothing to do with bias."
Of course you are not biased in favor of your self and your Reason, that would be absurd.
"Or are you saying that ANY opinion we have about marriage is a product of bias?"
This is likely true to some degree. I am saying that ANY example of a "good" marriage will be the result of personal bias, if for no other reason, the standard for a "good" marriage to be used to prove a larger point is subjective and will be influenced by bias.
"And then, YOUR opposition to gay folk marrying is a result of YOUR bias?"
That is likely. That my bias towards accepting scripture as "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." probably plays a role. Of course, it's a reasonable bias to have for one who is a Christian. The difference here is that I'm not obsessed with trying to prove that I am free from bias. I'm a sinful, fallible, human who has biases, among other things I'm not proud of.
" Well, it may be true of you, but it has nothing to do with me. As I've pointed out: When I DID have a bias, it was AGAINST gay folks marrying. It was the removal of the bias and bigotry that opened up the world to grace and love for me, and turned me away from deadly legalism."
Awesome, Dan is claiming that he has absolutely NO bias, and that his Reason is powerful enough to keep him from having biases.
"4. This exaggerated outrage is pretty damn hilarious.
What's exaggerated? Your continued vague non-answers and dodging of questions and false claims and attacks ARE outrageous and tiresome. There is a time for everything. A time to make reasoned points and a time to call the other guy on bullshit and corruption and perversion."
If your outrage isn't exaggerated, then I'd be concerned for your mental health. Your obsession with falsely believing that people who don't agree with you are evil, oppressors, who persecute and harm people that they don't even know doesn't sound healthy to me.
"And really, you get offended that I called you a lying son of a bitch? But YOU are the one suggesting I'm making up these stories even though you have
NO proof of it and
the reality is, of course, I'm not making them up!"
No, I'm offended that you chose to make this sort of vile, graceless, attack on my deceased mother. The reality is that you can't prove this claim, and you just admitted that you used a composite of multiple other people to describe these "two" people.
"Why would I? It doesn't help if I'm arguing a non-existent case. I'm interested in real world situations and analysis."
I have no idea why you do what you do. Perhaps your history of inventing all sorts of stupid and absurd hypothetical and acting as if they were perfectly applicable has something to do with it.
"So, I'll apologize for using the phrase son of a bitch - I certainly meant it colloquially and not about your mother and the point was that you are a lying defender of oppression, but that probably doesn't help. At any rate, I can gladly apologize if you thought I meant your actual mother is an actual dog. I didn't."
That could be one of the least apologetic apologies ever. The fact that it took you this long doesn't help either. However, I'll accept your apology (such as it is) for your vile, vile graceless attack, and at least move on from this diversion.
"So, the question to you then is: Will you apologize for suggesting that my cases are not likely to be true or that they can't be trusted to be true, with the implication being that I've often made up false stories (hasn't ever happened with us, not one time) and the further suggestion being that the notion of loving, committed lesbian grandmothers (and by extension, LGBTQ people in general) is like a fairy tale, not likely to be true. To hell with that demonization."
Now I understand why you "apologized". But, no. As a general rule I don't apologize for things I haven't said or done. Nor do I apologize when you can't prove that I was wrong. The fact that you've chosen to misinterpret and twist my words, isn't something I need to apologize for. It is further evidence of my conclusion that you are unworthy of trust.
"DO YOU KNOW loving lesbian grandmothers doing the same?"
I don't primarily categorize people by who they have sex with, and for the most part don't pry into people's sex lives. I know lots of people, and wouldn't claim that I know or care that much about who they sleep with. Of course, this is still irrelevant.
Or are you suggesting that somehow it's impossible or unlikely that lesbian grandmothers would be as sweet and hard-working for justice and kindness as straight grannies?"
No, I'm suggesting that it's irrelevant. You have no basis to extrapolate your small sample size out to others.
"The relevance is that you and your ilk continue to assault and oppress the good name of LGBTQ people with dirty, diabolical lies and slander. The "evil gay people" is a trope straight from the pits of hell that Marshal and the Westboro creeps like to use to oppress and kill and cause harm and people like you lend aid to these attacks when you refuse to acknowledge the reality of loving LGBTQ folk pouring out their lives in service to others."
Nope, not True. Never happened, Made up bullshit. More reason not to trust you. "Because I say so." isn't proof.
"We recognize the followers of Jesus by their actions of love to and for the least of these and others, not by their bedroom practices or wedding partners. Biblically speaking. THAT is why it's relevant."
Observing the actions of others is one way to gain some insight into their relationship with Jesus, unfortunately, I have no way to observe these composite people you refer to, and no reason to trust that your composite version of them is 100% accurate and beyond questioning.
"Because I say so." is not proof.
I'm going to offer a real, real life example of how observing a person's public actions might not be as foolproof as Dan likes to believe.
Ravi Zacharias was one of the most significant apologists and evangelists of the past 20 years. His passion for YHWH and sharing His grace was obvious, his scholarship influenced multitudes of people. he was an incredible intellect, brilliant communicator, and relentlessly gentle and loving to those who disagreed with him. He appeared to be above reproach in his ministry.
Yet, as he approached his death, we found out that there was more to him than his public persona indicated.
I'm not saying that we should be suspicious of people's public persona and always assume the worst. I am saying that the human heart is deceitful above all else, and to think that 10% of a person we see in the public is always an infallible reflection of the 90% we don't see, is simply foolish.
No, I'm suggesting that it's irrelevant. You have no basis to extrapolate your small sample size out to others.
NO EXTRAPOLATION. I'm talking about ANY GAY OR LESBIAN couple that YOU, CRAIG, may know who are living lives of love and service. IN THAT EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE YOU PERSONALLY KNOW IN YOUR OWN LIFE (understand), if they are living out lives of love and service, do YOU, CRAIG, have any reason to suspect that this couple that YOU, CRAIG know personally are secretly living lives of evil? IN THAT ONE CASE.
Good Lord, trying to communicate with you all is tiresome and ridiculous.
Craig...
as he approached his death, we found out that there was more to him than his public persona indicated.
So, you're pointing to ONE conservative fellow that many of you conservative fellows respected and because in his ONE life, engaged in abusive behavior... does that mean that you think that it's likely that MOST people (gay or straight) who appear morally upright are secretly evil? Does it mean that you think that ALL people (gay or straight) are secretly evil?
Where is the grace and goodwill that is part and parcel of Christianity?
Again, IF that's the case you're making, do you see why it seems you live in a joyless world of deadly legalism that poisons the mind?
Are you not willing to look at a Lillian and Jimmy Carter, a Billy Graham, a Corrie Ten Boom or Dorothy Day and say, "Yes, these were/are good people whose lives were shining examples of morality..."? Does your distrust and presumption of hidden evil not allow you to allow that there are genuinely good people pouring out their lives in service to others?
As to your claims that I've lied, of course, those claims are themselves, lies. You can not point out ONE single deliberate falsehood I've stated in this thread or anywhere in all our history of communication, much less the suggestion that it's a common practice.
Disagreeing with your all's opinions is NOT "lying," it's NOT hating God. Again, with the legalism and presumption that if people don't agree with you, then they hate God.
You aren't God, Marshal, Glenn, Craig. I am NOT beholden to agree with you when I think you are clearly in the moral or reasonable wrong.
I am saying that the human heart is deceitful above all else, and to think that 10% of a person we see in the public is always an infallible reflection of the 90% we don't see, is simply foolish.
Well, I don't know about you and your friends, but I am my friends, church, colleagues... we live close lives, we know each other quite well. We have deep conversations about our lives and struggles, joys and concerns. For my closest friends, it's not like I only know 10% of their lives or that 90% is hidden from me.
That's how it goes in the Beloved Community of God. Sharing things in common, gathering regularly, singing, praying, spending time together, working on justice issues together... we know one another well.
Is it POSSIBLE that some of my beloved lesbian grandmothers I'm citing have secret lives of evil? Well... I guess. It's just so highly unlikely. Is it possible they're being false in their concern for the poor and least of these? No. Not any more than it's possible that my wife or my godly conservative parents had a hidden secret life.
Living in joyful, love-filled, grace-filled Christian community is SO much more life-affirming than the deadly legalism religions.
Do you not have friends or family that you know this well?
I am saying that the human heart is deceitful above all else
I get that you want to take THAT passage from the Bible literally (sort of, but undefined...) but not take literally the "created a little lower than God..." sorts of passages, but is it possible that you're projecting? Is it the case that YOUR heart is deceitful above all else and so you're assuming that everyone else is equally deceitful?
I wish you'd come visit my church sometime. You'd love to meet the saints gathered there, genuinely good people living genuinely lovely, loving lives. I pray that you can find that community in yourself and in your own life.
are you suggesting that somehow it's impossible or unlikely that lesbian grandmothers would be as sweet and hard-working for justice and kindness as straight grannies?"
No, I'm suggesting that it's irrelevant.
WHY?
WHY is it irrelevant? If the question is: There are good, loving straight grandfather/grandmothers out there pouring out their lives in love and service to others - saints like Lillian and Jimmy Carter - AND there are good, loving lesbian grandmothers out there pouring out their lives in love and service to others and IN THEIR LIVES, they are good, moral people living as Jesus taught in service to the least of these and the beloved community?
HOW is that irrelevant?
I'm not asking if EVERYONE is so saintly (gay or straight). Of course, they're not. I'm simply asking you if you can acknowledge that there are saintly people out there like this - gay and straight?
It's not irrelevant, it's a reasonable question.
DO such people exist in your life, yes or no? Lord, I hope so. And unlike you and your need to attack and demonize me, I believe that YOU, Craig, are probably someone like this.
I'm not saying you are perfect or that we have perfect people in our lives. I'm just noting the reality that there are observably GOOD people, pouring out their lives in service to others. And in their lives, we have no reason to suspect that they're secretly acting out perverse, oppressive actions against others like so many conservative preachers and politicians (and some liberal folks, as well, of course) have done (or, in the case of Trump, NOT so secretly acted out his perversions).
I don't primarily categorize people by who they have sex with, and for the most part don't pry into people's sex lives. I know lots of people, and wouldn't claim that I know or care that much about who they sleep with. Of course, this is still irrelevant.
? WHY? You keep saying "irrelevant..." HOW are these questions irrelevant? Because you've declared them to be? Irrelevant to WHO? Irrelevant to WHAT conversation? I think you're taking part in a separate conversation than I am, because it IS a relevant question for MY part in the conversation.
I suspect you're thinking (you tell me) that "Dan is trying to get me to acknowledge good lesbian grandmothers in an effort to say that ALL LGBTQ folks are good people..." But that's not my question, nor is it my point.
Also, I'm not asking you to "primarily categorize" people by their orientation. BUT, if YOU and your awkward, legalistic co-hort are going to insist that all LGBTQ folks are evil, grievously sinful, rejecting God (as certainly Marshal and Glenn do, and you continue to hint at it), then it's an apt question to get you to consider the good, loving Christian lesbians (or LGBTQ folks) you know... or to admit that you don't know any. That's fine if you don't to admit as much, as an option. But then, you'd be admitting you're talking trash about people you don't even know.
Now answer the questions.
The reality is that you can't prove this claim, and you just admitted that you used a composite of multiple other people to describe these "two" people.
Unfortunately, in our world, LGBTQ people have to keep a bit of secrecy and privacy out of fear of conservatives attacking them directly, and so, I described REAL PEOPLE living REAL LIVES of love and service, I just mixed the specifics. I do so as a way to protect innocent people from being attack by conservatives like you all.
It's a shame that we have to protect our LGBTQ folks this way, but this is the world you've made for them. (And I as well, once upon a time).
It doesn't take away the reality of the scenarios or the truthfulness of the situations.
Consider two people.
Person 1 has adopted three girls, has lived as a social worker helping find housing for veterans and women with addictions, has been a Sunday School teacher for 3/4th of her life, has been involved in girl scouts and nature programs and community gardening, etc, etc.
Person 2 has no children but has been a teacher deliberately in struggling schools with a majority of the children who are below the poverty line. They have worked to welcome immigrants to the US, find homes and jobs for them, has played piano and organ for her church most of her life, has been part of a board to promote Black Lives Matter in the face of real harm to black neighbors, has led her church and the youth of the church in art programs, etc, etc, etc.
If I describe people LIKE person 1 and person 2, describing a person who has adopted two children, has worked as a Chaplain for a non-profit working with homeless people, has played piano in her church all her life, who has been involved in tutoring homeless children, involved in BLM and community gardening, etc, etc... I'm describing REAL people.
The details may vary for privacy's sake, but the factual point is, there are real people out there like that, with no great scandal in their life (well, except for the "scandal" of being lesbian or being a black feminist or being a single mom adopting children who needed homes... the sorts of things that white conservative churches have often found "scandalous...") who are genuinely pouring out their lives in love and service and that, over years and decades of a well-lived life.
Do you really think the details matter? If she/they adopted two children not three? That she was a chaplain, not a social worker? HOW?
Scandalon, by Michael Card:
https://youtu.be/uaVTcVNQxms
Dan simply wants to market these lesbians as holy angels so as to imply their lesbian ways are of no significance. But they're of great significance given the unassailable sinfulness of their sexual lifestyle (unless Dan can confirm they've not so much as held each other's hand as a woman would with a man...which would simply make them roommates), their ostensibly pro-lesbian attitudes and position and of course the fact that it is absolute rebellion against God.
I would add that even Christ spoke of even sinners doing nice things (loving those who love them). He never so much as hinted it made them good people instead of the sinners He called them. Rejecting God's Will to appease one's immoral cravings cannot be mitigated by doing good works.
And to be absolutely clear, I'm not referring to occasionally succumbing to temptations or backsliding. This is a case of two women who willingly defy God's Will and likely pretend they don't believe they are because...you know..."we love each other. How could it be wrong?"
"NO EXTRAPOLATION. I'm talking about ANY GAY OR LESBIAN couple that YOU, CRAIG, may know who are living lives of love and service. IN THAT EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE YOU PERSONALLY KNOW IN YOUR OWN LIFE (understand), if they are living out lives of love and service, do YOU, CRAIG, have any reason to suspect that this couple that YOU, CRAIG know personally are secretly living lives of evil? IN THAT ONE CASE."
I'm sorry for being confused. Is not the point of these "examples" not to buttress you claim that homosexuality is "natural", "normal", "blessed by god", "not bad", or good?
Of course, every one regardless of what particular sin they struggle with or who they sleep with can and does do things that other people see as good, loving, or serving. That goes without saying, which is probably why you feel compelled to say it repeatedly.
"So, you're pointing to ONE conservative fellow that many of you conservative fellows respected and because in his ONE life, engaged in abusive behavior... does that mean that you think that it's likely that MOST people (gay or straight) who appear morally upright are secretly evil?"
1. No, I pointed to one specific person who's public life was full of things that others admired, found worthy, and who did great things for YHWH's Kingdom.
2. His "conservatism" has no bearing on the example.
3. I'm saying that every single human being has two facets to their lives. The @10% that is visible to the public and is curated and managed to make a good impression, and the @90% that no one esle sees which presents a much less positive image.
"Does it mean that you think that ALL people (gay or straight) are secretly evil?"
I wouldn't use the term "evil" necessarily, I would say that "ALL people" are sinful, and we know how Jesus looks at sins that only take place in the mind. Are you suggesting that your public persona is 100% the same as your private persona, and that you don't regularly sin in ways that no one knows about?
"Where is the grace and goodwill that is part and parcel of Christianity?"
It's exactly where Scripture put it. In offering forgiveness for our sins. Jesus tells us that those who's sin is great (or who acknowledge the extent of their sin), love and forgive more because their forgiveness is greater than their sins. While those who don't think that they have sinned very much, demonstrate love and forgiveness commensurate with what they've received. I'm not sure what this "goodwill" is that you mention, but I'm so used to you using different terms on a random basis without explaining what you mean by them, that I'll ignore it.
"Again, IF that's the case you're making, do you see why it seems you live in a joyless world of deadly legalism that poisons the mind?"
No.
"Are you not willing to look at a Lillian and Jimmy Carter, a Billy Graham, a Corrie Ten Boom or Dorothy Day and say, "Yes, these were/are good people whose lives were shining examples of morality..."? Does your distrust and presumption of hidden evil not allow you to allow that there are genuinely good people pouring out their lives in service to others?"
Sure, but that doesn't mean that I (and they) can't or don't acknowledge their sin, and that their private lives likely look different than their public personas.
I see no reason to parse and respond to the self serving, false, attacks on myself and others.
Dan wrote You aren't God, Marshal, Glenn, Craig. I am NOT beholden to agree with you when I think you are clearly in the moral or reasonable wrong.
Well, I cited God, as well as science, in my comment on 4/28, 3:29 PM.
WE are in the moral and reasonable RIGHT!
You don't have to agree with us, but you thumb you nose at God.
1 John 4:
Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
No one has ever seen God; but
if we love one another,
God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
...And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love.
Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
Jesus, in John 13:
By this
everyone will know that you are my disciples,
if you love one another.”
1 John 3:
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray.
The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.
The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning...
This is how we know what love is:
Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.
And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.
If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but
has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?
Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.
Jesus, in Matthew 25...
“Then the King will say to those on his right,
‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat,
I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink,
I was a stranger and you invited me in,
I needed clothes and you clothed me,
I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him,
‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you,
or thirsty and give you something to drink?
When did we see you a stranger and invite you in,
or needing clothes and clothe you?
When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply,
‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these
brothers and sisters of mine,
you did for me.’
On and on, the Bible goes, confirming what good reasoning recognizes: That those who love and pour out their lives in love in service to others, starting with and especially the "least of these," ARE of God. Period. As Jesus noted (in response to his own followers when they were getting a bit legalistic-y and Pharisaical)...
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and
we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“DO NOT stop him,” Jesus said.
“For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment
say anything bad about me,
for whoever is not against us is for us.
Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name
because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.
But you can keep pretending that daring to genuinely disagree with you all IS sufficient to mean you're opposed to God. Ignore the evidence in front of your eyes. SUSPECT and join the accuser in suspecting bad motives of even clearly loving, good lives.
Just recognize which side you're on when you do so. Is it the Graceful, welcoming God or the accuser and enemy of humanity?
Is not the point of these "examples" not to buttress you claim that homosexuality is "natural", "normal", "blessed by god", "not bad", or good?
?? NO. That's NOT that point I'm making. I'm speaking of specific literal people who pour out their lives in love. WILL you accuse them of being of Beelzebub, as the Pharisees did of Jesus?
Homosexuals, like conservative Christians and heterosexuals CAN be bad people, too. Of course. But not because they're homosexual. That's the leap that the accusers and haters of humanity want to make. Which side are you on? Grace, welcome and love or legalism, suspicion and accusation?
I see no reason to parse and respond to the self serving, false, attacks on myself and others.
You keep saying, "Self-serving..." I have no idea what this means in this context. HOW is anything I'm saying serving my Self?
And I have no idea what "false attacks" you think I've made on you or others, but I would be willing to bet that you can't support either of these nonsense claims.
Of course, every one regardless of what particular sin they struggle with or who they sleep with can and does do things that other people see as good, loving, or serving.
Not that "other people see as good..." There are people who LIVE good lives. Why do you have such a hard time swallowing that pill? I'm not saying (and in case you didn't understand: I'M NOT SAYING, NEVER HAVE SAID, STILL AM NOT SAYING) that there are perfect people. I'm merely noting the reality of good people (who yes, still mess up, still sin in some degree or another) who live lives pouring out love and kindness in service to others. Some who are straight and conservative, some who are gay and lesbian.
WHY is it hard for you to simply acknowledge that?
I wouldn't use the term "evil" necessarily, I would say that "ALL people" are sinful, and we know how Jesus looks at sins that only take place in the mind.
Well, YOU may not call them evil, but Marshal sure does.
Marshal...
Their evil clearly is not secret. It's quite out in the open such that some jerk friend of theirs speaks of their private lives openly on a blog. That evil, of course, is their lesbianism.
Will you denounce this attack against actual good, loving people pouring out their lives in service to others?
And as always, you appear to read a WHOLE lot more into sinful than I do or reason dictates or that the Bible insists upon.
IF by saying that "all people are sinful," you mean that they're imperfect and make bad decisions and actions and thoughts that can cause some minor harm to others - they get angry and impatient and honk at an elderly driver who's moving too slow and they lie and say that the food was delicious when they thought it was awful, etc, etc... but NONE of this rises anywhere close to the notion of being evil. This is why I call it imperfect, in order to be precise with language and not paint a false and deviant picture of fellow humans.
Do you mean by "sinful" merely that they're imperfect or that it's something closer to evil?
Our words matter.
"Well, I don't know about you and your friends, but I am my friends, church, colleagues... we live close lives, we know each other quite well. We have deep conversations about our lives and struggles, joys and concerns. For my closest friends, it's not like I only know 10% of their lives or that 90% is hidden from me."
That's immaterial. The point is that you don't know 100% of your friends lives. What you do know, is likely curated to some degree or another. But hey, maybe y'all are just a small group of people who are just more intimate, less sinful, and 100% transparent about your flaws and sins. Who knows.
"That's how it goes in the Beloved Community of God. Sharing things in common, gathering regularly, singing, praying, spending time together, working on justice issues together... we know one another well."
Blah, blah, blah, Beloved Community, blah, blah, blah, look how special and wonderfully sin free we are. Self congratulatory, self serving, blather.
"Is it POSSIBLE that some of my beloved lesbian grandmothers I'm citing have secret lives of evil? Well... I guess. It's just so highly unlikely. Is it possible they're being false in their concern for the poor and least of these? No. Not any more than it's possible that my wife or my godly conservative parents had a hidden secret life."
Blah, blah, blah, misrepresentation, blah, blah, blah. Look how awesome I am at knowing these "composite" women so well.
"Living in joyful, love-filled, grace-filled Christian community is SO much more life-affirming than the deadly legalism religions."
More self congratulatory, self focused, look how wonderful we are and how miserable you are, bullshit.
"Do you not have friends or family that you know this well?"
Some. The reality is that until you know 100% of someone innermost thoughts, you have no idea of the totality of their character.
As usual, I think that you have convinced yourself that acknowledging the reality of not knowing a significant portion of someone is some kind of condemnation. It's not, it's just the way sinful humans are. But if you think that you have very little to be forgiven for and that your composite friends are that close to perfect, that's great. If you need that self esteem boost to get through your life, then you do you.
"I get that you want to take THAT passage from the Bible literally (sort of, but undefined...) but not take literally the "created a little lower than God..." sorts of passages, but is it possible that you're projecting?"
Given that I have no reason not to take that passage to mean what the actual words say, why would I choose to read some strange alternate meaning into it. Of course you've just chosen to assume that second part with zero basis to do so. As far as that verse, which you seem to be choosing to take in a woodenly literal manner, some questions.
1. Given that the Psalms are poetry, and full of figurative language, are you suggesting that the Psalms should all be taken in a woodenly literal manner?
2. Are you suggesting that you take the entirety of Psalm 8, in the same woodenly literal manner you choose to take verse 5?
3. Most translations say "lower than the angels", or "heavenly beings", while I see very few that say "lower than god". Why should anyone choose to take your woodenly literal interpretation of a minority view of the translation as woodenly literal as you do?
4. Why would there be a conflict in acknowledging that YHWH created humans "a little lower that" something, but that the introduction of sin into humanity significantly altered our relationship with and to YHWH?
"Is it the case that YOUR heart is deceitful above all else and so you're assuming that everyone else is equally deceitful?"
It's more like the statement is a universal statement that applies to everyone, and I am part of everyone. Are you saying that your heart is not deceitful above all else? Do you believe that there are exceptions to the statement?
"I wish you'd come visit my church sometime. You'd love to meet the saints gathered there, genuinely good people living genuinely lovely, loving lives. I pray that you can find that community in yourself and in your own life."
I'll pass. I've got so many churches that I am a part of, and where I have relationships with some great people, that I see no reason to spend time letting you try to convince me that y'all are better than everyone else. I've got plenty of great community in my life, I don't need a community that thinks so highly of itself. Humility is a good thing, you know.
I love this "secret lives of evil" crap! These lesbians aren't secret about their evil. They admit they're lesbians and presumably living as "spouses". It's difficult to believe two lesbians live together and never engage in the slightest displays of lustful attraction and desire. This would mean they're living lives of evil, since any behavior which God abhors enough to call detestable or abomination would qualify to any honest individual as "evil". And I most certainly have no problem using that word, as it is totally accurate for that which constitutes open and willful rebellion against God, which homosexual/lesbian behaviors and promotion is.
As to lying, which Dan does far more than jokers like him claim Trump ever did, and about the same amount as a typical Democrat, pretending the "difference of opinion" tactic makes one's falsehoods something other than lies is itself a lie. Dan lies about his positions, lies about no evidence or facts existing to contradict his positions, rejects all evidence and facts which contradicts his positions as "hunches" or "human traditions" without providing any honesty counter facts or evidence....it goes on and one and it all boils down to willful, intentionally lying he portrays as equally valid opposing opinion.
He's certainly lied about any or all of us being racist, homophobic, misogynistic haters and such, never once providing anything in support of it except to lie about our comments suggesting any of those allegations.
Oh, he's a liar, alright. Through and through. He's lies about the quality of "research" or "experts" which push the false narratives he favors. He disparages those who see the reality of the activism inherent in his crappy "research" and "experts" and lies about our motivations.
However, what all this does is show that we've likely got a very good indication there's nothing hidden from us regarding Dan's evil. He's quite open about it.
I wouldn't visit Dan's church without a vomit bag. But then, I feel badly believing they'd all compel puking based on what we know about Dan. They might actually be normal people, despite their abiding in progressive fake Christianity.
"WHY?"
"WHY is it irrelevant?"
Because the whole extrapolation of this composite of this small sample size is based 100% on your perceptions, filtered through your biases, and communicated in ways that you think make your point. In other words, you have forfeited any trust that I might have once had in you, and I feel confident that you are not communicating a 100% accurate picture. I'm not upset that you are doing this, it's perfectly normal to cast people and things that are important to you or that you like in ways that are positive. However, following your example I see no reason to believe you without proof. Following some wise words from the past, "Trust by verify.".
"If the question is: There are good, loving straight grandfather/grandmothers out there pouring out their lives in love and service to others - saints like Lillian and Jimmy Carter - AND there are good, loving lesbian grandmothers out there pouring out their lives in love and service to others and IN THEIR LIVES, they are good, moral people living as Jesus taught in service to the least of these and the beloved community?"
that's not my question, that's your question. It's pretty clearly formulated to get the response that you want to get. It's also predicted on your perceptions and you accurately (100%) describing everything about all of your claims.
"HOW is that irrelevant?"
Because you can't take a small sample size, offer "Because I said so." as your only proof, and extrapolate your conclusions out to the rest of the world. You seem to forget why you brought this "example" up in the first place. You were trying to support your large scale claims about homosexuals. If you want to make these unsupported claims about how spectacularly wonderful and sin free these people are, go right ahead. Just don't try to extrapolate out from your small sample size.
"I'm not asking if EVERYONE is so saintly (gay or straight). Of course, they're not. I'm simply asking you if you can acknowledge that there are saintly people out there like this - gay and straight?"
WHY?
WHY is it irrelevant? If the question is: There are good, loving straight grandfather/grandmothers out there pouring out their lives in love and service to others - saints like Lillian and Jimmy Carter - AND there are good, loving lesbian grandmothers out there pouring out their lives in love and service to others and IN THEIR LIVES, they are good, moral people living as Jesus taught in service to the least of these and the beloved community?
HOW is that irrelevant?
"I'm not asking if EVERYONE is so saintly (gay or straight). Of course, they're not. I'm simply asking you if you can acknowledge that there are saintly people out there like this - gay and straight?"
The existence of some people who meet your subjective definition of "saintly" based on your criteria of the good works that they do for the correct people, is irrelevant. But I'm sure there are people who meet your subjective definition of "saintly", and who do enough of the correct good works, for the right people.
"It's not irrelevant, it's a reasonable question."
"Because I say so." isn't the objective standard for anything.
"DO such people exist in your life, yes or no?"
Yes, plenty of people in my life likely meet your subjective definition of "saintly" and do the correct good works for the correct groups of people.
"Lord, I hope so. And unlike you and your need to attack and demonize me, I believe that YOU, Craig, are probably someone like this."
This persecution complex you have is concerning. I haven't attacked or demonized you once. Although, you don't shy away from attacking or demonizing on occasion.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Dan wants to pass judgement of the people who meet his subjective criteria for "saintly" because they do the right good works for the right people.
Jesus- "No one is good, except for God."
Dan- "No, these people are good and saintly, just ask me and I'll tell you."
I'm not sure who has more credibility.
"? WHY? You keep saying "irrelevant..." HOW are these questions irrelevant? Because you've declared them to be? Irrelevant to WHO? Irrelevant to WHAT conversation? I think you're taking part in a separate conversation than I am, because it IS a relevant question for MY part in the conversation."
Because it's irrelevant to me,, and absolutely nothing else, it's even less relevant.
"I suspect you're thinking (you tell me) that "Dan is trying to get me to acknowledge good lesbian grandmothers in an effort to say that ALL LGBTQ folks are good people..." But that's not my question, nor is it my point."
Given your insistence that homosexuality is "natural" "normal" "not bad/good" and "blessed by god", that seems reasonable. Unless you've somehow magically stopped trying to buttress your arguments about the wonders of homosexuality. It'd be better if you told me, because you're the one who keeps dragging things off onto these diversions.
"Also, I'm not asking you to "primarily categorize" people by their orientation. BUT, if YOU and your awkward, legalistic co-hort are going to insist that all LGBTQ folks are evil, grievously sinful, rejecting God (as certainly Marshal and Glenn do, and you continue to hint at it), then it's an apt question to get you to consider the good, loving Christian lesbians (or LGBTQ folks) you know... or to admit that you don't know any. That's fine if you don't to admit as much, as an option. But then, you'd be admitting you're talking trash about people you don't even know."
I'm not wasting time with the above self serving, misrepresenting, pile of steaming dung. The point is and always has been that "All have sinned.", which would seem to include homosexuals. The fact that y'all keep making everything about homosexuals, means that there is a disproportionate amount of time on the topic. This post has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, saintly homosexuals, or any of the rest of the crap you've thrown at the walls. It's about the potential of ALL binary distinctions being discarded because people are trying to discard a binary distinction solidly grounded in biology, genetics, reality, and history. The rest is just you blathering.
Now answer the questions.
FYI, you're welcome. I've allowed your random off topic blather. I've responded to it, answered virtually all of your questions, haven't deleted one comment (including your vile, hateful, graceless attack on my deceased mother). I know that this sort of freedom on a blog might be foreign to how you run your blog, but again, you're welcome.
"Unfortunately, in our world, LGBTQ people have to keep a bit of secrecy and privacy out of fear of conservatives attacking them directly, and so, I described REAL PEOPLE living REAL LIVES of love and service, I just mixed the specifics. I do so as a way to protect innocent people from being attack by conservatives like you all."
Well done. Excuses wrapped in a subtle attack.
"It's a shame that we have to protect our LGBTQ folks this way, but this is the world you've made for them. (And I as well, once upon a time)."
We add to the excuses and attack, some lies.
"It doesn't take away the reality of the scenarios or the truthfulness of the situations."
No. What it does is to give control of the entire narrative to the one who is telling the anecdotes, and provide excuses for the lack of proof, verification, or accuracy. It puts the weight entirely on the trustworthiness of the anecdote teller. Unfortunately, I have no reason to trust you.
"Consider two people."
No thanks. I've had enough of you and your unverifiable, unpronounceable, anecdotes about people you claim exist, then admit are composites.
"Person 1 has adopted three girls, has lived as a social worker helping find housing for veterans and women with addictions, has been a Sunday School teacher for 3/4th of her life, has "
Person 2 has no children but has been a teacher deliberately in struggling schools with a majority of the children who are below the poverty line. They have worked to welcome immigrants to the US, find homes and jobs for them, has played piano and organ for her church most of her life, has been part of a board to promote Black Lives Matter in the face of real harm to black neighbors, has led her church and the youth of the church in art programs, etc, etc, etc."
"If I describe people LIKE person 1 and person 2, describing a person who has adopted two children, has worked as a Chaplain for a non-profit working with homeless people, has played piano in her church all her life, who has been involved in tutoring homeless children, involved in BLM and community gardening, etc, etc... I'm describing REAL people."
I don't care. You can cherry pick all you want, leave out the negative aspects of people, or whatever. The reality is that you have no way to know these "people" to 100% completeness and accuracy. You are not with them all the time. The fact that they do some good works that you think are the right good works for the right people, means nothing as long as your only proof is "Because I say so.".
"The details may vary for privacy's sake, but the factual point is, there are real people out there like that, with no great scandal in their life (well, except for the "scandal" of being lesbian or being a black feminist or being a single mom adopting children who needed homes... the sorts of things that white conservative churches have often found "scandalous...") who are genuinely pouring out their lives in love and service and that, over years and decades of a well-lived life.", you
Awesome, the "details" are not really 100% accurate, but "Because I say so.", and because you can conjure up some theoretical danger to justify your making up or altering details, you think you should get a pass from proving your claims as you demand that others do.
"Do you really think the details matter? If she/they adopted two children not three? That she was a chaplain, not a social worker? HOW?"
If you are basing your conclusions on those details, then of course they matter. But if you think making up details in your anecdotes and expecting "Because I say so." to prove something, you clearly seem to have problems.
Scandalon, by Michael Card:
https://youtu.be/uaVTcVNQxms
We add to the excuses and attack, some lies.
You say "subtle attack" I note the reality of it all. LGBTQ folks DO live in a justified fear because of conservatives like you and how I once was. Noting reality is not an "attack," it's noting reality.
You say, "Lies..." and I say Bullshit. And "Where?"
If you can't point to a single false claim I've made and made intentionally, then your claim of a "lie," is, itself, an actual lie.
What it does is to give control of the entire narrative to the one who is telling the anecdotes, and provide excuses for the lack of proof, verification, or accuracy.
I'm asking YOU about YOUR LGBTQ friends and family. People who you apparently don't trust or believe to be living genuine lives of love any more than you trust your conservative friends and your own self, apparently.
As to your reference to Jeremiah's "The heart is deceitful above all things..." that is in a passage speaking of rich oppressors and those who trust in such rich oppressors. In THAT context, God is criticizing those who trust such people...
“I the Lord search the heart
and examine the mind,
to reward each person according to their conduct,
according to what their deeds deserve.”
Like a partridge that hatches eggs it did not lay
are those who gain riches by unjust means.
When their lives are half gone, their riches will desert them,
and in the end they will prove to be fools."
Don't trust in humans, but in God, this is the message of the passage, but it's specifically counting the rich oppressors - those who tended to be listened to and lifted up - that we shouldn't trust. Indeed, God acknowledges that there are some who are doing good, as well as the rich oppressors and others who do evil.
So, the question is: Are you identifying with the oppressors or the oppressed? The good people (who exist if you take this passage literally) or the evil ones?
The reality is that you have no way to know these "people" to 100% completeness and accuracy. You are not with them all the time.
But the Bible - and common sense and good moral reasoning - ultimately disagree with your human cynicism. "YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR LOVE." "WHAT YOU DO FOR THE LEAST, YOU DO FOR ME." These are visible, "knowable" actions, knowable people.
Just as you and I have no way of objectively "proving" morality, nor can we objectively 100% know people. BUT, we can reasonably know them by their actions, according to the Bible and to reason and just common sense.
Jimmy and Lillian ARE good, giving people walking in the steps of Jesus. My friends ARE good, giving people pouring out their lives in service to others.
Your cynicism and the outright hatred of LGBTQ people by folks like Marshal and Glenn are irrational and unbiblical.
Get on the right side of decency and kindness, Craig. Save yourself.
But then, perhaps your heart truly IS deceitful above all things.
The hearts of my wife, my friends, my pastor and church friends? Not so much, IF you're trying to define that as "Everyone is absolutely evil and can't be trusted..." If you mean we're merely imperfect, well, of course. But what of it?
"Our terrorist enemies hate homosexuals MORE THAN WE DO..." said a "progressive-"minded conservative Florida GOP representative recently. Well, gee, boys, thank you for not hating LGBTQ folks as much as terrorists do!
That your religious extremist homophobic is not as bad as other religious extremists is NOT a rational or moral or biblical defense, fyi.
"They will know we are of Christ by our LOVE," not by our "We hate them less..."
I don't care. You can cherry pick all you want, leave out the negative aspects of people, or whatever. The reality is that you have no way to know these "people" to 100% completeness and accuracy. You are not with them all the time.
No, but I'm with them a good deal of the time and I - unlike you, apparently - have NO reason to think they're not the giving, loving, serving people they appear to be.
Do you really think that two 75+ lesbian grandmothers who have helped and served and given, given, given... REALLY are likely to be something they appear not to be on the face of it? OF COURSE, they could secretly be child-eaters/cannibals... but do you think it's LIKELY?
If so, WHY are you so graceless in guessing the worst in people who, by all appearances, are good, loving, giving people? (and again, forget my specific examples, let's consider two similar lesbian or gay folk in YOUR experience).
Your cynicism is irrational, given reality and shit.
Awesome, the "details" are not really 100% accurate
The details that they are giving, loving, pouring out their lives in service to othersis literally 100% accurate. That I say "social worker" when they were a "chaplain" doesn't change that reality, doesn't mean a damned thing, rationally, honestly speaking.
It might matter to a legalist who insists upon legalism as an answer, but not to rational, normal people in the real world.
leave out the negative aspects of people, or whatever.
WHAT "negative" aspects of people? That they aren't perfect? I haven't left that out. "THEY ARE NOT PERFECT." Of course, none of us are. But that doesn't change the reality that they spend their days sending cards or visiting the sick, that they spend their days attending to the needs of their grandchild with a disability, that they spend their days in prayer on behalf of their sick and disabled and other friends, that they spend their days taking care of and lending support to their spouse who is doing the same... THESE are the reality of their lives that anyone can see.
Now you may guess that they might secretly be eating puppies doesn't mean a single damned thing. Do you understand that?
Craig...
because you can conjure up some theoretical danger
It's not theoretical. There are REAL dangers and REAL oppression of LGBTQ folks in our history and in our current reality. That you don't understand or admit that only underscores the danger.
LGBTQ folks are killing themselves at high rates BECAUSE (according to them) the oppression of people like you and me, once upon a time.
In 2017, suicide rates were declining in response to more acceptance of their humanity.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/same-sex-marriage-fewer-youth-suicide
Currently, in states with more acceptance of LGBTQ folks, rates declined.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliecoleman/2022/06/23/youth-suicide-attempts-dropped-in-states-with-lgbtq-hate-crime-laws-study-finds/?sh=7ae60b271f7f
But in states where haters and homophobes are passing hateful, oppressive laws...
But in states where the conservatives are enacting homophobic, anti-LGBTQ laws, rates are increasing...
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3892732-concerns-rise-over-suicide-rates-of-black-transgender-and-nonbinary-youth/
I'm not asking you to do anything but pay attention to the data.
Since I believe that Dan looks at finding out of context proof texts that superficially appear to make his point, and since Dan seems to believe that he has some sort of "right understanding", I'm just going to let his out of context proof texts stand as a monument to his ability to work Bible Gateway search, and to selectively choose a few texts to proof text. I can't believe that he actually would take these texts, in contexts, in a woodenly literal fashion, so I see no reason to dignify this with a response.
"But you can keep pretending that daring to genuinely disagree with you all IS sufficient to mean you're opposed to God. Ignore the evidence in front of your eyes. SUSPECT and join the accuser in suspecting bad motives of even clearly loving, good lives."
Since this is simply something you've made up out of thin air in order to accuse us falsely of something we've never said, I guess we can chalk this up to one more "attack lie" on your part.
"Just recognize which side you're on when you do so. Is it the Graceful, welcoming God or the accuser and enemy of humanity?"
How interesting, you've just taken two attributes of YHWH, judgement and mercy and tried to separate them. I guess the problem is that you expect people to agree with your hunches of be wrong.
"?? NO. That's NOT that point I'm making."
Then what, pray tell, is the point you are making? Why, in the middle of a discussion that you've taken off topic onto whether or not homosexuality is "natural", "normal", "not bad/good", would you offer an example intended to demonstrate a completely different point than the main thrust of your diversion from the topic of the post. Please enlighten me as to what important lesson is to be learned from you giving made up examples of people who in your personal opinion find "saintly"? Why belabor the good works that they do? Why belabor the fact that they're gay? Why belabor and repeat this whole pointless, irrelevant, pile of excrement over and over again? Please enlighten me.
"I'm speaking of specific literal people who pour out their lives in love. WILL you accuse them of being of Beelzebub, as the Pharisees did of Jesus?"
Now you're equating them to Jesus, that's a bold move. Of course, you have to keep making this idiotic bullshit up and pretending as if it actually represents reality.
"Homosexuals, like conservative Christians and heterosexuals CAN be bad people, too. Of course. But not because they're homosexual. That's the leap that the accusers and haters of humanity want to make. Which side are you on? Grace, welcome and love or legalism, suspicion and accusation?"
I'm on the side that acknowledges the true extent of our sinful nature, and on the side that after doing so is proportionately grateful for the fact that YHWH chooses to show grace to those who He chooses.
It's funny. Dan throws out a few proof texts and either would argue one of two things.
1. He accepts some portion of these texts in a woodenly literal way and filters it through his personal hunches about what Jesus taught.
2. He really doesn't believe that any of these proof texts should be taken literally in any way shape or form. He just thinks that if he throws a few out of context, proof texts out that he's magically won the argument.
It would be relatively easy to provide some additional texts that would add context to these proof texts, or that would call Dan's hunches about the meaning of these proof texts and his wooden literal interpretation into question. Although doing so would likely result inn Dan's default response to scriptural support from anyone but him, "It's figurative language." or "It needs to be "rightly understood" and you don't. Or some such nonsense. Therefore, why waste my time.
"You keep saying, "Self-serving..." I have no idea what this means in this context. HOW is anything I'm saying serving my Self?"
You're offering your hunches, and "Because I say so." as if they prove that the anecdotes you are telling are actually True. You ground everything in yourself, and therefore must keep coming up with arguments that serve your reliance on yourself.
"And I have no idea what "false attacks" you think I've made on you or others, but I would be willing to bet that you can't support either of these nonsense claims."
In any case where I've pointed out your false attacks or falsehoods, I have done so in close proximity to the quote of your falsehoods or false attacks. I'm sorry if you are unable to make those connections, but in the future you can know that the falsehood will be quoted right before I point it out. But your insistence that you don't, won't, can't, never lie doesn't really help you in the least.
Of course, every one regardless of what particular sin they struggle with or who they sleep with can and does do things that other people see as good, loving, or serving.
Not that "other people see as good..." There are people who LIVE good lives. Why do you have such a hard time swallowing that pill? I'm not saying (and in case you didn't understand: I'M NOT SAYING, NEVER HAVE SAID, STILL AM NOT SAYING) that there are perfect people. I'm merely noting the reality of good people (who yes, still mess up, still sin in some degree or another) who live lives pouring out love and kindness in service to others. Some who are straight and conservative, some who are gay and lesbian. WHY is it hard for you to simply acknowledge that?"
Acknowledge what? That you have offered un provable, unsupported, undocumented, claims about people based solely on your personal observation of a limited portion of their lives, and heavily weighted toward a recitation of their good deeds. It's not hard to acknowledge that reality at all. What's strange is that you refuse to acknowledge that your edited, incomplete, composite, details changed, verbal pictures of these people are not 100% perfectly accurate just "Because I say so". That you seem unable to grasp that "Because I say so." is not sufficient proof to blindly accept your anecdotes as The Truth. That you are so narcissistic and conceited to think that "Because I say so." adequately meets even a minimum burden of proof, boggles the mind. Especially in light of your incessant demands that everyone else must prove everything they say, while you expect to not have to live up to that standard. FYI, I've answered your question, I'm not doing so again.
"You say "subtle attack" I note the reality of it all."
No, subtle attack seems right on the mark.
"LGBTQ folks DO live in a justified fear because of conservatives like you and how I once was. Noting reality is not an "attack," it's noting reality."
This is an interesting claim. It's clearly not True as it's phrased. So, either you provide proof that you have a complete 100% understanding of exactly how I am, then provide specific examples of specific LGBTQXWZPDQ folks who have been specifically harmed because of someone 100% exactly "like" me, or you admit that the above statement is a lie. Your choice.
"You say, "Lies..." and I say Bullshit. And "Where?""
I already addressed this.
"If you can't point to a single false claim I've made and made intentionally, then your claim of a "lie," is, itself, an actual lie."
This is absolutely amazing. You virtually acknowledge that you've made "false claims", then hide behind the "you can't prove intent" shield. I'll note that when you prate on about all of the good works all of your anecdotal composites do, you also cannot prove motive or intent either. But, and this is where you get really creative, you do not allow me the same escape hatch you allow for yourself, and in doing so act is if it's impossible for me to prove your intent, but that you are comfortable making claims about my intent which you can't prove.
It's the same old double standard we know and love. Your lies are "mistakes" everyone else's mistakes are "lies".
The utter dishonesty that pervades this comment is staggering. It appears that you are so committed to this scorched earth attack on anyone who disagrees with you or expects you to prove the things you say, to such an extreme level that you are so graceless, uncharitable, and two faced to this extreme.
FYI, the vile, hate filled, nasty, graceless, comment you made about my deceased mother was most definitely 100% false and appeared to be anything but an innocent "mistake". Unless you are using some AI program and want to blame that, or claim that it was a typo.
"I'm asking YOU about YOUR LGBTQ friends and family. People who you apparently don't trust or believe to be living genuine lives of love any more than you trust your conservative friends and your own self, apparently."
Please continue to repeat this irrelevant, off topic, pointless question that I've already answered, a few more times.
Then what, pray tell, is the point you are making?
HERE is the context in which I raised the point of lesbian grandmothers (in another post, which you moved over to here)...
And I'm NOT saying homosexuality is good because it's natural. I'm noting that it's simply a natural sexual orientation, an orientation common to humanity throughout history, demonstrably. Just like heterosexuality is natural and common to humanity.
With me so far?
NOW, from that, someone can choose to engage in harmful/hateful or beautiful/loving behavior with their natural orientation. A straight guy could choose to rape a woman and that would NOT be moral or good or normal to humanity or advisable for humans. On the other hand, a straight or gay guy (or woman) could choose to love and respect and commit to a loved one in a committed relationship. In the context of that committed, loving relationship, they could choose to have children, to be good neighbors, to love one another (emotionally and physically) and otherwise be good people and benefit from that committed partner relationship and we have NO reason to think that this is anything other than the moral and rational Good that it appears to be on the face of it.
I can point you to two loving grandmotherly lesbians, living and loving together, teaching Sunday School, volunteering in their retirement years to help the homeless, the mentally ill, the poor and being nurtured and supported in doing this beautiful, Christ-like work by virtue of their committed, loving partner, just as many of us straight couples enjoy and are healthier and happier for.
Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario?
Understand? YOU were suggesting that I was merely saying that homosexuality is good because it's natural (which it is). I made abundantly clear that this is NOT what I was saying. Thus, I was addressing YOUR misunderstanding/false claim that YOU brought up, not me. This is resulting from YOUR misunderstandings and false claims that I sought to clarify/explain.
I further clarified that, from that point, one could (whether gay or straight, liberal or conservative, engage in good behavior or bad behavior.
Again, WITH ME?
Continuing...
Craig...
Why, in the middle of a discussion that you've taken off topic onto whether or not homosexuality is "natural", "normal", "not bad/good", would you offer an example intended to demonstrate a completely different point than the main thrust of your diversion from the topic of the post.
Demonstrating that whether gay or straight, liberal or conservative, one could engage in good behavior or bad behavior.
With me so far?
Craig...
Please enlighten me as to what important lesson is to be learned from you giving made up examples of people who in your personal opinion find "saintly"?
I am noting the reality of loving Godly lesbian folk who, just like SOME straight and conservative folk, live lives of good and pouring out their lives in service to others.
With me so far?
Why belabor the good works that they do? Why belabor the fact that they're gay?
Because you and your comrades belabor the FALSE point that BECAUSE they are gay/lesbian, they are evil or sinners... as opposed to beloved saints part of God's beloved community.
With me so far?
Why belabor and repeat this whole pointless, irrelevant, pile of excrement over and over again? Please enlighten me.
Because the reality of Godly, loving, decent, wonderful people - gay or straight - who pour out their lives in service to others, in loving God and loving the least of these as demonstrated by their actions on behalf of the least of these is NOT excrement in ANY sense. Indeed, it is Godly, biblicaly, divine, loving, beautiful and THOSE who attack it or minimize it are engaging in ugly, anti-Grace, anti-Christ attacks against the beloved of God.
With me so far?
I don't know how to make it more clear.
Which side will you join with? Those who are pouring out their lives in love to God and the least of these? OR on the side of the graceless Accuser of humanity who kills with legalism and hatred, rather than welcoming with inclusion, grace and love.
NOW do you understand?
This is an interesting claim. It's clearly not True as it's phrased.
Bullshit. As a point of fact, I'm hearing this first hand from LGBTQ people. Do you seriously doubt it? The onslaught of anti-LGBTQ legislation is relatively fresh, so that surveys have not yet been conducted. But do you seriously doubt it?
If so, that just demonstrates that you're not listening to LGBTQ people right now in the real world. It demonstrates how COMPLETELY you are divorced from the real world conversations happening in LGBTQ circles.
Tell me true: When was the last time you had a conversation with even ONE LGBTQ person about the recent onslaught of anti-LGBTQ legislation? When was the last rally you attended where these concerns were raised? Have you had even ONE genuine conversation about this?
Because I can tell you factually, demonstrably, I've heard MANY such conversations happening. I've been to the rallies, I've talked with multiple, many folks individually, I've read the stories from LGBTQ folks directly.
Have you?
So, either you provide proof that you have a complete 100% understanding of exactly how I am, then provide specific examples of specific LGBTQXWZPDQ folks who have been specifically harmed because of someone 100% exactly "like" me
It's not necessary to say I have 100% understanding of how you are. YOU have called homosexuality in practice an evil. Right? YOU have NOT stood in opposition to the anti-LGBTQ laws being put in place by GOP/conservatives, right? You are not speaking out on your blog against these laws. Period. Anyone can see this. YOU are mocking LGBTQ folks by adding the multiple initials ("LGBTQXWZPDQ" - THIS is an attack against LGBTQ folks, by mocking them, by suggesting their concerns are imaginary and unlimited... YOU, Craig, hurt people with such childish mocking. DO YOU UNDERSTAND that reality? Do you doubt that LGBTQ folk would find that condescending and to be an attack against them? If so, then that just shows how divorced from reality you are.)
I personally HEAR from LGBTQ folks talking about their concerns about people like you causing them harm. People like you mocking them with the "LGBTQXWZPDQ" attack. People like you remaining silent as the GOP enacts laws that cause REAL harm, real life and death harm to LGBTQ people.
Where do you get your data from? Fellow homophobic conservatives who speak hatefully about LGBTQ people? People who call them evil for loving their spouse?
To hell with the harm and oppression you and your ilk are causing. Repent, son. Save your soul.
You know what's funny? I also hear from LGBTQ folks who defend you, saying people like you are just ignorant and not really meaning to cause the harm that you're causing. THEY believe in you and your ability to be better.
Will you live up to their faith in you?
You virtually acknowledge that you've made "false claims", then hide behind the "you can't prove intent" shield.
I've made NO FALSE claims in this conversation. NOT ONE. I literally do NOT "acknowledge" I've made false claims, virtually or otherwise. Quite the opposite.
YOU are making a false claim when you say I have. YOU can't support your bullshit attacks. You don't even try, SHOWING that you can't point to ONE single place where I've made a false claim.
People can see. Open your eyes so that YOU can see.
he vile, hate filled, nasty, graceless, comment you made about my deceased mother was most definitely 100% false and appeared to be anything but an innocent "mistake".
I LITERALLY do not believe your mother to be a female dog. The claim is stupid on the face of it. OF COURSE, I don't believe your mother to be a female dog. YOU are a human. I was NOT speaking in ANY sense about your mother. Only a fool would think so. I was speaking of how YOU were making ASS-ish false claims (and I don't believe you to be a literal mule, either, before you make another stupidly false claim).
you also cannot prove motive or intent either. But, and this is where you get really creative, you do not allow me the same escape hatch you allow for yourself, and in doing so act is if it's impossible for me to prove your intent, but that you are comfortable making claims about my intent which you can't prove.
What claims about your "intent" have I made? Are you speaking about where I said that I'm sure that you are a decent person trying to do right, and that you are NOT deliberately trying to do evil?
I think that trying to shove the full spectrum of sin into a little box labeled "imperfect", significantly understates the problem of sin.
But then, I have not done this. You understand that, right? I have not said that Hitler or Trump are merely "imperfect..." and that their actions aren't evil, right?
Why not deal with what I HAVE actually said, not your fevered, irrational misrepresentation of what I haven't said? Is it the case that you truly can't read my words and understand what I am and am not actually saying?
Do you truly think that I have said that Hitler was merely "imperfect..." and a little flawed? (HINT: I have never said this. Ever.)
Please continue to repeat this irrelevant, off topic, pointless question that I've already answered, a few more times.
Your answer, then, was (eventually, after many repetitions of missing the point I was making/question I was asking):
Of course, every one regardless of what particular sin they struggle with or who they sleep with can and does do things that other people see as good, loving, or serving. That goes without saying, which is probably why you feel compelled to say it repeatedly.
You've ADDRESSED the question I asked ONE time that I can find. In that non-answer, you said that all have sinned even those who "do things that other people see as good...", which was never in question. The question - that REMAINS UNANSWERED - is, do you have ANY reason to suspect that the lesbian grandmothers YOU personally know who are pouring out their lives in service to others... do you have ANY data-based reason to guess that they're actually quite evil, rather than good and loving, as the known data shows?
How hard is it for you to directly answer even just ONE relatively easy question?
All these keystrokes and the bottom line continues to be ignored. That would be, that Dan lists all these good works to overshadow the real and serious problem of the homosexual behaviors of those he defends. I can give props to homosexuals/lesbians for all manner of things. Ellen DeGeneres is (or at least was) extremely hilarious. Elton John is one of my favorite artists (his typical keys are right in my wheel house and I sing his stuff easily). A number of homosexuals commonly seen on FoxNews are pretty damned sharp (because they're conservatives). We can go on and list more specific good works from each and every one of them, while never ignoring things like cussing, mocking leftist politicians for their rank stupidity so common to them all, or any number of routine human failings. But what Dan wants to pretend is an insignificant factor is their homosexuality, their likely engagement in homosexual sexual behavior and their general promotion as homosexuality as "no big deal". This is the crux of the biscuit...as Frank Zappa would say. It's the thing which legitimately categorizes them as "evil" in ways their other human frailties don't so blatantly. Dan is purposely trying to overshadow this grave sinful behavior with a large a list of "good works" as he can muster. But it's a lie. To say it's only a difference of opinion is a lie. To suggest there is some Scriptural support for his contention that the large list of "good works" means that their willful engagement in abomination, and their willful promotion as that abomination as "no big deal" morally, is also a lie and impossible to support.
So, are we saying that these lesbos are to be destroyed? No. The thought never enters my mind about even asshole homosexuals and lesbians. The only point that matters is Dan is trying to pretend these people are still heaven bound despite their willful choosing of appeasing their lusts over the Will of God, which is not at all nor in any way a point which can be mistaken or merely a matter of personal opinion. It is without question serious sinfulness of a type that denies practitioners a chance at salvation. And this is not personal opinion on my part, mere "interpretation" of anything unclear or anything for which Scripture provides an out or a loophole which might give one pause on the question.
I have serious doubt that these homo/lez friends of Dan are "mistaken"...truly or possibly...but rather simply ignore what they know to be true in order to appease their lusts. This is far more an important aspect of their lives than any amount of "good works" can diminish if Dan's point is to convince us these folks are "godly" and true devotees of Christianity. True devotees do not consciously reject the Truth to appease their personal desires. And again, there's no being "mistaken" on this subject, no matter how desperately and badly Dan insists on pretending. (You see, he was never "like us" on this subject, just as he was never "conservative". He simply doesn't understand what that means, or is lying about that, too.)
So, let's take Dan's description of these "saints" and instead of acknowledging they're lesbians, let's replace that word with "hitmen" or "thieves"...people who consciously insist there's nothing wrong with being a paid killer or one who steals for profit. I have serious doubts that Dan would waste time on the same great list of "good works" these people perform and would instead focus on these obvious sins. If he could truly ignore murder and theft, it is then unsurprising he could ignore blatant sexual sin which God calls detestable and worthy of death. And Dan's entire argument toward that goal is just Dan lying as he does as routinely as he pretends Trump does.
Strangely enough, the Jeremiah passage b=never mentions wealth or the rich. I does talk about turning away from YHWH and following idols or false gods. Money certainly can be an idol or false god that turns us away from YHWH, but it's not the only one and doesn't seem to be mentioned in the passage.
"Don't trust in humans, but in God, this is the message of the passage, but it's specifically counting the rich oppressors - those who tended to be listened to and lifted up - that we shouldn't trust. Indeed, God acknowledges that there are some who are doing good, as well as the rich oppressors and others who do evil."
Of course, it never mentions "rich oppressors", but it does mention worshiping false gods. Strangely enough, when you talk about these "saintly" people, you always focus of them, and the good works they do, you never seem to actually focus on YHWH. The fact that you see "rich oppressors" hiding in virtually every passage of scripture is interesting.
"So, the question is: Are you identifying with the oppressors or the oppressed? The good people (who exist if you take this passage literally) or the evil ones?"
No, that's not the question, it's not even an on topic question, or a worthwhile question. I don't identify with humans, I identify with YHWH.
"But the Bible - and common sense and good moral reasoning - ultimately disagree with your human cynicism. "YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR LOVE." "WHAT YOU DO FOR THE LEAST, YOU DO FOR ME." These are visible, "knowable" actions, knowable people."
Of course this doesn't address the reality that you do not know these people 100%, you only see part of them and what they do, you don't see their intent, motivation, thoughts, or anything like that.
"Just as you and I have no way of objectively "proving" morality, nor can we objectively 100% know people. BUT, we can reasonably know them by their actions, according to the Bible and to reason and just common sense."
At least you admit that you can't know people 100%. If you want to put your faith in your Reason, you do you.
"Jimmy and Lillian ARE good, giving people walking in the steps of Jesus. My friends ARE good, giving people pouring out their lives in service to others."
I'm sure you believe this to be the case. Unfortunately I have absolutely nothing that would allow me to make any sort of judgement or draw any sort of conclusions about these people.
"Your cynicism and the outright hatred of LGBTQ people by folks like Marshal and Glenn are irrational and unbiblical."
Another lie ("outright hatred").
"Get on the right side of decency and kindness, Craig. Save yourself."
As if you know with 100% certainty that the "right side of decency" is the one that you choose. Of course you look to humans to save themselves.
"But then, perhaps your heart truly IS deceitful above all things."
I'm under no illusions about the deceitfulness of my heart. If it helps your self esteem to believe that you and your friends are the exceptions to the "deceitful heart" thing, then you go ahead and put your trust in that.
"The hearts of my wife, my friends, my pastor and church friends? Not so much, IF you're trying to define that as "Everyone is absolutely evil and can't be trusted..." If you mean we're merely imperfect, well, of course. But what of it?"
that's quite a claim, alas it's one more that you make but can't prove.
"That your religious extremist homophobic is not as bad as other religious extremists is NOT a rational or moral or biblical defense, fyi."
Once again (I know this is hard for you to comprehend) just because YOU choose to try to lump me in with some random guy who said something outrageous, it doesn't mean that I am somehow responsible for or agree with the outrageous statement. How about if you stop this idiotic tactic.
"No, but I'm with them a good deal of the time and I - unlike you, apparently - have NO reason to think they're not the giving, loving, serving people they appear to be."
Unfortunately I have absolutely ZERO information from which I can draw ANY conclusions, so I simply don't draw any conclusions. It's always nice to see you putting your trust and faith in your human abilities.
"Do you really think that two 75+ lesbian grandmothers who have helped and served and given, given, given... REALLY are likely to be something they appear not to be on the face of it? OF COURSE, they could secretly be child-eaters/cannibals... but do you think it's LIKELY?"
Given the reality that I have ZERO information from which I can draw any sort of reasonable conclusion, I only have one course available to me. That course is to draw no conclusions. "Because I say so.", isn't proof.
"If so, WHY are you so graceless in guessing the worst in people who, by all appearances, are good, loving, giving people? (and again, forget my specific examples, let's consider two similar lesbian or gay folk in YOUR experience)."
Again, I'm not making any guesses about these people, I have ZERO information from which to draw conclusions, therefore I simply draw no conclusions.
"Your cynicism is irrational, given reality and shit."
I'm not sure what you think makes your hunches so perfectly correct, but unfortunately for you there is no cynicism here.
"The details that they are giving, loving, pouring out their lives in service to othersis literally 100% accurate. That I say "social worker" when they were a "chaplain" doesn't change that reality, doesn't mean a damned thing, rationally, honestly speaking."
Gotcha, I understand that in your world I'm supposed to blindly accept everything you say regardless of the fact that you admit falsifying details.
"It might matter to a legalist who insists upon legalism as an answer, but not to rational, normal people in the real world."
More like, it just continues to reinforce my conclusion that I have absolutely zero reason to trust you. "Because I say so.", isn't proof.
"WHAT "negative" aspects of people? That they aren't perfect? I haven't left that out. "THEY ARE NOT PERFECT." Of course, none of us are. But that doesn't change the reality that they spend their days sending cards or visiting the sick, that they spend their days attending to the needs of their grandchild with a disability, that they spend their days in prayer on behalf of their sick and disabled and other friends, that they spend their days taking care of and lending support to their spouse who is doing the same... THESE are the reality of their lives that anyone can see."
thank you for admitting that they do have negative aspects, and that you are choosing to ignore or minimize those aspects.
"Now you may guess that they might secretly be eating puppies doesn't mean a single damned thing. Do you understand that?"
Now you may decide to make shit up and attribute it to me, I choose not to do so. Do you understand that? You do realize that "eating puppies" isn't objectively wrong, immoral, or sinful, don't you?
t's not theoretical. There are REAL dangers and REAL oppression of LGBTQ folks in our history and in our current reality. That you don't understand or admit that only underscores the danger.
LGBTQ folks are killing themselves at high rates BECAUSE (according to them) the oppression of people like you and me, once upon a time.
In 2017, suicide rates were declining in response to more acceptance of their humanity.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/same-sex-marriage-fewer-youth-suicide
Currently, in states with more acceptance of LGBTQ folks, rates declined.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliecoleman/2022/06/23/youth-suicide-attempts-dropped-in-states-with-lgbtq-hate-crime-laws-study-finds/?sh=7ae60b271f7f
But in states where haters and homophobes are passing hateful, oppressive laws...
But in states where the conservatives are enacting homophobic, anti-LGBTQ laws, rates are increasing...
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3892732-concerns-rise-over-suicide-rates-of-black-transgender-and-nonbinary-youth/
I'm not asking you to do anything but pay attention to the data.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. You literally accused me specifically on putting specific LGBTQXYZPDQ people in specific danger, your "proof" of this is some links to random incidents. I'm shocked,
that LGBTQXYZPDQ folks are victims of crime just like every other demographic group of people in the world.
"Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario?"
So, you start with claiming that you ant not saying that homosexuality is "good" because it's "natural", then you end by giving me an anecdote about some composite people who you claim are "beautiful, moral, people". But somehow you point wasn't that these "beautiful, moral people" support your claims about homosexuality. Gotcha.
"Understand? YOU were suggesting that I was merely saying that homosexuality is good because it's natural (which it is). I made abundantly clear that this is NOT what I was saying. Thus, I was addressing YOUR misunderstanding/false claim that YOU brought up, not me. This is resulting from YOUR misunderstandings and false claims that I sought to clarify/explain."
I apologize, but the above seems contradictory. But I do understand your narcissistic need to always blame others for any failures of understanding. The burden of perfect communication must be difficult to bear.
If being "natural", and "not bad" doesn't mean that homosexuality is "good", then what does it mean? Where does homosexuality fit on the continuum between moral and immoral? If homosexuality isn't "good", then why does god "bless" it?
"I further clarified that, from that point, one could (whether gay or straight, liberal or conservative, engage in good behavior or bad behavior."
Thanks for stating the obvious, and saying something that goes without saying.
"Again, WITH ME?"
Other than your apparent contradiction, and not having the answers to the questions I asked.
thank you for admitting that they do have negative aspects, and that you are choosing to ignore or minimize those aspects.
Good God in heaven, you are graceless thug. I'm not ignoring it and never have. And the reality is that THEIR LIVES show that they've minimized the negative aspects. That of God in them is overwhelming that of selfish humanity.
In some of these specific cases, some of their "negative aspects" might include... well, I'd be hard pressed to find any. These are genuinely good, caring, giving people. I guess I've seen them lose patience sometimes (resulting in an eye roll - EVIL!! - or a sigh - THE HORROR!!). They may have forgotten something and assumed it was the other person who forgot to tell them. You know, "depravities" like those. I was NEVER TRYING to tell you everything they've done in their lives. You know why? Because, in addition to being impossible to do, it would be senseless to try.
The point was NEVER "Here is someone and every action and thought they've done in their lives. Some were bad and most were good." It's a given that humans are imperfect. That goes without saying.
But in the cases of these dear saints I'm speaking of, those imperfections are minor and basic. With NO great evils like theft or rape or murder or abuse or genocide or support of genocide or mass murder or kidnapping or cheating workers out of money owed to them.
And in addition to the minor peccadilloes, they also have this deep, wondrous history in the real world of pouring out their lives in service to others. They are/were teachers, social workers, librarians, park rangers, preachers, mental health workers, etc, etc... who devoted their careers to helping people and the world. And in addition to that, in their "off hours," they were adopting children or helping raise grandchildren or tutoring homeless children, working in their gardens or working in community gardens (or starting a community garden in a poor area of town), or participating in a CSA, or being Sunday School teachers, adopting homeless pets, building Habitat homes, etc, etc.
What is it that you think they are doing in their very busy, very full lives of service that deserves criticism? WHY not just allow, "Yes, we do have these sorts of saints in our lives thank God! And yes, some of them are gay or lesbian or transgender, thank God for their lives of love, too!"
Jesus and others in the Bible note that we'll KNOW they are followers of God by their love, by their beautiful lives of service especially for the least of these.
I suspect THAT is why you're reluctant to just thank God for these sorts of saints... because of the "oh... but some are GAY.... Wellll, that undoes the saints part." Is that it? EVEN WHEN someone is clearly known by their love, in your mind, that's not a sign of being a follower of Jesus because (shh... they're gay... maybe they're having gay sex with their partner and think it's okay, EVEN WHEN I have told them it's not okay).
Is that it?
"I am noting the reality of loving Godly lesbian folk who, just like SOME straight and conservative folk, live lives of good and pouring out their lives in service to others."
Anecdotes with no proof, falsified details, and nothing but "Because I say so." aren't necessarily "reality".
"With me so far?"
Yes, you have been very clear that you are placing a great deal of faith in your powers of observation of a very small sample size, and attempting to use that subjective observation to bolster your hunches.
"Because you and your comrades belabor the FALSE point that BECAUSE they are gay/lesbian, they are evil or sinners... as opposed to beloved saints part of God's beloved community."
Interesting that you feel the need to lie about something, as a way to complain about lies.
1. "All have sinned" and homosexuals are part of "all", are they not?
2. Are you claiming that you have the ability to determine who are "saints" and who are not?
3. Are you claiming that the good works that these people do are what makes them "saints"?
"With me so far?"
still don't understand how this diversion is on topic.
"Because the reality of Godly, loving, decent, wonderful people - gay or straight - who pour out their lives in service to others, in loving God and loving the least of these as demonstrated by their actions on behalf of the least of these is NOT excrement in ANY sense. Indeed, it is Godly, biblicaly, divine, loving, beautiful and THOSE who attack it or minimize it are engaging in ugly, anti-Grace, anti-Christ attacks against the beloved of God."
Gotcha. It's all about people doing good works for the right groups of people.
"With me so far?"
Other than wondering why you think that simply repeating the same unproven claims over and over somehow will magically make unclear things clear.
"I don't know how to make it more clear."
Of course you don't. Perfect clarity in communicating your hunches must be quite the burden when dealing with those of us are unable to understand your wisdom.
'Which side will you join with? Those who are pouring out their lives in love to God and the least of these? OR on the side of the graceless Accuser of humanity who kills with legalism and hatred, rather than welcoming with inclusion, grace and love."
I do my best to be on the side of YHWH. To identify where He is moving and trying to do what I can to further His plans and purposes. I don't place my faith in people.
"NOW do you understand?"
Sure, I understand that you'll simply repeat yourself and expect "Because I say so." to act as proof.
If being "natural", and "not bad" doesn't mean that homosexuality is "good", then what does it mean? Where does homosexuality fit on the continuum between moral and immoral? If homosexuality isn't "good", then why does god "bless" it?
Sexual orientation is nothing but a trait. Like being left-handed or right-handed. There's nothing innately good or bad about you being a heterosexual or Ralph being a homosexual.
So homosexuality/heterosexuality does not exist ANYWHERE on "continuum between moral and immoral."
Our natural orientation, our being gifted by God with sexuality, the GIFT of God is good. Do you disagree?
And it's reasonable to believe that a good God does bless that which is good. Do you disagree?
But the thug who uses their sexuality and power to rape someone (gay or straight), that is NOT good, is NOT blessed by God.
But the saints who enjoy their God-given sexuality in the context of loving, committed relationships, of course, that's good. Do you have ANY rational reason to think otherwise? I GET that you interpret some verses in the Bible to conclude, "Well... when GAY guys enjoy their God-given sexuality, THAT isn't good, because there's a line in the Bible that says (I, CRAIG, think) that God hates gay sex. You know the one right there next to where it says we should kill the gay sex people." And yet, you don't take the "let's kill them" part literally, but you interpret the other part to mean ALL instances of gay sex.
Is that correct?
But set aside your personal biblical opinions, beyond that, do you have any RATIONAL reason to suspect that a loving God would oppose gay folks enjoying their sexuality in a healthy loving relationship?
Interesting that you feel the need to lie about something, as a way to complain about lies.
You continue to make vague accusations of me "lying about something" without every pointing out WHERE THE LIE IS.
Vague, pointless and unsupported claims about "lies" are lies, themselves.
I do my best to be on the side of YHWH. To identify where He is moving and trying to do what I can to further His plans and purposes. I don't place my faith in people.
I get that you don't place faith in people. That's part of the ugly, graceless legalism of the Pharisees that continues to harsh your mellow.
Good for you trying to be on the side of God. Now, stop trying. Just do it.
GOD has said that God is creating a beloved community. Here. Now.
"THY KINGDOM COME ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN."
"What you PEOPLE do for the least of these, YOU PEOPLE do for me."
"YOU PEOPLE were created to do GOOD WORKS in Christ."
"You will know THESE PEOPLE are followers of Christ by THEIR LOVE, by THEIR HUMAN LIVES poured out in love."
"Do not forsake the regular gathering of THESE PEOPLE."
We are to unite with and support and share our lives with this beloved community, being their family, for we are ALL part of the body of Christ. You know this. And yet, you're going to have a helluva time doing so with your graceless rejection of people/your refusal to put your faith in them. THEY ARE the Body of Christ, my man. IF you don't trust the BODY OF CHRIST, then are you even trusting CHRIST?
Do you see the problem with this grace-less path?
1. "All have sinned" and homosexuals are part of "all", are they not?
Yup.
2. Are you claiming that you have the ability to determine who are "saints" and who are not?
Yup. Me, Jesus, the Biblical authors, common sense, basic reasoning... we ALL have the ability to recognize the saints. Do you not have that ability? What a pity. I suspect that's a common trait for the Pharisees, as well.
3. Are you claiming that the good works that these people do are what makes them "saints"?
Yup. Simple as that. The saints are those who are set apart (holy) to pour out their lives in love to humanity and to the world, to God's good creation. To be a bit more specific, the saints are those who follow the Way of Grace taught by Jesus and, as Jesus makes clear, those who follow him are the ones who do for the least of these, the ones who love. By this, WE CAN KNOW they are the saints. Biblically speaking.
Are you claiming that the good works of good people are NOT what make them saints?
Here's what one Psalmist had to say about the saints...
I said to the Lord, “You are my Lord;
I have nothing good besides You.”
As for the saints who are on the earth,
They are the majestic ones;
all my delight is in them.
Psalm 16
The Psalmist there delights in those human saints. While it appears that you distrust them, don't place any faith in them, question whether or not they are ACTUALLY saints. Is that what you're trying to do?
Craig said, I think trying to mock me...
Gotcha. It's all about people doing good works for the right groups of people.
To be clear, it's all about grace and the love of God. AND that love of God leads us to preach and live out good news to the poor, to side with the least of these (to Jesus), to live lives of love, being kind to others and acting for justice on behalf of the oppressed.
Do you disagree with this? Were you finally agreeing with me or was that more of an attempt to mock me for... trying to follow Jesus' way of Grace?
"Bullshit. As a point of fact, I'm hearing this first hand from LGBTQ people. Do you seriously doubt it? The onslaught of anti-LGBTQ legislation is relatively fresh, so that surveys have not yet been conducted. But do you seriously doubt it?"
I doubt that your "because I say so." is objective proof of anything.
"If so, that just demonstrates that you're not listening to LGBTQ people right now in the real world. It demonstrates how COMPLETELY you are divorced from the real world conversations happening in LGBTQ circles."
This is quite a claim, with absolutely zero proof. But what hubris, if I don't hear the same things you claim you hear, and if I don't react the way you think I should, then you have carte blanche to jump to all sorts of conclusions about me.
"Tell me true: When was the last time you had a conversation with even ONE LGBTQ person about the recent onslaught of anti-LGBTQ legislation? When was the last rally you attended where these concerns were raised? Have you had even ONE genuine conversation about this?"
I have regular conversations with various LGBTQXYZPDQ folks and have never once had any of them complain of feeling this fear that you talk about. We've talked about all sorts of other stuff, but this has never been brought up.
"Because I can tell you factually, demonstrably, I've heard MANY such conversations happening. I've been to the rallies, I've talked with multiple, many folks individually, I've read the stories from LGBTQ folks directly."
"Because I say so." is not proof. The fact that you've had some conversations, doesn't mean that you can extrapolate your observations based on a small sample size out beyond your small circle.
"Have you?"
See above.
As a point of fact, I'm hearing this first hand from LGBTQ people. Do you seriously doubt it? The onslaught of anti-LGBTQ legislation is relatively fresh, so that surveys have not yet been conducted. But do you seriously doubt it?"
I doubt that your "because I say so." is objective proof of anything.
I think that YOU think that this qualifies as an answer, but it's not. I'm not asking you a damned thing about what you think about "because I say so." You're answering a different question.
Same for nearly everyone one of your responses. These aren't answers, they're dodges. In this case, I'm asking if you seriously doubt that there are many in the LGBTQ community (and their allies) who report living in fear or anger about the recent spate of anti-LGBTQ laws?
"It's not necessary to say I have 100% understanding of how you are. YOU have called homosexuality in practice an evil. Right?"
Wrong.
"YOU have NOT stood in opposition to the anti-LGBTQ laws being put in place by GOP/conservatives, right?"
I stand in opposition to any laws that are unjust.
"You are not speaking out on your blog against these laws. Period."
Strange that you revert to this double standard so reflexively and likely don't even think about holding others to standards you don't hold yourself to.
"Anyone can see this. YOU are mocking LGBTQ folks by adding the multiple initials ("LGBTQXWZPDQ" - THIS is an attack against LGBTQ folks, by mocking them, by suggesting their concerns are imaginary and unlimited..."
No, that's not what I'm doing. I'm mocking folx like you who keep adding letters to the magical acronym.
"YOU, Craig, hurt people with such childish mocking. DO YOU UNDERSTAND that reality? Do you doubt that LGBTQ folk would find that condescending and to be an attack against them? If so, then that just shows how divorced from reality you are.)"
Again these accusations with no proof. "Because I say so." is not proof.
"I personally HEAR from LGBTQ folks talking about their concerns about people like you causing them harm. People like you mocking them with the "LGBTQXWZPDQ" attack. People like you remaining silent as the GOP enacts laws that cause REAL harm, real life and death harm to LGBTQ people.'
"Because I say so." isn't proof.
"Where do you get your data from? Fellow homophobic conservatives who speak hatefully about LGBTQ people? People who call them evil for loving their spouse?"
As if getting your data from pro LGBTQXYZPDQ organization is somehow better. As a general rule I look for data across a wide variety of sources without regard to the slant of bias of those sources.
"To hell with the harm and oppression you and your ilk are causing. Repent, son. Save your soul."
Once again, the notion that the salvation of my soul depends on my doing the actions that you think I should do. I see no reason to put my trust of faith in your hunches about what might save my soul.
"You know what's funny? I also hear from LGBTQ folks who defend you, saying people like you are just ignorant and not really meaning to cause the harm that you're causing. THEY believe in you and your ability to be better."
You know what's really funny? That you think that "Because I say so." is proof of something.
"Will you live up to their faith in you?"
If anyone is putting faith in me, they'll likely be disappointment. I'm a limited, fallible, sinful, imperfect human being saved by the grace of YHWH, through the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
"I've made NO FALSE claims in this conversation. NOT ONE. I literally do NOT "acknowledge" I've made false claims, virtually or otherwise. Quite the opposite.
YOU are making a false claim when you say I have. YOU can't support your bullshit attacks. You don't even try, SHOWING that you can't point to ONE single place where I've made a false claim.
People can see. Open your eyes so that YOU can see."
Once again, the use of the false claim to condemn others making false claims. This notion that you think so highly of yourself and your abilities would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.
"I LITERALLY do not believe your mother to be a female dog. The claim is stupid on the face of it. OF COURSE, I don't believe your mother to be a female dog. YOU are a human. I was NOT speaking in ANY sense about your mother. Only a fool would think so. I was speaking of how YOU were making ASS-ish false claims (and I don't believe you to be a literal mule, either, before you make another stupidly false claim)."
Yet, you still made the claim. Do you not understand that the term you used is a direct, specific attack on the mother of the person you apply the term to? Do you not understand that we have no control over who our mother is?
Your attempts to justify your vile, graceless, hate filled, claim actually is pretty funny. Your attempts at self justification, and your obsession with never being in the wrong are simply pathetic.
"What claims about your "intent" have I made? Are you speaking about where I said that I'm sure that you are a decent person trying to do right, and that you are NOT deliberately trying to do evil?"
Every time you accuse me of lying, or false witness, you are making a claim about my intent. You can't hide behind claiming that you lack intent, while insisting that others are lying.
"But then, I have not done this. You understand that, right?"
Not specifically. What you actually do is to only refer to sin in terms of it being a "mistake", being "imperfect". am "accident", or "missing the mark". I've never seen you refer to sin in any other way. Certainly never as a choice, or to deliberately disobey YHWH. SO, it's simply following your examples to their logical conclusion. You seem very certain that you can define "minor" sins, yet you've never referred to "major" sins or discussed what those might be.
"I have not said that Hitler or Trump are merely "imperfect..." and that their actions aren't evil, right?"
Again, I've never heard you refer to sin in any other way than the terms I quoted above.
"Why not deal with what I HAVE actually said, not your fevered, irrational misrepresentation of what I haven't said? Is it the case that you truly can't read my words and understand what I am and am not actually saying?"
Why would you hold me to a standard you don't hold yourself to? I simply take your words, and apply them, sometimes I'll follow the principles you espouse to their logical conclusions. It is reasonable to consider what you don't say along with what you do.
"Do you truly think that I have said that Hitler was merely "imperfect..." and a little flawed? (HINT: I have never said this. Ever.)"
Again, not specifically. What you have said is describing sin is that you believe that sin= "imperfect", a "mistake", an :accident", or "missing the mark". You sometimes refer to something being "evil", yet have never connected being "evil" with being "sinful".
"The question - that REMAINS UNANSWERED - is, do you have ANY reason to suspect that the lesbian grandmothers YOU personally know who are pouring out their lives in service to others... do you have ANY data-based reason to guess that they're actually quite evil, rather than good and loving, as the known data shows?"
It's always amusing when you claim that something is "The question", then ask a different question.
The answer is that I have ZERO empirical data on which to base any conclusion. "Because I said so." is NOT proof, nor even empirical data. It is impossible to draw a reasonable conclusion based on ZERO actual provable, empirical date.
"How hard is it for you to directly answer even just ONE relatively easy question?"
Given that I regularly answer ONE question multiple times in a direct fashion, it should be obvious that it's not difficult. The problem is that I don't give you the answer you want, and I don't consider "Because I say so." to be a valid basis to draw conclusions.
"Good God in heaven, you are graceless thug. I'm not ignoring it and never have. And the reality is that THEIR LIVES show that they've minimized the negative aspects. That of God in them is overwhelming that of selfish humanity."
Coming from someone who raises gracelessness to such a high level, that's pretty amusing. Strange that "not ignoring" means that you only mention those things you believe to be good works to the right groups of people, and never acknowledge the reality that your paragons have faults and sins.
"In some of these specific cases, some of their "negative aspects" might include... well, I'd be hard pressed to find any. These are genuinely good, caring, giving people. I guess I've seen them lose patience sometimes (resulting in an eye roll - EVIL!! - or a sigh - THE HORROR!!). They may have forgotten something and assumed it was the other person who forgot to tell them. You know, "depravities" like those. I was NEVER TRYING to tell you everything they've done in their lives. You know why? Because, in addition to being impossible to do, it would be senseless to try."
But that's the point, isn't it. You were never trying to mention everything, you were trying to only mention the things that you believe buttress the point your were trying to make. You were cherry picking certain aspects of the good works these people do, in an attempt to paint in incomplete and inaccurate picture of those you've elevated to "saint" hood.
"The point was NEVER "Here is someone and every action and thought they've done in their lives. Some were bad and most were good." It's a given that humans are imperfect. That goes without saying."
Again, yes. The point seems to be to beatify these people while not mentioning their "imperfections' or anything that would interfere with your beatification.
"But in the cases of these dear saints I'm speaking of, those imperfections are minor and basic. With NO great evils like theft or rape or murder or abuse or genocide or support of genocide or mass murder or kidnapping or cheating workers out of money owed to them."
Really, you are saying that you have exhaustive knowledge of their "imperfection" (I'll note you didn't use the term sins), that you can categorically state withe 100% accuracy that their only "imperfections" are "minor". One more claim you can't prove. "Because I say so." isn't proof.
"And in addition to the minor peccadilloes, they also have this deep, wondrous history in the real world of pouring out their lives in service to others. They are/were teachers, social workers, librarians, park rangers, preachers, mental health workers, etc, etc... who devoted their careers to helping people and the world. And in addition to that, in their "off hours," they were adopting children or helping raise grandchildren or tutoring homeless children, working in their gardens or working in community gardens (or starting a community garden in a poor area of town), or participating in a CSA, or being Sunday School teachers, adopting homeless pets, building Habitat homes, etc, etc."
No, the is no reason to suspect that you are minimizing or ignoring these "minor" "peccadilloes" (sins) instead of going on at lengths about the good works you believe qualify them for sainthood.
"What is it that you think they are doing in their very busy, very full lives of service that deserves criticism? WHY not just allow, "Yes, we do have these sorts of saints in our lives thank God! And yes, some of them are gay or lesbian or transgender, thank God for their lives of love, too!""
Again, I have absolutely ZERO data with which to draw any conclusions. None. Given the fact that Jesus was clear that sins of thought, are equal to sins of action, I find it hard to believe that these people have never been angry with someone or looked at someone else with lust. But I'm willing to see your proof.
"Jesus and others in the Bible note that we'll KNOW they are followers of God by their love, by their beautiful lives of service especially for the least of these."
Yes He does, yet he also tells us that many people who do good works, or who call Him "lord" will find out that He will not admit to knowing them. He also taught that "no one is good" except for "God". This is what happens when you focus on one out of context, proof text, as the only support for your hunches despite the existence of other things that don't your woodenly literal, simplistic hunches.
"I suspect THAT is why you're reluctant to just thank God for these sorts of saints... because of the "oh... but some are GAY.... Wellll, that undoes the saints part." Is that it? EVEN WHEN someone is clearly known by their love, in your mind, that's not a sign of being a follower of Jesus because (shh... they're gay... maybe they're having gay sex with their partner and think it's okay, EVEN WHEN I have told them it's not okay). Is that it?"
Any time you start a thought with "I suspect THAT...", you could save everyone from wasting time if you'd just hit backspace and move on.
The biggest problem with this is the fact that all you've offered is "Because I say so.", as proof of your claims. In general, but especially in your case, "Because I say so." is not proof.
"Sexual orientation is nothing but a trait. Like being left-handed or right-handed. There's nothing innately good or bad about you being a heterosexual or Ralph being a homosexual."
So, are you claiming that any and all sexual orientation are inherently morally neutral? Are you claiming that the behavior that one's orientation is therefore always morally neutral, or is that behavior morally good?
"Our natural orientation, our being gifted by God with sexuality, the GIFT of God is good. Do you disagree?"
Are you saying that homosexuality specifically is a "GIFT from God" and as such is automatically "good"? Are you saying that the sexual behavior that comes from one's sexual orientation is automatically a "GIFT from God", and therefore "good"? I personally haven't seen any indication that homosexuality is a "GIFT from God" and is therefore automatically "good". But as usual, you're welcome to offer proof of your claim beyond "Because I say so.".
"And it's reasonable to believe that a good God does bless that which is good. Do you disagree?"
Yes, I'd agree that YHWH blessed that which He finds good, and that which furthers His plans and purposes, and which brings Him glory.
But the thug who uses their sexuality and power to rape someone (gay or straight), that is NOT good, is NOT blessed by God.
"But the saints who enjoy their God-given sexuality in the context of loving, committed relationships, of course, that's good. Do you have ANY rational reason to think otherwise"
Are you really saying that a behavior that would be otherwise sinful is magically turned into good based only on the type of relationship? Are you saying that this is True of all sexual orientations?
"I GET that you interpret some verses in the Bible to conclude, "Well... when GAY guys enjoy their God-given sexuality, THAT isn't good, because there's a line in the Bible that says (I, CRAIG, think) that God hates gay sex. You know the one right there next to where it says we should kill the gay sex people." And yet, you don't take the "let's kill them" part literally, but you interpret the other part to mean ALL instances of gay sex. Is that correct?"
Not exactly, it's a pretty simplistic and unsupported bunch of hunches. Of course, you can't provide even ONE iota of scriptural support for your hunch that specifically, unequivocally, and directly supports your hunch.
"But set aside your personal biblical opinions, beyond that, do you have any RATIONAL reason to suspect that a loving God would oppose gay folks enjoying their sexuality in a healthy loving relationship"?"
Yes.
Medical experts have determined that regular anal sex is harmful for those that participate in it.
"You continue to make vague accusations of me "lying about something" without every pointing out WHERE THE LIE IS."
Then your ability to read is faulty.
"Vague, pointless and unsupported claims about "lies" are lies, themselves."
Yet these sorts of claims are your stick in trade.
"I get that you don't place faith in people. That's part of the ugly, graceless legalism of the Pharisees that continues to harsh your mellow."
If you say so.
"GOD has said that God is creating a beloved community. Here. Now."
No, YHWH has said that He is implementing His Kingdom, nowhere is the term "Beloved community" used in scripture. The problem is that this "Beloved community" hinges on what YOU think it means, on what YOU think is more important, on good works done by YOU, on alleviating some material suffering without even mentioning any spiritual change.
"THY KINGDOM COME ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN."
"What you PEOPLE do for the least of these, YOU PEOPLE do for me."
"YOU PEOPLE were created to do GOOD WORKS in Christ."
"You will know THESE PEOPLE are followers of Christ by THEIR LOVE, by THEIR HUMAN LIVES poured out in love."
"Do not forsake the regular gathering of THESE PEOPLE."
More out of context, proof texts, strung together in an attempt to pretend that this is some sort of coherent theology formed out of conformity to your hunches.
"We are to unite with and support and share our lives with this beloved community, being their family, for we are ALL part of the body of Christ. You know this. And yet, you're going to have a helluva time doing so with your graceless rejection of people/your refusal to put your faith in them. THEY ARE the Body of Christ, my man. IF you don't trust the BODY OF CHRIST, then are you even trusting CHRIST?"
Obviously trusting Christ based solely on the trustworthiness of imperfect, fallible, sinful, "humans would be insane.
"Do you see the problem with this grace-less path?"
Yes, I see multiple problems of your graceless hunches about how people are beatified based on the good works they do.
"Are you claiming that the good works of good people are NOT what make them saints?"
Yup.
Actually I'm claiming that scripture does not teach that salvation comes as a result of good works.
"To be clear, it's all about grace and the love of God."
Then why do you spend comment after comment repeating your claims about how these people's good works beatify them, and zero comments about the grace and love of YHWH?
"AND that love of God leads us to preach and live out good news to the poor, to side with the least of these (to Jesus), to live lives of love, being kind to others and acting for justice on behalf of the oppressed."
Yes, that's what I said. That you believe that good works are for certain groups of people for those good works to be efficacious.
"Do you disagree with this? Were you finally agreeing with me or was that more of an attempt to mock me for... trying to follow Jesus' way of Grace?"
Yes, I disagree with your hunches. Yes, I did paraphrase what appears to be your "theology" (I know, it's not "theology" since it's focused on human good works, not on YHWH), in a sarcastic, humorous, hyperbolic, exaggerated way.
"Sexual orientation is nothing but a trait. Like being left-handed or right-handed. There's nothing innately good or bad about you being a heterosexual or Ralph being a homosexual."
God calls it an abomination, biology says it's harmful.
Being a homosexual is biologically bad for the body, and it is immoral and an abomination according to God.
In reality you were asking me if I "doubt" what you are "hearing".
IN REALITY, that is NOT what I was asking you. I know what I'm asking, not you. Besides, that was not what my words were asking. As a reminder on how to, you know, understand words and shit, I had said:
"LGBTQ folks DO live in a justified fear because of conservatives like you and how I once was. Noting reality is not an "attack," it's noting reality."
YOU responded:
This is an interesting claim. It's clearly not True as it's phrased.
WHAT is not true as it's phrased? That LGBTQ folks are living in fear. THAT is the point in question, which you, for some reason, dismissed as "not True..." with NO support.
I responded:
As a point of fact, I'm hearing this first hand from LGBTQ people.
WHAT am I hearing first hand? That LGBTQ folks are living in fear because of these GOP attacks on LGBTQ folks (and be clear: THAT is how they're phrasing it.) The point REMAINING that LGBTQ folks are living in fear, NOT THAT I'M HEARING that. Continuing...
Do you seriously doubt it? The onslaught of anti-LGBTQ legislation is relatively fresh, so that surveys have not yet been conducted. But do you seriously doubt it?
Do you seriously doubt IT? What is the IT in question? The same thing I've been talking about - that LGBTQ folk are living in fear. The question was never "THIS IS WHAT I'M HEARING... DO YOU BELIEVE WHAT I'M HEARING?
And so again, I ask - given the reality that OF COURSE, LGBTQ folks and their allies are upset/angry/fearful about this onslaught of GOP attacks in legislatures. DO you seriously DOUBT that LGBTQ people are angry/fearful/upset about these restrictions on their liberties? That strains credulity. Do you live in a fantasy world where the majority (or even ONE) LGBTQ people are HAPPY with these GOP attacks on human rights/liberties?
Don't be an obtuse ass (and to be clear: That is NOT an insult on any donkeys in your life).
You are not this daft. Tell me you're just trying to yank my chains and that you aren't seriously having this hard of a time understanding words.
"GOD has said that God is creating a beloved community. Here. Now."
No, YHWH has said that He is implementing His Kingdom,
nowhere is the term "Beloved community" used in scripture.
As you should know by now, if you read my words and understand their meaning - if you read the words of others like Dr Martin Luther King and understand them - is the Beloved Community is just a synonym used by some to refer to the Biblical Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of heaven or the Church or the Body of Christ, or the Realm of God or Thy Will be Done on Earth, as it is in Heave.
Do you have a problem with synonyms? Do you fancy that it's un-Godly or sinful, even to use another word in place of Kingdom of God (which of course, is just the English translation of the Greek words used by Jesus ["Basileia tou Theou" I believe], not the literal words of Jesus)?
Did you somehow not know that was what I meant?
The problem is that this "Beloved community" hinges on what YOU think it means, on what YOU think is more important, on good works done by YOU, on alleviating some material suffering without even mentioning any spiritual change.
? Why? Why does it hinge on what I think? Says who? I've certainly never said that.
When King or I or others use the Beloved Community, we are speaking of precisely what we've been talking about here: The saints of God here, gathered, the body of Christ recognized by their embrace of God's grace and God's grace embrace of us. It is manifested in the love of the community (hence, literally, Beloved Community) as spoken of by Jesus, our Lord, pouring out our lives in love to one another, beginning with the least of these.
We who are Christians - who are followers of Christ and those embraced by his grace and embracing that grace in return - will be marked and recognized by that love and service. Thus, we are all saints, biblically speaking. It's just that some are better practiced at it than others. Some are clearly recognized as pouring out their lives in love because it's so visible.
How do you define saints?
"King saw the Beloved Community and the Kingdom of God as one and the same. The Kingdom of God is the spiritual rule and reign of God. It has implications not only for heaven, but here on earth. Jon Meacham, in his book His Truth Is Marching On (2020), noted that the Kingdom of
God is the place where Jesus has made love the mark of sovereignty. It is a society where women and men live as children of God should; where conflicts are resolved peacefully, and where poverty gives way to the sharing of resources from those who have an abundance. It is a place, as theologian Harvey Cox argues, where the biblical themes of "the blessed" intersect with the "holiness of the poor." The Beloved Community is a reality where not only are individuals transformed, but also society— including structures and systems that otherwise perpetuate societal wrongs. It has a palpable presence where goodness, which acclaimed poet Toni Morrison called a "quiet force," is more powerful than hatred or violence.
The Beloved Community is a concept nestled in the Scriptures, as modeled in the life of a 1st century prophet from Nazareth. King viewed Jesus as the zenith of moral expression in redemption, community, solidarity, mercy, and compassion—all key attributes of the Beloved Community."
https://www.dbu.edu/ige/resources/2021/01/the-beloved-community-the-martin-luther-king-jr-holiday-and-our-reality.html
"Love is creative and redemptive. Love builds up and unites; hate tears down and destroys. The aftermath of the ‘fight with fire’ method which you suggest is bitterness and chaos, the aftermath of the love method is reconciliation and creation of the beloved community. Physical force can repress, restrain, coerce, destroy, but it cannot create and organize anything permanent; only love can do that. Yes, love—which means understanding, creative, redemptive goodwill, even for one’s enemies—is the solution to the race problem."
Dr King
"But the end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the beloved community. It is this type of spirit and this type of love that can transform opposers into friends. The type of love that I stress here is not eros, a sort of esthetic or romantic love; not philia, a sort of reciprocal love between personal friends; but it is agape which is understanding goodwill for all men. It is an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return. It is the love of God working in the lives of men. This is the love that may well be the salvation of our civilization."
Dr King
https://www.wearethebelovedcommunity.org/bcquotes.html
"Are you claiming that the good works of good people are NOT what make them saints?"
Yup.
...Actually I'm claiming that scripture does not teach that salvation comes as a result of good works.
Ah, but that's a different question, isn't it? If you ask me that question, I'd also say (as I do endlessly) that we aren't saved by our good works... that the Bible does not say that salvation comes from good works. It would appear that you and I are agreement on that.
But that wasn't the question that was asked, was it?
Who do YOU think are saints and what makes them saints?
More out of context, proof texts, strung together in an attempt to pretend that this is some sort of coherent theology formed out of conformity to your hunches.
Prove it. What is out of context. It is a settled matter in most circles of Christianity, I believe, that Christians will be marked by/recognized by their love for others. And it is quite explicit biblically (even if not universally accepted in many evangelical circles - especially the more conservative ones) that love for the least of these, the poor and marginalized is likewise a sign of God's followers.
For Jesus tells us explicitly and directly in clear language that he came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized. Who are WE to preach some other gospel?
How is "They will be recognized by their love" an out of context, non-Christian belief? What religion are you following?
By this
everyone will know that you are my disciples,
if you love one another.”
For we are what God has made us,
created in Christ Jesus for good works,
which God prepared beforehand
so that we may walk in them.
""But the Bible - and common sense and good moral reasoning - ultimately disagree with your human cynicism. "YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR LOVE.""
Dan cites Matt 7:16/20 and perverts it to heap laudatory praise on his sexually perverse friends. But it's noteworthy that the entire piece, beginning with verse 15, speaks of Dan...that is, false prophets. He's dressing up his lesbians in sheep's clothing...the same style Dan wears...to portray them as devoted Christians. But their "fruit" includes their open rebellion against God, and we cannot pretend it doesn't provide a more accurate picture of what we "know" about them....and by extension, Dan. These are clearly and beyond question bad trees bearing bad fruit, and then saying it's delicious. So therefore, what follows beginning in v 21 is again applicable in reference to Dan and those who is trying to pretend are saintly despite their willful indulgence in sexual perversion.
"Just as you and I have no way of objectively "proving" morality, nor can we objectively 100% know people."
Some pretend they've "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture, insisting they're possessed of "God-given reasoning" functionally sound enough (and/or honest enough) to have drawn the many false positions they take. The rest of us who actually do study Scripture know, with a certainty of one truly convicted in the faith, we have all the proof for which anyone could ever ask within it. For Dan, ambiguity and uncertainty is essential for maintaining the ruse a lesbian couple can be "saintly" while living in open rebellion against God.
I don't think Craig has suggested anyone can know anyone 100%. Indeed, I'm absolutely certain his point is that we can't, and more precisely, that you can't, and thus your rosy portrayal of your lesbians fails to convince, even if you weren't the known liar you are. But even if we could produce someone who is familiar with you Jeff Streeters, particularly what a liar you are, a massive list of good works and self-sacrifice by your lesbians just can't overcome the "lesbian" part of the equation. Doing good works as if to legitimize bad works isn't a thing, no matter how hard you try to make it so.
"BUT, we can reasonably know them by their actions, according to the Bible and to reason and just common sense."
Clearly, Dan is only concerned about those actions of his lesbians with which he can defend their character in order to convince us of their "saintliness". The thing is, no one is dismissing their "good works" and I'll stick my neck out and insist I support even lesbians and other sexual perverts in engaging in "good works". But Dan seeks to dismiss the "sexual pervert" part as if their disordered lust for each other is neither immoral or perverse. It is both by definition. If Dan was the friend to these people as he wants to pretend he is, he wouldn't be enabling their lesbianism. I've stated more than once my discussion with a family member about his homosexual lifestyle (which took his life via AIDS). Never did I "disown" the guy because of his perverse lifestyle. But I did tell him the truth and unlike the pervs Dan knows, he didn't fall into a puddle of weeping and gnashing of the teeth as if a victim of "oppression". Perhaps I just know a better class of pervs than does Dan.
"Jimmy and Lillian ARE good, giving people walking in the steps of Jesus. My friends ARE good, giving people pouring out their lives in service to others."
"Good people" don't engage in blatant rebellion against God by indulging in behaviors He calls detestable. Your friends are damned people trying to buy their way into heaven without repenting of their damnable behaviors. I'm pretty certain it won't work. "I never knew you."
"Your cynicism and the outright hatred of LGBTQ people by folks like Marshal and Glenn are irrational and unbiblical."
You're right, Craig. This is Dan lying again, with the claim of cynicism being false as well. But it's not the first time Dan has lied in this way about me. When I disagree with Dan about pervs, women, black people, etc., he labels it as hateful and dangerous with the attendant appellations, like "homophobe, racist, misogynist, etc.", none of which are true, nor does he explain how my positions make it true. It's the standard leftist practice against those who have a better understanding of the subject which low-intellect progressives are unable to overcome with their lies.
"The hearts of my wife, my friends, my pastor and church friends?"
Corrupt.
"Not so much, IF you're trying to define that as "Everyone is absolutely evil and can't be trusted...""
Not something either us has said, though it is true no one is good but God, and we are all sinners with a sin nature worthy of eternal separation from God. Total facts.
"If you mean we're merely imperfect, well, of course. But what of it?"
Your imperfection is obvious and besides the point. The point is your heresies and willful rebellion. "Imperfection" would be like one who struggles with lesbian desires and thoughts. That's not what your lesbians are doing, nor are you less guilty due to your enabling of their lifestyle as "no big deal".
"That your religious extremist homophobic is not as bad as other religious extremists is NOT a rational or moral or biblical defense, fyi."
This is funny. It takes for granted that "extremist" is only those who take an opposing view on sexual perversion, while Dan's staunch defense of it is somehow not itself extreme. Indeed, his is the radical extremism. Ours is proper devotion to the Will of God and Scriptural teaching, which clearly regards Dan and his friends as in big trouble eternally.
"No, but I'm with them a good deal of the time and I - unlike you, apparently - have NO reason to think they're not the giving, loving, serving people they appear to be."
You have plenty of reason to acknowledge their choice of lifestyle denies them heaven...especially given the clear teaching of Scripture on the subject. But as you care more for their good opinion of you than you do the Will of God, you focus on their "good works" as their loophole. So they might indeed be the Mother Theresa's you paint them as being, but you leave out that very important color...to their eternal detriment, and likely yours as well.
""Do you really think that two 75+ lesbian grandmothers who have helped and served and given, given, given... REALLY are likely to be something they appear not to be on the face of it? OF COURSE, they could secretly be child-eaters/cannibals... but do you think it's LIKELY?"
Really?? Still with the "secret evil" crap?? THEY'RE OPENLY LESBIAN!! That's the issue. They're lesbians who do lots of nice things, but those nice things don't mitigate the damnation their lesbian behavior warrants.
BTW, all this crap from Dan constitutes lying openly. The idea that one can be "saintly" while engaging in sinful behaviors is a lie, regardless of how it might appear to those who don't know they're lesbians. Presumably the do this insisting the behavior isn't sinful, which is a blatant lie as well. Dan and his ilk think they can tell God, "Yo! This ain't a sin anymore, got it?"
"If so, WHY are you so graceless in guessing the worst in people who, by all appearances, are good, loving, giving people?"
Another blatant lie. No one is "guessing the worst in people", but rather are simply dealing with what is clearly known, given they're openly lesbian. No amount of "good works" mitigates that serious problem about which you don't care. Maybe you think friendship requires helping people along to perdition.
Maybe more later. It's pretty repetitious at this point. Dan loves perversion and regards it as holy. Dan's wrong.
you are not the final arbiter of these things, and "Because I say so."
Some matters are observably, demonstrably logically false/wrong. If I ask you, "What color is your car?" and you respond, "My car is not the point, the REAL question is what kind of gas mileage it gets!" ...that is NOT an answer to the question asked. It literally isn't. And it has nothing to do with me being the final arbiter or me saying "because I say so." I'm just stating what is rationally factual.
Then why do you spend comment after comment repeating your claims about how these people's good works beatify them, and zero comments about the grace and love of YHWH?
I am not saying their good works beatify them. I'm noting that their words demonstrate that they're saints. As did Jesus.
Understand?
WHEN you see folks acting in love, THEN we know you are a follower of Jesus, a believer in grace and love and all things good. AND all things Good are of God.
Do you disagree?
Answer the questions asked of you, not some other question you want to answer while ignoring the question asked.
I said and asked...
To be clear, it's all about grace and the love of God. AND that love of God leads us to preach and live out good news to the poor, to side with the least of these (to Jesus), to live lives of love, being kind to others and acting for justice on behalf of the oppressed.
Do you disagree with this?
You responded but didn't answer...
Yes, I disagree with your hunches.
I DID NOT ASK YOU if you disagree with my hunches. I ASKED YOU:
To be clear, it's all about grace and the love of God.
AND that love of God leads us to preach and live out good news to the poor,
to side with the least of these (to Jesus),
to live lives of love...
DO YOU DISAGREE?
Answer the question being asked.
As to your repeated concerns about abandoning "the point of your post..."
"He's arguing that the same arguments being used to further the trans agenda regarding the binary separation of genders, will likely be applied to other binaries as well."
The point of your post is nonsense and just another way to attempt to demonize LGBTQ people with stupidly false claims. Which is why I left behind the nonsense, irrational goofy shit and went straight for the heart of the problem for conservatives like us.
Just to answer even MORE of your questions to show you how it's done...
Are you really saying that a behavior that would be otherwise sinful is magically turned into good based only on the type of relationship?
Yes.
I'm saying a BEHAVIOR is not necessarily good or bad until it causes harm. It depends on what you DO with the behavior. Because,
of course it does.
Riding a bike? Generally a wholesome, good behavior. Riding a bike deliberately into people to knock them down? Bad.
Swinging a bat to hit a ball in a ball game? Generally good. Swinging a bat to hit a person? Bad.
Enjoying consensual sex with a beloved partner? Good. Forcing sex on someone - even a spouse? BAD.
Come on. This isn't hard. Surely you recognize the wisdom in this..?
Are you really saying that a behavior that is NOT turned into good or bad based only on the type of relationship - harmful or not harmful?
Are you saying that this is True of all sexual orientations?
Yes. Because of course it matters whether or not harm or good is accomplished.
Dan
More answers to more of your questions while waiting for you to answer mine (the ones actually asked, not questions that I didn't ask that you volunteer to answer)...
So, are you claiming that any and all sexual orientation are inherently morally neutral?
Probably. As far as I can tell or of any examples I can think of - and here, I'm primarily talking about LGB or straight. IF we count pedophilia as an orientation (which I don't think this is the right term for it), then even that is morally neutral unless they act out on it, which would then cause harm, which would then mean it's immoral/wrong/bad. It's the causing harm that makes it wrong, the oppression or interference of natural human rights and liberty.
How do you reckon what is and isn't moral if not harm and denial/interference of human rights?
Is it as simple as, "IF there's a line (or several lines) in the Bible that make me think that behavior X is not approved by God, then THAT is what is immoral..."?
But then, not every wrong action we might commit is in the Bible. Would you additionally amend it to, "...AND, we have some general guidelines like Love your neighbor and any actions that are not loving, THAT also is immoral..."? But then, how easy is it for you to make that call? Is denying a gay person the legal right to marry loving or NOT loving? Is driving a car that pollutes and contributes to harm especially to the elderly and those with asthma loving or not loving? Who makes that call?
How do you determine "morality," for yourself?
Are you claiming that the behavior that one's orientation is therefore always morally neutral, or is that behavior morally good?
It's either neutral or good until it is used to cause harm.
Did you not understand that already from all I've said?
You were never trying to mention everything, you were trying to only mention the things that you believe buttress the point your were trying to make.
The point being (the point I was making - whatEVER point you THOUGHT I was making) that there are good people out there and we can recognize their goodness by their observable good, loving actions for justice and kindness and inclusion/welcome. Do you disagree? Especially in the cases where we're talking about someone you know really well and deeply and are in community with - a spouse or child, for instance (as a starting point)... do you think we have NO grounds for saying, "I've known her most of my life and thank the Good Lord above, she is truly a saint of God!"?
You were cherry picking certain aspects of the good works these people do, in an attempt to paint in incomplete and inaccurate picture of those you've elevated to "saint" hood.
Not cherry-picking, just highlighting the reality of their good, loving, Godly behavior. In noting about Ms X:
She adopted two children
She raised them in a loving home - and unofficially adopted/helped raise at least five other children!
She was a teacher all her work life, pouring love into the work and children in her school;
She often organized food delivery efforts when a school family was ill or had a death in her family;
She helped start and maintain a community garden;
She fought for immigrants' rights, helping find shelter, resources and employment for immigrants in need;
She wrote letters and campaigned to her gov't officials to make improvements for immigrants and refugees, as well as for fully funding schools - especially schools in poorer districts;
[And continue this list for dozens or hundreds more examples of her basic goodness and loving actions]
ALSO
she was an impatient driver and would sometimes honk if someone was moving too slowly;
She was known to roll her eyes when a student (or parent) was being obstinate;
She would often over-indulge in eating cakes and candy - especially key lime pies!
She drove her car to get her around, even though she knows how damaging cars are to the environment;
etc.
Now, ONE of those lists is not like the other. The first list - the good actions - are just the incredible, Godly kindnesses of a true saint, committed over time and with a genuine heart. The second list are just examples of common moral failures, but ones that are rather small and petty, in the big scheme of things. The failures common to humanity.
In recognizing saints like the Carters or my wife or others, it is a given that of course, they're humans with the imperfections and limitations of humanity. That's not in question. What's NOTABLE, then, is how VERY giving and loving they are - how they pour out their lives in love to others, including and especially the least of these.
In talking about such people, it's what's NOTABLE that one will naturally speak of, not what is typical.
Hope that helps.
"Do you seriously doubt it?"
In Dan's warped world, the above is NOT askin me if I doubt what he claims he's heard.
I'm getting really tired of parsing every comment Dan makes, then parsing the exact same comments repeatedly. Therefore, I am done parsing every section of every comment. I'll try to answer all his questions, and I won't delete any of his comments, but I'm done wasting my time of his repetition.
Sorry one more preemptive comment. Any comment, claim, or question grounded in "Because I say so.", will henceforth be ignored. Dan may thrive on repeating himself, but I don't.
"Do you have a problem with synonyms?"
Not in general.
"Do you fancy that it's un-Godly or sinful, even to use another word in place of Kingdom of God (which of course, is just the English translation of the Greek words used by Jesus ["Basileia tou Theou" I believe], not the literal words of Jesus)?"
No. I find it interesting that you intentionally choose NOT to use the terms Jesus used because the notion of a Kingdom is one the you don't like. Further, the fact that you acknowledge that you really (kind of) mean "Kingdom of God", when you use your mealy mouthed "Beloved community", if laughable. The fact that you prefer MLK over Jesus Christ, tells me a lot.
"Did you somehow not know that was what I meant"
I know that you've offered a lot of mealy mouthed pablum to justify your made up term, but I still don't know exactly what you mean. Of course, I realized that I really don't care about your semantic games.
"? Why? Why does it hinge on what I think?"
Because you are the one using the term, and virtually no one else still living is using it.
"How do you define saints?"
Not that it matters, but per Paul, I go with those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Dan can cite one other person who's used the term "Beloved community" instead of "Kingdom of God".
I'm sorry but "Because Dan and MLK say so." still isn't proof.
"But that wasn't the question that was asked, was it?"
Why yes, it was the question I asked.
"Who do YOU think are saints and what makes them saints?"
Answered this once, not doing so again.
"Who are WE to preach some other gospel?"
I don't know, I'm not the one who's suggesting that the gospel only/primarily/exclusively/first is for the "poor and marginalized". Since you question alludes to Paul, I'd say that we should be preaching that Gospel that Paul received directly from Jesus and His disciples. Because to that that one passage out of the context of everything that Jesus/Paul/Peter/John/James/Luke wrote about The Gospel, seems like a problem
"How is "They will be recognized by their love" an out of context, non-Christian belief?"
1. It's out of the context of everything the NT says about how Christians will be recognized.
2. Jesus taught that we show love by following His Law.
3. Love in the NT is marked by sacrificing ourselves for others. Taking up the cross of Christ daily in His service. Giving ourselves as living sacrifices.
4. Love is not exclusively marked by giving charity to specific groups or people, nor by encouraging or tolerating (in the modern leftist sense) the sin of those we claim to love.
"What religion are you following?"
Christianity, you?
This is an aside, but an important one. Marshal again plays the "Saved by works" canard...
THEY'RE OPENLY LESBIAN!! That's the issue. They're lesbians who do lots of nice things, but those nice things don't mitigate the damnation their lesbian behavior warrants.
THEY (WE) do not agree with YOUR COLLECTIVE HUMAN OPINIONS that being a lesbian or homosexual is anything that God opposes. THEY/WE honestly believe we are following God's ways as is evidenced by the love in their lives. "BY THEIR LOVE, you will know them," the Bible - Jesus - tells us. NOT "By the way they agree with Marshal's personal human opinions about homosexuality..."
Now, we can see this for the blatant "saved by works" heresy that it is because - correct me if I'm wrong, Marshal - in YOUR mind, YOU think that if someone doesn't AGREE with you on this issue, then they can't be saved. It doesn't matter that, to us/them, they'd be going against God's will... YOU want them to agree with your, not their own better wisdom.
They could be traditional in every other way, they could have repented of their known sins (we can't repent of that which we don't know - it's an impossibility, of course), they have asked Jesus to be Lord of their lives, they could believe in the Bible and its teachings - they could LOVE the Bible and its teachings - they could believe and affirm that Jesus is the risen, living Son of God, the Creator of the universe and joined the church and walked in the teachings of Jesus... BUT, if they aren't correct about your hunch that being a lesbian and married to your beloved and genuinely didn't know to repent because they disagreed NOT with God, but with your human opinions as they sought to follow God... and that lack of understanding on their part on that ONE issue, THAT prevents them from being saved.
In your heart, you believe you have to be intellectually correct on SOME issues (vague issues that only you know and you're not telling or listing them) or God's grace can't save you from your own intellectual understanding... Is THAT what you're saying?
If so, do you see how that is heretical and speaks poorly of your image of God and God's Amazing Grace? ("It's PRETTY amazing, but if we're genuinely mistaken on some points, it's not THAT amazing, it can't cover our imperfections and lack of perfect knowledge... so, hopefully, you get it right AND hopefully, I, Marshal, get it right. Because if I'm MISTAKEN sincerely on some points, then I TOO might be damned.")
What a worthless, "grace."
Of course, that's nothing more than that Old Time Legalism.
"Understand?"
I understand that you are saying this now, but your previous statements don't seem particularly clear.
"Do you disagree?"
I disagree with the premise that everyone who does certain good works only for certain groups of people all do so out of the kind of self sacrificial love Jesus/Paul/Paul/Peter/James/John talk about. I see plenty of people who claim to follow Jesus who do good works because the receive praise and honor from folx like you. It's why I don't like to talk a lot about the things I do, and why I am wary of people who spend a lot of time trumpeting their good works.
"Do you disagree with this?"
Yes. I disagree with your hunch that The Gospel is limited to the "poor and marginalized", or that they have a different Gospel, or that The Gospel hinges primarily/solely/totally/heavily/ on our actions in regard to one specific demographic group.
"DO YOU DISAGREE?"
Yes. I disagree with your hunch that The Gospel is limited to the "poor and marginalized", or that they have a different Gospel, or that The Gospel hinges primarily/solely/totally/heavily/ on our actions in regard to one specific demographic group.
"Yes. I disagree with your hunch that The Gospel is limited to the "poor and marginalized", or that they have a different Gospel, or that The Gospel hinges primarily/solely/totally/heavily/ on our actions in regard to one specific demographic group."
Well as long as all you have is "Because I say so.", to prove your claims then why would anyone not simply bow to your pronouncements.
I find it interesting that you intentionally choose NOT to use the terms Jesus used because the notion of a Kingdom is one the you don't like.
Again, with the lack of grace. I of course ALSO use Kingdom of God and Realm of God and Body of Christ AND Beloved Community (pretty telling that you weren't familiar with the saint who popularized it - and of course, it's not limited to King and me...). But because I use the perfectly lovely PERFECTLY BIBLICAL "beloved community" in the mix, you gripe as if it's problematic.
Grace, brother. They're words that all mean the same thing.
Here. Here are dozens of instances of me using "Kingdom of God" on my blog (not counting comments). Maybe that will ease your condemning mind.
virtually no one else still living is using it. (Beloved community)
Holy shit. Man, do some reading. I googled "Beloved community book" and got 74 million hits. Including one book called Billy Graham and the Beloved Community. This is vital Christian teaching not limited to progressive folks and it's also vital for understanding the life and work of Dr King, one of our national saints. You really should be more educated than this. As a white man, you have some responsibilities.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=beloved+community+book
"How do you reckon what is and isn't moral if not harm and denial/interference of human rights?"
I look at what YHWH has communicated to us, and try to follow His laws, guidelines, precepts, and prohibitions.
"Is it as simple as, "IF there's a line (or several lines) in the Bible that make me think that behavior X is not approved by God, then THAT is what is immoral..."?"
No.
"But then, not every wrong action we might commit is in the Bible."
Not specifically, no.
"Would you additionally amend it to, "...AND, we have some general guidelines like Love your neighbor and any actions that are not loving, THAT also is immoral..."?"
It would depend on several factors. My worldview for one. My religion, for another. Clearly the dominant scientific/materialist/naturalist/Darwinian/Evolutionist worldview would vehemently disagree with your hunches, as that worldview posits an amoral world. Obviously Muslims who follow Sharia law, or espouse jihad, would disagree with your hunch, are you calling them immoral? Again, obviously the Eastern religions wouldn't agree with your hunch, nor would societies like India and Japan and their caste systems. Given my previous answer, I see no need to amend anything based on your hunches.
"But then, how easy is it for you to make that call?"
Knowing what is wrong or right (on a personal level) isn't particularly difficult. Especially as I tend to try to stay away from the line between right and wrong. What I (and Paul) struggle with is doing what we know is right, or not doing what we know is wrong. I find it pretty easy to make excuses for my behavior when it comes to things I want to do, but shouldn't.
"Is denying a gay person the legal right to marry loving or NOT loving?"
IF homosexual sexual activity is a sin, and telling people that simply getting a marriage license makes the behavior not sinful, then it's not loving at all. If the married couple practice a monogamish lifestyle, then no. If the marriage covenant isn't built on sacrificial love for the other, then no. The problem with this sort of simplistic question is that it assumes too much, and is so vague as to be worthless.
"Is driving a car that pollutes and contributes to harm especially to the elderly and those with asthma loving or not loving? Who makes that call?"
No. There is no reason to think that it is a sin under any but the most radical worldviews. The better question might be is it a sin for those who claim to fight against climate change to live a lifestyle with multiple cars/trucks/suv's/private jets/yachts? Or with multiple huge mansions? Or with a carbon footprint that is lager than some towns?
"How do you determine "morality," for yourself?"
Subjectively and imperfectly. See my answer above referencing Paul and myself.
"It's either neutral or good until it is used to cause harm. Did you not understand that already from all I've said?"
Given the intrinsic potential/likelihood for harm in some of the behaviors you advocate as good, I'm never sure.
This is so much easier when I ignore the self serving, self justifying, repetitive, blather, and bullshit.
It's amazing how much stock Dan puts in his hunches, when his only justification is "Because I said so,".
It's all his subjective hunches, that he expects others to live up to, with no objective reason to do so.
Ah. You answered a question. Good on you. You did so poorly, with misinterpretations/misrepresentations of what I've said, but it still was relatively direct. I asked...
"How is "They will be recognized by their love" an out of context, non-Christian belief?"
You responded...
1. It's out of the context of everything the NT says about how Christians will be recognized.
You ARE correct insofar as I didn't cite the whole Bible, but there are word limits in these comments and I didn't think you'd read the whole Bible. BUT, "They will be recognized by their love" IS a clear, direct, repeated biblical theme. Agreed?
And I never said that this is the only way that Christians can be recognized, right?
2. Jesus taught that we show love by following His Law.
Source?
I can think of this (Jesus in John 14) that sort of suggests that a little...
"In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me."
Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing, I just want to see what it is you're referring to. And "following God's Law," is summed up (says Jesus) in Love God and Love Humanity, so that's not really different than "Knowing they are Christians by their love..."
3. Love in the NT is marked by sacrificing ourselves for others. Taking up the cross of Christ daily in His service. Giving ourselves as living sacrifices.
Well, of course, I don't at all disagree with this. Pouring out our lives in service to others IS sacrificing ourselves for others. Are you thinking this is something DIFFERENT than loving others?
4. Love is not exclusively marked by giving charity...
Agreed. I'm a limited fan of charity. Much more interested in community and justice. Charity is the weak sister in many ways.
Love is not exclusively marked by giving charity...to specific groups or people, nor by encouraging or tolerating (in the modern leftist sense) the sin of those we claim to love.
Well, it was JESUS who was the one who said he'd come to preach good news TO SPECIFIC groups of people - to the poor and marginalized. Right? Do you think Jesus got it wrong when he - over and over and over - emphasized working for, with, alongside "the least of these" as part of his gospel?
And of course, I'm not supportive of encouraging the sin of those we claim to love. I love you, Marshal and Glenn, after all, but I am regularly engaging in conversations that I hope will lead you to be DISCOURAGED from continuing in problematic thinking and behavior... the problems of legalism, for instance.
Art,
If I've missed anything from you I apologize. I approve your comments regularly and don't always read them. It's tough when I'm inundated with a constant stream of crap, to spend much time on anything else.
Ultimately the problem with Dan's harm standard is that the entire materialist/naturalist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, worldview is built entirely upon the amoral imposition of harm by stronger/fitter/better adapted species on weaker species. There's a reason why "Survival of the fittest" is the quick way to describe Evolution. I've posted the quotes multiple times, and although I realize that there are attempts to put a veneer on the naturalist/materialist/Darwinist/Evolutionist worldview, there are enough of these folks out there who are honest about their worldview that it's pretty well known.
Likewise, any religion/society with a caste system clearly is not built on reducing harm.
Like so many things it seems as if Dan's harm standard involves ignoring some significant differences in worldview, to focus on some superficial, apparent similarities.
"But because I use the perfectly lovely PERFECTLY BIBLICAL "beloved community" in the mix, you gripe as if it's problematic."
Wow claiming perfection, that's pretty bold even by your standards. Claiming that terms that aren't even in scripture are "perfectly Biblical", is quite a claim.
If YHWH is perfectly loving (not you), then why wouldn't the Kingdom that He established and rules over be a perfectly loving Kingdom? Why is there a need to make up a different term to show how perfectly you love?
Of course, you probably forgot that you told me you don't like Kingdom of God because it gives you feelings about the oppressive, patriarchy, and bad human kings, and the like. My problem isn't that you uses the terms interchangeably, it's that you use one virtually exclusively.
"Ah. You answered a question."
If you mean that I answer virtually every question you ask, or ask for clarification so that I can answer them, then you are correct.
"They will be recognized by their love" IS a clear, direct, repeated biblical theme. Agreed?"
It's one of many themes regarding how Christians are supposed to live.
"And I never said that this is the only way that Christians can be recognized, right?"
No, it's just the only one you've repeatedly mentioned in this thread.
"Source?"
"but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."
Deuteronomy
"but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."
Daniel
"I prayed to the Lord my God and confessed: “Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and keep his commandments,"
"Then I said: “Lord, the God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and keep his commandments,"
Nehemiah
"Whoever keeps commandments keeps their life, but whoever shows contempt for their ways will die."
Proverbs
"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind."
Ecclesiastes
"Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
Matthew
Just for a start.
"Ultimately the problem with Dan's harm standard is that the entire materialist/naturalist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, worldview is built entirely upon the amoral imposition of harm by stronger/fitter/better adapted species on weaker species..."
Prove it.
"Our Brains are Wired for Morality: Evolution, Development, and Neuroscience
Psychological and neuroscience research both tell us that morality, our mental ability to tell right from wrong in our behaviors and the behaviors of others, is a product of evolution.
Morality has been passed on through the course of evolution because it helps us to live in large social groups by enhancing our ability to get along and interact with others. “Building blocks” of morality, such as sensing fairness, experiencing empathy, and judging others’ harmful and helpful actions, can be observed in infancy, before a child’s social environment would be able to have a strong influence.
Specific parts of the human brain are involved in moral reasoning – both the kind that happens very quickly and the kind that is thought out. Damage to certain parts of the brain can dramatically alter moral judgment and behavior."
https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2016.00003#:~:text=Morality%20was%20selected%20by%20evolution,early%20in%20development%20%5B3%5D.
Also...
https://iep.utm.edu/evol-eth/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethical-naturalism
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make or how it's a problem for me. Do YOU not agree that "Don't harm others," is a basic moral building block to recognize some reasonable standards for morality?
"In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me."
John
This is pretty direct, clear, and unequivocal. That's probably why it's confusing to you.
"Are you thinking this is something DIFFERENT than loving others?"
Are you really suggesting that every single person who does good works for the poor and oppressed (from here on out, the right groups), does so out of a selfless desire to sacrifice themselves for others? That no one ever does so out of a desire for praise and honor from folx like you?
I'm using "charity" to cover a lot of territory instead of trying to list every possible type of material help for the right groups.
"Well, it was JESUS who was the one who said he'd come to preach good news TO SPECIFIC groups of people - to the poor and marginalized. Right?"
While He did say this one time in one context, He also was clear that The Gospel was not "SPECIFIC" to only the right groups, nor that The Gospel was only efficacious in so far as it somehow revolved around the right groups.
"Do you think Jesus got it wrong when he - over and over and over - emphasized working for, with, alongside "the least of these" as part of his gospel?"
No. But then I don't base my conclusions about The Gospel on only/primary one verse. I also look at Jesus actually sharing and offering The Gospel to people who were NOT in the right groups.
Strangely enough, when Jesus commissioned Paul the right groups were never mentioned, and Paul also preached The Gospel to people of all demographic groups.
I'm sure none of that kind of thing is really important when you can insist that things are the way you say because of your "right understanding" of scripture, and "Because you say so.".
"Prove it."
I have, multiple times. I've extensively quoted the person who is literally The Expert, and who literally wrote The Book on evolutionary biology, Richard Dawkins. But you just ignore that and pull out some folx who are desperate to show some evolutionary advantage to morality.
By all means, let's see the testable, repeatable, falsifiable, experiments that tell them precisely where these sections of the brain are, how they evolved via an undirected, purposeless, purely mechanical process, and why these traits have skipped so many other species.
" Do YOU not agree that "Don't harm others," is a basic moral building block to recognize some reasonable standards for morality?"
As a subjective, imperfect, general, starting point, I guess it's as good as any other subjective starting point. The problem is that your subjective starting point puts you in direct conflict with the naturalist/materialist/Darwinian/Evolutionist worldview, as well as being in conflict with the worldview of the caste societies, Sharia Muslims, and Eastern religions.
But seriously, I need to stop dealing with this bullshit and go earn some money. Gotta keep my gas guzzling, polluting, SUV in fossil fuels, ya know.
As a subjective, imperfect, general, starting point, I guess it's ["harm"] as good as any other subjective starting point.
But as you have clearly demonstrated, subjective starting points are ALL we have. But "HARM" is a pretty danged specific and measurable starting point, even if it's somewhat subjective.
Do you agree that it's a better option than, "We should decide what is moral by reading MY particular religious book and go with MY particular understanding of that treatise..."? I mean, THAT would be a recipe for disaster, can we agree on that much? We would find very little common ground on that in a pluralistic (or really, just human) society, agreed?
then I don't base my conclusions about The Gospel on only/primary one verse.
Me either. Indeed, as I've made clear, I'm looking at the ENTIRETY of the Bible, Genesis to Revelation, and seeing concern for the poor and marginalized as either THE or at least ONE of the most emphasized points, one of the most consistent themes. That and the nature of God's Realm (or if you prefer, your highness, God's kingdom) which just circles back around to God's realm is where the poor and marginalized are welcomed and protected.
And, as noted, the poor and marginalized are SPECIFICALLY cited by Jesus as WHO his Gospel was for and WHY he had come. When John questioned if Jesus was the One, Jesus said, "Look, I'm preaching the gospel to the poor." And on and on he went and on and on the bible goes. Perhaps you missed it?
I also look at Jesus actually sharing and offering The Gospel to people who were NOT in the right groups.
Well, of course, I've never said that the gospel was ONLY for the poor. Indeed, I've repeatedly insisted that this is NOT the case. Just that Jesus notes that his gospel STARTS with the poor and marginalized, and others are invited to join. Biblically speaking, throughout the Bible. You've read it, right?
Strangely enough, when Jesus commissioned Paul the right groups were never mentioned, and Paul also preached The Gospel to people of all demographic groups.
Says Craig. And yes, Paul doesn't seem as overtly and consistently concerned about or inclusive of the poor, AND YET, we must remember to understand and interpret Paul through the words and lens of Jesus and not try to make Jesus subservient to either Paul, or modern conservative notions of what Paul was saying.
Indeed, let's remember that when Paul was consulting with the elder apostles and leaders of the church (in Galatians 2) he noted...
they (Peter, James, John) recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of
preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,
just as Peter had been to the circumcised.
And WHO were these circumcised and uncircumcised people they were preaching to? The high-falutin' rich and powerful? Or the regular folk... people who may have often been quite poor? Do you know?
...For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised,
was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.
James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars,
gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship...
When??
...when they recognized the grace given to me.
They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.
ALL they asked was...
Was WHAT? Wait for it...
...was that we should
continue to remember the poor,
the very thing I had been eager to do all along.
Seems like the apostles recognized siding with the poor and marginalized was CORE - the one thing that should not be forgotten (as they had actually listened to Jesus) AND Paul was totally in agreement with that. "Of course!" he said. "THE VERY thing I WAS EAGER TO DO ALL ALONG!!"
Continuing...
As one traditional Christian website (them proud boys over at Ligonier!) helps illustrate...
Paul’s readiness is not empty bravado, for during his ministry he frequently exhorted the Gentile churches to help out the poor believers in Judea (Acts 24:17; Rom. 15:25–27; 1 Cor. 16:1–4)...
Giving to the poor is also, in a small way, an imitation of God. Our Creator gives eternal life to those who rely on Him alone, and our gifts can help provide physical life to those who have no finances on which they can depend.
Everyone who claims the name of Christ has the duty to help those who cannot feed themselves (James 1:27). Let us do what we can to make our churches the first places needy people, and needy Christians especially, can find help.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/remembering-poor
And Paul, along with Jesus, is keen on warning against the trappings of wealth...
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.
It is through this craving that some have
wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
And...
As for the rich in this present age,
charge them not to be haughty,
nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches,
but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy.
They are to do good, to be rich in good works,
to be generous and ready to share, thus
storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future,
so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.
1 Tim 6
And again, emphasizing how sharing with/welcoming the poor is just to be expected...
Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor,
doing honest work with his own hands...
Why? Because there's a line in the scripture that says "don't steal..."? No.
so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.
Eph 4
Remember this:
Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and
whoever sows generously will also reap generously.
Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give,
not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times,
having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.
As it is written:
“They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor;
their righteousness endures forever.”
2 Cor 9
Paul apparently thought that Psalmist there quoted though that their righteousness would be clear and endure forever AS they shared with the poor.
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
Be devoted to one another in love
As an aside: WHO are they being devoted to? THE BELOVED. The Beloved Community of the Church. As you all like to note (when talking about tenets VERY loosely connected to the bible such as "inerrancy" or "penal substitution theories of atonement"), the exact phrase doesn't have to be mentioned, as long as it's clearly there. THE BELOVED COMMUNITY OF GOD is clearly, directly, indisputably in the bible. IT IS perfectly clear, if you're not choosing to ignore it. Continuing...
Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.
Share with the Lord’s people who are in need.
Practice hospitality...
Live in harmony with one another.
Do not be proud, but
be willing to associate with people of low position.
Rom 12
If you count Paul as the author of Hebrews, there's this...
Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters.
There's that damned loving beloved community again, EVEN IF he doesn't use that term.
Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers,
for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.
Continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison,
and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.
Echoing Jesus' "the least of these" teaching. Paul (or the author of Hebrews, whichever) DID learn from Jesus, too, after all.
Keep your lives free from the love of money and
be content with what you have...
Heb 13
Continuing with the Epistles of Paul...
Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction;
whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
WHOEVER sows - NOT from a desire to pleas the flesh, but to please God - WILL reap eternal life, says Paul. Why? Good works? No! Because they have embraced God's grace as is evidenced by their actions. Continuing..
Let us not become weary in doing good,
for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
Therefore, as we have opportunity,
let us do good to all people,
especially to those who belong to the family of believers.
Gal 6
we want you to know
about the grace
that God has given the Macedonian churches.
In the midst of a very severe trial,
their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity.
For I testify that they gave as much as they were able,
and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own,
they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of
sharing in this service to the Lord’s people.
2 Cor 8
That grace demonstrated in sharing with the poor, even FROM the poor.
And I could go on. Paul may not have emphasized working with and for the poor and marginalized as much as Jesus or the prophets or Jesus' mother or James... but that same theme is THERE in Paul's writings for those who aren't closing their eyes.
Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
Indeed. It's almost like Paul and the apostles agreed with Jesus that this grace of siding/allying with the poor and marginalized was central to the Gospel which Jesus said he'd come to preach to the poor and marginalized.
I have, multiple times. I've extensively quoted the person who is literally The Expert, and who literally wrote The Book on evolutionary biology, Richard Dawkins.
What is it you think you have proven? Be specific. I'm not especially familiar (or at all familiar) with Dawkins other than to know that he is one scientist among many who believe evolutionary science explains a great deal.
But unlike with religionists, Dawkins is only one man. NOT "literally THE Expert..." since that doesn't exist in science, at least in general (maybe if you get down to some niche corner of science we might refer to someone as THE expert...)
By all means, explain what you think you have proven? That there are some scientists (and some others) out there who don't accept the notion of morality? Okay. So what? And it doesn't appear that Dawkins is one of those.
Speaking on Dawkins...
According to Dawkins’ view, ‘genetic ethics based on evolution theory’,
there is a ‘moral Zeitgeist’ or ‘moral spirit of the age’ that evolves in communities.
Rejecting religion-based morality and moral absolutism,
he believes that the nature of morality is changing rapidly based on the zeitgeist,
and each period requires its own code of ethics.
Religion and ethics, he claims,
are the results of biological process of evolution and natural selection.
Morality is not rooted in religion, but has a Darwinian origin.
Altruistic genes have been selected during the process of evolution and
we are naturally qualified with altruism, and sympathy, compassion and
other moralities can be explained by evolution.
http://journal.philor.org/article_245111.html?lang=en
I would suggest that what these "studies" regard as "morality" is nothing more "moral" than people in groups large enough to impose their will on the rest (or small groups with superior firepower) developing a consensus and instituting it in laws, both civil and social. This could indeed include any number of behaviors which aren't moral at all, and that which are clearly immoral...such as homosexual behavior and abortion together with the selfish behavior which resulted in the immoral practice in the first place. People are prone to attaching the word "moral" to anything they find personally pleasing. That isn't how "morality" works. Thus, these "studies" are doing nothing but addressing the survival instinct within sentient beings.
So, just to be clear, where you say...
The problem is that your subjective starting point puts you in direct conflict with the naturalist/materialist/Darwinian/Evolutionist worldview,
You MIGHT be able to say that recognizing harm as a way to understand morality MIGHT conflict with some few people (not necessarily limited - or including the "evolutionists...") but you can't say it puts this notion in conflict with ALL or even MOST or even SEVERAL evolutionists.
That you don't understand their views on morality isn't an indication that it's a problem for me. As I've already demonstrated, naturalists/evolutionists/Dawkins are not opposed to recognizing Harm as a way to recognize moral boundaries.
What do you propose in place of Harm as a measure for determining morality in a society? Anything? Are you a moral anarchist in that regard?
Are you really suggesting that every single person who does good works for the poor and oppressed (from here on out, the right groups), does so out of a selfless desire to sacrifice themselves for others?
Nope. You can tell by the way I never one time in all my history of writing have said that. That could be what they call a "textual cue" to enable your better understanding. Just fyi.
That no one ever does so out of a desire for praise and honor from folx like you?
I'm sure that it's entirely possible that it happens. I, however, see no data to suggest it regularly happens or is the case for most folk in the helping fields (either as a job or as an avocation).
I mean, I've heard from non-profits over the years who sort of gently complain when people come in and volunteer DURING CHRISTMAS-time, but not the rest of the year. It's like they're wanting to get their charity high and is sometimes more about them than helping, but I also suspect they genuinely tend to want to help. It's just a case of mixed motivations.
And you're perhaps familiar with the term "inspiration porn..." where people lift up or idolize someone who has had struggles in their lives - those with disabilities, immigrants, etc - and do so because their "inspiring stories! weep! feel me with such a positive feeling..." and so, there again, it's probably some inept attempts at helping or less-than-informed attempts at helping or maybe even offering help in part to feel good about themselves... But there again, I would suspect that it's mixed.
But the people who I've met over the years in a variety of fields seem to be sincere helpers, wanting to act for justice and solidarity with the least of these (not that they would use that term, as it's come to be seen as rather condescending). I see no data to suggest that it's the norm to do kindnesses for purely selfish reasons.
You?
You said...
2. Jesus taught that we show love by following His Law.
I asked...
Source?
Meaning, what are your sources that Jesus taught WE show love by following God's law?
You replied with verses like this:
"but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments..."
"I prayed to the Lord my God and confessed: “Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and keep his commandments,"
"Then I said: “Lord, the God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and keep his commandments,"...
And those are FINE verses that say that God loves us and that last one hints that we are showing our love for God by keeping commandments. But not an exact match. You also offered these...
"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind."
Which says Fear God and keep God's commandments but doesn't say anything about how WE love by following God's commandments. Or this...
"Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
Which says, "keep the commandments," but doesn't say anything about WE are showing love by keeping the commandments. (and as an aside, IF there is only ONE who is good, the telling us we have to keep commandments - ie, be "good," - if we want to enter life... that seems a bit cruel, doesn't it? I mean, "There is only ONE who is good - God - and the rest of you are bad, so... keep those commandments so you can be good, which you CAN'T be..." Do you think of God as a cruel jokester god?)
So, in all the Bible, you came up with ONE verse that hints at "Jesus taught that we show love by following His Law." AND that verse was from Nehemiah, not Jesus (as an aside, Nehemiah was speaking as one of the oppressed seeking salvation from the powerful oppressors - HE was one of the marginalized that the Bible speaks of as needing the good news).
Then you also found this one verse - one - from Jesus in John 14...
"In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me." ...and it continues...
“Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching.
So, yes, one passage from Jesus which affirms that IF you love God/Jesus, you will obey the commandments. Which is fine. As I made clear, I'm not saying I disagree.
But there are MULTIPLE verses from Jesus and others who say people (and we, ourselves) will KNOW we are followers of God by the way we love OTHERS. The way we pour out our lives in sacrificial love for the least of these. For when we do this, Jesus says, we're doing it FOR HIM. That's love, too. And it's visible, demonstrable love. Action that people can see and assess.
Agreed?
It's amazing how much stock Dan puts in his hunches, when his only justification is "Because I said so,".
And yet, I NEVER SAID either of those things.
It's amazing how much stock Craig puts into his COMPLETELY unsupported hunches and allegations, isn't it?
"Do you agree that it's a better option than, "We should decide what is moral by reading MY particular religious book and go with MY particular understanding of that treatise..."? I mean, THAT would be a recipe for disaster, can we agree on that much? We would find very little common ground on that in a pluralistic (or really, just human) society, agreed?"
No.
"Perhaps you missed it?"
No, I just choose not to place undue emphasis on one passage to the exclusion or minimization of the full context.
"And WHO were these circumcised and uncircumcised people they were preaching to?"
Circumcised=Jews
Uncircumcised=Non Jews/Gentiles
"The high-falutin' rich and powerful?"
No. The circumcision debate had nothing to do with economic status.
"Or the regular folk... people who may have often been quite poor?"
Again, the circumcision debate had nothing ot do with economic status.
"Do you know?"
Yes, I do.
As far as the term "beloved" in your proof text, it's merely a term Paul uses for hos fellow believers. It follows along nicely with the practices of the early Church in focusing on the care for those who were part of The Church. Not on those outside of the Church. Certainly not in expecting the government to do so, not making it a requirement of salvation or membership.
It's almost like Dan is intent on sharing the results of his key word search, without taking the time to consider if the meaning is shaped by context.
The fact that he's decided that it's appropriate to read his hunches about this "Beloved Community" into passages that say something completely different, is amusing, but not to be taken seriously.
Paul's use of the term "brothers and sisters", is completely in line with his other writings where he emphasizes the "adoption" of those who follow Christ into the Kingdom of God as sons and daughters, heirs, and similar terms.
But as long as Dan can make things fit his personal, subjective, theological (although it's not really about YHWH at all, therefor not really theology), construct, more power to him. It's all very creative.
"But unlike with religionists, Dawkins is only one man. NOT "literally THE Expert..." since that doesn't exist in science, at least in general (maybe if you get down to some niche corner of science we might refer to someone as THE expert...)"
Dawkins is literally the author of the single most widely read and important textbook on evolution. He is literally the single most influential figure in the field of evolutionary science.
"By all means, explain what you think you have proven?"
I've shown that the single most influential figure in evolutionary science, has quite clearly an emphatically disagreed with your notions of morality. That the person who has been the most influential figure in shaping what Science claims to know about evolution, is quite clear that evolutionary science tell us that amorality is the default condition of life.
"That there are some scientists (and some others) out there who don't accept the notion of morality? Okay. So what? And it doesn't appear that Dawkins is one of those."
It's always amusing when you do this. You, who live and die by following what the experts tell you, decide that you don't like what an unquestioned expert in a field says and respond by minimizing the expertise of said expert.
It seems telling that I quote Dawkins, while you quote someone speaking for Dawkins.
I get it, Dawkins has said some things abut morality that contradict his findings. The problem he has is that he needs a way to explain what is observable (human morality and selflessness) but that he must shoehorn it into the framework he's claimed must exist. In his writings about morality he usually is equivocal in referring to it as something like "apparent morality", while then claiming that what appears to us a selfless and moral, is really just one more way for out "selfish genes" to facilitate their continuation.
What we learn from looking at the naturalist/materialist/Darwinist/evolutionist worldview, as well as other worldviews, is that your subjective harm based moral code is not as ubiquitous as you claim it is. When entire scientific disciplines, and the religions/cultures of millions do not follow your hunches it casts doubt on your hunches.
"What do you propose in place of Harm as a measure for determining morality in a society? Anything? Are you a moral anarchist in that regard?"
1. My pointing out the flaws in your subjective moral code does not obligate me to provide an alternative.
2. My pointing out that you subjective moral code is fine for you, but does not have any universal foundation that allows you to apply it to others who have a different moral code, does not obligate me to provide an alternative.
3. You demanding that we change the subject from you defending your insistence that you can apply your subjective moral code to others who have a different moral code instead of demonstrating that your moral code can be applied to others who have a different moral code, doesn't really help your case.
"You?"
Yes, I worked with them for over a decade.
I do love how you insist on setting up your limited, parochial, insular, experience as the standard for the rest of the world. The naivete that would lead you to conclude, "Because I don't see something, that something must be incredibly rare." is kind of cute. The fact that you never seem to consider that the problem might be with how you choose to "see" things, while charming in a narcissistic sort of way, is troubling.
"Agreed?"
No. That you can pass some texts through your personal filter and decide what they mean of don't mean is not proof of anything.
"And yet, I NEVER SAID either of those things."
Go back through this thread and count how many times you've used the phrase "I said" as a way to emphasize the correctness of what you claim to be True. The problem is that you rely heavily on some version of "Because I say so. " as your proof.
"It's amazing how much stock Craig puts into his COMPLETELY unsupported hunches and allegations, isn't it?"
Well played. Anything to divert attention from your inability to prove your claims.
Notice how Dan keeps practicing eisegesis whith scripture to defend the indefensible and yet totally ignores Scripture which says homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, while Paul says those who practice it will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven; and God made male and female -- BIOLOGY-- and neither can become the other.
What do you propose in place of Harm as a measure for determining morality in a society? Anything? Are you a moral anarchist in that regard?
1. My pointing out the flaws in your subjective moral code does not obligate me to provide an alternative.
In a society that needs rational moral guidelines, saying " I am not obligated to provide an alternative..." is irresponsible and childish. When a loved one of yours is raped or beaten or cheated out of a paycheck by some billionaire employer, you damned well better be prepared to provide some moral guideline. Or if you're a moral anarchist, then just admit as much and get the hell out of the way of the adults who are helping create a just, reasonable society.
2. My pointing out that you subjective moral code is fine for you, but does not have any universal foundation that allows you to apply it to others who have a different moral code, does not obligate me to provide an alternative.
NO ONE has a "universal foundation" in the sense of an objective moral code. YOU have made it abundantly clear that you have nothing by your cowardly silence and pretensions that you DO, while remaining cowardly silent. And again, we are a society that will not survive moral anarchy, just look at the last perverted conservative president and the harm his amoral attacks on standards of honesty and decency have done.
Again, if you're going to claim to moral anarchy, then do so for yourself but then get the hell out of the way of the adults in the room.
The point remains: With "Harm" as a reasonable measure, we have a REASONABLE set of guidelines for creating basic rules for societal living, even in the face of moral anarchists like Trump and you.
Glenn,
Dan's practice of doing a word search and cherry picking proof texts to eisegete is a longstanding tradition. He regularly will insist that a passage is directly referring to some pet concept of his, when the passage says nothing of the sort. Note his eisegesis that Paul's use of the term "beloved" to refer to those his letters were originally intended for, actually means that Paul was talking about his hunches about some "Beloved community".
Post a Comment