https://pspruett.blogspot.com/2006/08/plutonian-morality.html
https://pspruett.blogspot.com/2007/01/coin-toss-morality.html
https://pspruett.blogspot.com/2007/06/imagine-no-religion.html
https://pspruett.wordpress.com/2021/01/25/santa-claus-morality/
https://pspruett.blogspot.com/2007/07/moral-atheists-good-by-what-measure.html
I'm linking to a series of articles that talk about morality from an atheistic view. I'm doing so because the rationale offered by atheists and the rationale offed by some progressive christians often sound very similar. The notion that it is possible to ground a moral system that can be applied universally by appealing to evolution, naturalism, reason, or consensus is a hard one to swallow. Yet, there are many versions of this version of morality floating around.
129 comments:
As I continually cite Scripture as the objective source for morality, I'm met with challenges to prove it is objective or that my understanding of what is clearly presented therein is accurate. That, too, is similar to atheist criticisms. What I never get...especially from modern progressive "Christians" is an actual, fact-based argument rebutting my position or establishing whatever the alternative might be. Evidently, we're not entitled to whatever it is they believe is more likely the truth. We're only to know that our positions aren't.
I can see where this fella seems to be saying that the problem with those who disagree with his ideas on morality is that they have no objectively proven source to complain about his opinions. I can find NO WHERE we he explains if he HAS an objectively provable source for morality.
Do you think he does?
"I can see where this fella seems to be saying that the problem with those who disagree with his ideas on morality is that they have no objectively proven source to complain about his opinions. I can find NO WHERE we he explains if he HAS an objectively provable source for morality."
What an interesting notion. This notion that one must have an alternative explanation that is perfect enough to persuade skeptics, in order to point out the weaknesses in another person's argument or system.
"Do you think he does?"
Don't know and don't care.
What is happening is that he's evaluating the claims of morality from atheists by applying the tenets of an atheistic worldview to their beliefs.
It seems like evaluating someone's beliefs using the standards that those who hold the belief being examined use, is a reasonable exercise.
Art,
As I see it, the argument for some sort of "Biblical" morality as an objective moral code is completely grounded in the very being of YHWH. If YHWH is who and what He says He is, then it logically follows that any moral guidance He gives applies universally. To a lesser degree the reliability of scripture plays a role as well.
If YHWH is who and what He says He is, then it logically follows that
any moral guidance He gives applies universally
1. Why? Says who?
Is it not possible that God thinks some rules are important in some places/times and not in others?
2. Or what if God doesn't think of morality as we do? Maybe God isn't thinking "Ok, here's a set of rules. Follow them perfectly or be damned if not..."
Maybe God recognizes,
"Okay, beloved imperfect children... I GET that you don't have perfect reasoning when it comes to moral questions. I also get that different contexts and settings may require for different approaches. Let me help: The general guideline is to love. Love God, Love God's creation, Love God's people/humanity, try to do that... do unto others as you'd have them do unto yourself... Given the complexity of life on earth and your own imperfections, here are some rules to keep in mind (and I'm saying this specifically to you, Israel): Love God. Don't steal. Don't kill. etc but maybe, sometimes, some places, things change. Maybe I'm okay with you all in this 4000 BCE context to be polygamous, but that won't always be the case. Maybe I'm okay with you stoning to death children who are disrespectful now, but that's not going to be a universal rule for humanity. Just Love, you know? Forgive, be gracious."
Who is to say that God isn't like that? That would be MY understanding of what the Bible clearly teaches.
4. In short, I don't think that your personal opinion that you think God's rules that may be found in ancient text reflect universal rules at all! God forbid! And I know that, as a point of observable fact, GOD HAS NEVER SAID THAT.
This is your human reasoning. It logically follows FOR YOU. But not for everyone.
Isn't that fair, reasonable? Observable? I mean, it doesn't "logically follow" for me at all, so that presumption you hold is not a universal one, at all.
"1. Why? Says who?"
It's a hypothetical. But the premise follows that if YHWH did in fact create everything that exists, then He would be the best and only option for a source of universal morality.
"Is it not possible that God thinks some rules are important in some places/times and not in others?"
I wouldn't dream of speaking for YHWH. You can if you'd like, by all means make a cse for your hunch.
"2. Or what if God doesn't think of morality as we do? Maybe God isn't thinking "Ok, here's a set of rules. Follow them perfectly or be damned if not...""
Maybe YHWH is really a huge frog and uses his tongue to eat humans. If you want to live in a fantasy world where you create these situations in your fertile imagination and want them to be taken as something more than you looking for loopholes, then you go right ahead.
"Who is to say that God isn't like that? That would be MY understanding of what the Bible clearly teaches."
Who's to say that your "understanding" is correct? Who's to say that you haven't created this fantasy narrative as a way to accommodate your personal biases, preconceptions, prejudices, and hunches? Who says that YHWH isn't a magical pink and purple unicorn with a red Twizzler for a horn?
"4. In short, I don't think that your personal opinion that you think God's rules that may be found in ancient text reflect universal rules at all! God forbid! And I know that, as a point of observable fact, GOD HAS NEVER SAID THAT."
In short, I don't care what you "think". If you want to misrepresent what I've said and try to force me to defend your made up bullshit, I'm not playing that game. What you "think" is wrong.
"This is your human reasoning. It logically follows FOR YOU. But not for everyone."
Just like your bullshit, subjective, personal, moral code that you insist on applying to others as if it's objective and universal. Interesting that your "human reasoning" is always infallibly True in your fantasy world, but everyone who's "human reasoning" reaches a different conclusion is wrong.
"Isn't that fair, reasonable? Observable?"
Almost nothing you do or say is "fair", so no. Your observations are likely tainted by your biases, prejudices, preconceptions, political and theological views. Therefore your observations are basically worthless.
"I mean, it doesn't "logically follow" for me at all, so that presumption you hold is not a universal one, at all."
Well, if you say so then it must be inarguably True. Because clearly you seem to have appointed yourself the arbiter of what's universal.
the premise follows that if YHWH did in fact create everything that exists, then He would be the best and only option for a source of universal morality.
1. No, the premise doesn't follow. You think, to you in your head, it seems reasonable. And that's fine. It's not logically insisted upon. At all.
2. But then, who says there IS a "source of universal morality..."? That such an idea exists as a reality?
Presumably, you can agree that GOD has not said such a thing exists, right? Is it something that, to you, seems like to you it SHOULD exist?
Again, if that's a theory you hold, it's fine. But it's not logically insisted upon and God hasn't mentioned it to me. Or you.
If you want to live in a fantasy world where you create these situations in your fertile imagination and want them to be taken as something more than you looking for loopholes, then you go right ahead.
Maybe. But neither your imaginary frog or your mythical source for a universal morality (SUM) have been proven to exist (or not exist). I raise the questions NOT (quite specifically, literally, observably in the real world NOT) to "look for loopholes" (another mythical non-reality that exists only in your mind, that this is anything like MY position), but to seek Truth.
You're okay with seeking Truth, I suppose?
And so, YOU raised this notion of your SUM as if it might exist in the real universe, is that you seeking to say what God thinks? Or are you glad to admit that God hasn't said this and this SUM is your theory with, so far, nothing behind beyond your creating/using the term?
if you say so then it must be inarguably True.
Yes, rationally speaking, YES, it is demonstrably true/factual. IF you are making the claim that this SUM theory of yours logically follows and I say that presumption is not universal (that it logically follows), then by the very reality that it doesn't logically follow for me or my family/friends who have held these discussions with, then it perforce is not universally accepted. In reality.
Oooh! I love red Twizzlers!!
"Or what if God doesn't think of morality as we do? "
I guess Dan's suggesting God has a different definition of justice...I mean, morality that we do!!
Well, it's crystal clear Dan has a different definition of morality than God and actual Christians!!
1. As you so eloquently put it, "Says who?". You make these pronouncements as if they are established fact and cannot be questioned. The notion that the one who designed and created something wouldn't know the best way for that creation to function is absurd on it's face.
2. You for one. You keep insisting that things are "moral/immoral", which means that you obviously believe that you have a "source" that allows you to make those claims. Now, your source seems to be "consensus", and seems to be subjective, but you can't be suggesting that you make these pronouncements with no "source" to ground them. Can you?
"Presumably, you can agree that GOD has not said such a thing exists, right?"
No, I cannot agree with your hunch about what "GOD" has said.
"Is it something that, to you, seems like to you it SHOULD exist?"
No.
"You're okay with seeking Truth, I suppose?"
From someone who has been clear that there is not one "Truth", but millions/billions of "truths", this claim that you are seeking some singular "Truth", makes no logical sense. Beyond that, you have also been clear that your standard for determining things like "Truth", is based solely in your personal, limited, flawed, imperfect, power of "Reason", which doesn't provide much confidence that your "Truth" is anything more than a subjective preference.
"And so, YOU raised this notion of your SUM as if it might exist in the real universe, is that you seeking to say what God thinks?"
No, and no.
"Or are you glad to admit that God hasn't said this and this SUM is your theory with, so far, nothing behind beyond your creating/using the term?"
No.
"Yes, rationally speaking, YES, it is demonstrably true/factual."
It's always amusing when Dan claims that something is "demonstrably true/factual", without actually demonstrating his claim. This notion that when Dan speaks ex cathedra that he is speaking the "demonstrably true/factual" Truth and must not be questioned or asked to prove his claims reeks of narcissism. Of course, when he speaks for others, it's also amusing and pathetic.
I so appreciate Dan's willingness to use subjective means, to make objective claims. The fact that he believes that the hunches he holds, and attributes to his friends, are anything more than subjective opinions suggests mental health issues as much as anything else.
You keep insisting that things are "moral/immoral", which means that you obviously believe that you have a "source" that allows you to make those claims.
So. Is it the case that you just truly don't understand what I have repeated ad infinitum to you, in explaining this? Or are you just deliberately being obtuse?
I. I believe that we humans have moral reasoning capability. We can and do regularly, daily and universally make moral decisions... ALL the time.
Do you disagree?
II. I further have been clear that NONE of us has an objectively demonstrable, provable way to say that are moral opinions are objectively proven to be right/wrong.
You do not have that. I do not have that. NO ONE HAS THAT. If you had it, you'd have brought it out by now (or did God swear you to secrecy?)
III. NONETHELESS, I think it IS obvious we have some fairly consistent moral reasoning within humanity. It is observably factual that in the real world, nearly universally (if not universally) people don't think it is moral to kill, to rape, to steal. These are universally recognized as obviously wrong. NOT universally - there are outliers. But NEARLY universally. Nearly (?) every world religion and philosophy recognizes the basic notion of doing unto others as you'd have them do unto us.
(I'd say one reason for that is that we recognize innately the notion of human rights as being fairly universal. I'd further say that these notions have grown and improved throughout the millenia and it is evolving, observably, generally to improvement of more wholesome, healthy, rational results.)
IV. Because human rights and oppression and the harm done by wrongdoing can be so serious, I think most of humanity recognizes how vital it is to use our moral reasoning, EVEN IF it is imperfect and EVEN IF we have no objectively provable way of proving it.
V. There are some moral anarchists who might recognize that we can't prove it, therefore, let's do whatever we want. But again, the evidence is that these are the outliers, probably people who have been damaged by abuse/oppression/harm/"sin" themselves or those with disabling moral/mental health problems.
What part of that isn't factual and observable?
What part of that can you possibly disagree with?
Dan once again insists that if God doesn't say something in the exact manner Dan demands He must, then it can't be held as true or factual. Yet, he still provides no intelligent, adult, coherent reason or argument for why it must be so.
With the above in mind, we must remember how often Dan appeals to "reason" (as if he's capable of actual reasoning beyond rationalizing his rebellion), yet rejects solid reasoning with regard to God's Word as found in Scripture as true and objective.
That said, what we're once again seeing is Dan simply rejecting our points of view, and that of the author of the link, with no legitimate counter argument of any kind. No evidence, no facts, not proofs...just "Nyuh uh".
So Dan will imagine wild possibilities, saying "maybe God thinks..." or some such. Speculation about what is not said in Scripture is a fun exercise. But we deal in the reality of God's Word as revealed in Scripture. Dan can't focus his attention and "God given reason" on that because to do so disrupts his invented god narratives.
"Good faith" is a punchline to Dan. Nothing more.
"So. Is it the case that you just truly don't understand what I have repeated ad infinitum to you, in explaining this? Or are you just deliberately being obtuse?"
No, I understand you. It's not that challenging.
"Do you disagree?"
Not necessarily. I agree that we make decisions based on our subjective, individual, personal, moral code regularly. However, that doesn't provide any foundation to ground any judgements on the decisions others make. You have not established that your personal, individual, subjective moral code can be applied to people who might not share your moral code.
"You do not have that. I do not have that. NO ONE HAS THAT. If you had it, you'd have brought it out by now (or did God swear you to secrecy?)"
Yes, you have been quite clear that you have a personal, subjective, individual moral code. You claim that "NO ONE" has anything but a personal, individual, subjective moral code. Apparently you believe that if you repeat a clearly unproven claim often enough, and with ALL CAPS, that that claim becomes True.
I'll simply point out the obvious. That even if there is this "nearly universal" moral code you claim exists, then it's safe to say that millions of not billions of people fail to follow that moral code. This notion that this alleged "nearly universal" moral code can be applied as if it were universal, is simply one more example of your trying to pretend like your subjective, nearly universal, individual, personal, moral code allows you to act as if you had a universal, objective moral code.
Given the millions of people who's "human rights" are being trampled as we speak, I sincerely doubt your hunch on this topic. But please, try to minimize the number of countries in 2023 where your hunches about human rights are practiced perfectly.
I still don't care what you "think". It's just you basing your hunches on your personal, individual, imperfect, flawed, "Reason", with no proof that your "Reason" is any more trustworthy than anyone else's.
Again, don't care about your "moral anarchists" bullshit.
"What part of that isn't factual and observable?"
Most of it.
"What part of that can you possibly disagree with?"
The parts based in your personal, individual, imperfect, "Reason", and shaped by your biases, prejudices, and preconceptions.
Dan,
But really, excellent job of completely ignoring the actual content of the original post. Your deep dives into what the linked pieces say and how you've managed to marshal such strong arguments to disprove the author's contentions is quite impressive.
Craig...
really, excellent job of completely ignoring the actual content of the original post.
Also Craig (Your ENTIRE post here)...
I'm linking to a series of articles that talk about morality from an atheistic view. I'm doing so because the rationale offered by atheists and the rationale offed by some progressive christians often sound very similar. The notion that it is possible to ground a moral system that can be applied universally by appealing to evolution, naturalism, reason, or consensus is a hard one to swallow. Yet, there are many versions of this version of morality floating around.
You and this fella both hold the human opinions, it appears (I'm actually trying to ask him more questions to clarify his position), that IF we don't have an "objectively proven moral rubric/system," then, in the opinion of you two, we can't reasonably have moral claims we should make beyond ourselves (sort of a moral anarchy point of view as far as I can tell). And yet, neither of you can or have offered an objectively proven moral rubric.
I've asked questions based upon your hints of having an objectively proven system and yet, not supporting any objectively proven position.
How is that off topic?
Indeed, I asked you directly and clearly if you thought he DID have an objectively proven moral rubric. You answered...
Don't know and don't care.
Great. So, how in the world am I ignoring the point of this post?
You claim that "NO ONE" has anything but a personal, individual, subjective moral code. Apparently you believe that if you repeat a clearly unproven claim often enough, and with ALL CAPS, that that claim becomes True.
If it is the reality that I have never in all my 60 years have seen EVEN ONE person provide an objectively proven moral rubric, then isn't it reasonable to say that I've NEVER seen anyone provide an objectively proven rubric of morality?
By all means, IF you have an objectively proven moral rubric, provide it.
Is that an irrational request?
This is so deeply weird.
"You and this fella both hold the human opinions, it appears (I'm actually trying to ask him more questions to clarify his position), that IF we don't have an "objectively proven moral rubric/system," then, in the opinion of you two, we can't reasonably have moral claims we should make beyond ourselves (sort of a moral anarchy point of view as far as I can tell). And yet, neither of you can or have offered an objectively proven moral rubric."
That's quite the creation there. My first question is whether or not you've actually read all of the pieces? Beyond that, at least some of those pieces are from blog posts, if you have questions for the author why not ask him there? Strangely enough, you haven't offered a "proven moral rubric" based on your subjective, personal, individual, moral code yet you continue to make objective moral judgements about others. Why don't you start?
"How is that off topic?"
As if you've only "asked questions" with absolutely zero other commentary. As if this post isn't about the author's fairly extensive writings on the topic, not about mine.
"Great. So, how in the world am I ignoring the point of this post?"
I'm sorry that my honest, simple, direct answer was so difficult for you. But, as you might have noticed if you read all of his pieces, he is pointing out the problems with a moral code based on an Atheistic worldview. He doesn't appear to be making a case for any other moral code, just pointing out the flaws in the one made by atheists. Maybe I missed the rule that demands that anyone who points out the flaws in something is required to provide a 100% complete and perfect alternative laid out in such a way as to thoroughly convince anyone who is skeptical. Are you really saying that his lack of what you consider a fully laid out alternative somehow makes his criticism irrelevant or invalid?
"If it is the reality that I have never in all my 60 years have seen EVEN ONE person provide an objectively proven moral rubric, then isn't it reasonable to say that I've NEVER seen anyone provide an objectively proven rubric of morality?"
If you consider that all of reality is limited to what you personally have experienced and/or remembered, then sure. If you think that your individual, personal experience has some intrinsic value beyond your limited, flawed, imperfect human mind and your limited experiences, then sure your claim has value to you. But not to anyone else. I literally don't care what you claim to have seen or not seen.
"By all means, IF you have an objectively proven moral rubric, provide it."
See above.
"Is that an irrational request?"
I'm sure you think it is, but you also seem to think that your hunches about rationality can be used to define rationality for others. Yet, it's also rational to point out, again, that the pointing out of flaws in one worldview does not require the existence of a fully formed, perfect, alternative to be provided.
"This is so deeply weird."
Sounds like a personal problem.
"Beyond that, at least some of those pieces are from blog posts, if you have questions for the author why not ask him there?"
I did, just as I said. So far, we're having a polite conversation, although he seems to push back at the idea of actually proving this allegedly objectively proven morality.
And yes, I read those entries and several others on his blog.
"If you think that your individual, personal experience has some intrinsic value beyond your limited, flawed, imperfect human mind and your limited experiences, then sure your claim has value to you. But not to anyone else."
Look, you seem to hinting at proof of a giant as large as Mount Everest, out walk around in Central Park. IF someone had objective proof of morality (!!), that would kind of be a big deal. You couldn't keep that giant a secret long.
But all I can tell you is that I have not seen this giant. Maybe it exists and is just good at camouflage, but until someone shows me proof of this giant, I'm going to treat it more as fantasy and arcane speculation.
Dan
"I'm sure you think it is, but you also seem to think that your hunches about rationality can be used to define rationality for others."
If someone claims something truly exceptional and world-changing - a cure for cancer, proof of aliens, etc - HUGE news
And if the person claims to be able to objectively prove their claim
And IF they refuse to even try to provide the proof of this world-changing claim
THEN reasonable people will find the claim suspect.
Where am I mistaken?
Dan
" Are you really saying that his lack of what you consider a fully laid out alternative somehow makes his criticism irrelevant or invalid?"
If so, then Dan's many criticisms of our/my positions are equally irrelevant and invalid. Dan does not provide anything akin to "a fully laid out alternative" to our positions. He only disagrees with them. Even when he offers what might pass for an alternative of some kind, he does nothing to provide evidence in support of it, preferring instead to default to "my opinion", as if such a default absolves him from supporting it at all. This is especially dishonest given the high frequency of demands for him for something concrete before he'll ever consider conceding his position and accepting ours. (Not that irrefutable proof would make a difference to one so given over to his corruption)
Yet, it's also rational to point out, again, that the pointing out of flaws in one worldview does not require the existence of a fully formed, perfect, alternative to be provided.
I agree. When pointing out perceived flaws of a worldview does not require a fully formed, perfect alternative. 100% in agreement.
The problem is that, in church history, throughout church history, churches have very often acted as if they had THE moral answers for everyone - objectively so, and from God, no less. Presenting that perception is itself, a flawed worldview, prone to all sorts of mischief.
I have no problem with anyone saying, "I have an alternative opinion about gay marriage..." or about Atonement or about an "inerrant" Bible... they are welcome to those opinions. But it's vital that we recognize them as human opinions, not an objectively proven word from God.
THAT is the line that is problematic.
Can we agree on that much?
That is to say, you don't believe guys should marry guys? By all means, DON'T marry a guy. But at the same time, don't tell other people, "If you marry that guy, that means you're a [homo-sexual] and thus, bound for hell."
That sort of language and condemnation is harmful, oppressive. It has been used to cause harm throughout the ages. If you believe that to be true for you, then practice it yourself. IF, on the other hand, you believe it SO much that you think it is objectively true and thus you are "bound" to tell that to other people, that crosses a line.
So, pointing out perceived flaws that you might think exists in another person's opinion? Fine. Telling them they're bound for hell because God can't/won't forgive their "sin" of homosexuality? That's crossing a line.
Agree? Disagree?
"Where am I mistaken?"
Never, you've never been mistaken anywhere. In all honestly, this is one of the most annoying tactics you use. You make a list of bullet points which are not in any way objectively proven to be True, you act as if your hunches are presumed to be objectively True, then you tag on the bullshit "question".
The answer is that you are mistaken in assuming that the subjective premises which under gird your bullet points are objectively True. Your mistake is in assuming that you "seeing" something is some sort of standard for determining truth.
"Can we agree on that much?"
Sure. We can agree that you personally find that one particular "line" problematic according to your subjective, personal, "standards".
"So, pointing out perceived flaws that you might think exists in another person's opinion? Fine. Telling them they're bound for hell because God can't/won't forgive their "sin" of homosexuality? That's crossing a line."
Says you. The problem is that it's basically what you regularly do. You regularly label people "moral/immoral" based on your personal, individual, subjective, moral hunches. Yet you get all worked up when other people do virtually the same thing. But, by all means, please show me evidence of anyone who says that YHWH "can't/won't forgive" the "sin" of homosexuality. When you make up these idiotic straw men, it makes it impossible to take you seriously. Or when you take one fringe/extreme person who is "saying" something (unsourced/unquoted) and pretend like that one fringe/extreme person represents everyone you disagree with, it makes you look stupid and desperate.
"Agree? Disagree?"
I disagree with your subjective conclusions, and in the absence of any evidence that anyone is actually "saying" what you claim is being said, I find nothing of value to agree or disagree with.
I certainly disagree with Dan's assertion that God won't forgive a homosexual for refusing to repent of his homosexuality. Here I'm referring most specifically to those who claim to be Christian while willfully indulging in clearly prohibited behavior on the lame premises Dan provides to give them cover...as if that cover will fool God. "Oh! Despite all the clear and unequivocal evidence you provide from Scripture, none of which I've any hope of countering as not applicable to my situation, I'm good preferring to believe that for which I have no evidence whatsoever to defend it." Yeah...that'll work.
Craig...
"But, by all means, please show me evidence of anyone who says that YHWH "can't/won't forgive" the "sin" of homosexuality..."
Marshal...
"I certainly disagree with Dan's assertion that God won't forgive a homosexual for refusing to repent of his homosexuality."
Again, as I have said, IF one truly believes being homosexual or being in a gay marriage is anything but good, there are plenty of people like Marshal who says that means they aren't saved. Not only that, but even if you're not gay but still disagree with the Marshals of the world, that is evidence that you're hellbound, according to Marshal. Having imperfect knowledge/agreement with Marshal on some unknown list of opinions, you aren't saved. According to the Marshals out there.
Would you agree with me, then Craig, that this drifts over into a salvation by works error on Marshal's part?
Dan
" Telling them they're bound for hell because God can't/won't forgive their "sin" of homosexuality?"
I'm going to backtrack a bit and look at the exact words that Dan used which started this issue. Dan is quite clearly saying (or at least strongly implying) that there are people who have claimed that "they're bound for hell because God can't/won't forgive their "sin" of homosexuality?". In the absence of any proof that Dan's characterization is accurate in any way, I fail to see any grounds for his objection to Art's point. Clearly there is no evidence that Art has ever said "they're bound for hell because God can't/won't forgive their "sin" of homosexuality?", nor is there evidence that anyone has said it. (I'm sure there's some fringe whacko out there who's said something like this, but I fail to see how the words of a fringe whacko can be used to "prove" that others agree)
Now let's see what Dan is bitching about.
"Again, as I have said, IF one truly believes being homosexual or being in a gay marriage is anything but good, there are plenty of people like Marshal who says that means they aren't saved."
While you might have made these sorts of claims elsewhere, and you might even believe that these hunches are True, Art was responding to the specific statement quoted above. So, I'm not willing to accept that your apples/bullshit argument has any validity. If you want to deal with what Art actually has said, then copy/paste his exact quotes, and prove them to be objectively false.
"Not only that, but even if you're not gay but still disagree with the Marshals of the world, that is evidence that you're hellbound, according to Marshal."
Again with the misrepresentation of what Art actually said. This sort of straw man argument where you outrageously misrepresent what people have said severly undermines what little credibility you have left. Strangely, while you have ample source material directly from Art, you choose to go with "the Marshals of the world", as if you hold Art responsible for what someone else might have said, and all of these accusations are being made without a single direct quote.
"Having imperfect knowledge/agreement with Marshal on some unknown list of opinions, you aren't saved. According to the Marshals out there."
The old, "Imperfect" argument. It's been a shitty argument since the first time you made it and hasn't gotten any better. FYI, linking salvation to understanding/knowledge/agreement is simply a works based theology.
"Would you agree with me, then Craig, that this drifts over into a salvation by works error on Marshal's part?"
No. For the very simple reason that you have provided absolutely zero evidence that Art is actually espousing the things you attribute to him. Not one direct, in context, quote with a link, just ridiculous paraphrases that you attribute to some unknown bogyman that you've chosen to try to link Art to.
"Clearly there is no evidence that Art has ever said "they're bound for hell because God can't/won't forgive their "sin" of homosexuality?","
You've misunderstood what I've said.
Somehow!
I'm saying quite clearly, repeatedly and directly that WE do not think there IS a "sin of homosexuality. "
That is, for instance, that we don't think two gay folk getting married IS a sin.
We don't think God condemns such.
Now, could we be mistaken? Just like Marshal or you could be (likely ARE) mistaken?
Sure. We could be sincerely mistaken, just as you could be.
I'm saying that simply being mistaken about a policy, behavior, action does NOT condemn us to hell.
Marshal thinks it does. Ask him. At least on that topic and a vague handful of others.
Ask him.
If I am understanding him correctly, will you reject that graceless legalistic viewpoint as a form of saved by works heresy?
Dan
"You've misunderstood what I've said."
No, I literally quoted your actual words verbatim, and simply applied standard English vocabulary and grammar rules to your exact words. You literally made a claim that people were saying that people are "" Telling them they're bound for hell because God can't/won't forgive their "sin" of homosexuality?". What is there to misunderstand?
"I'm saying quite clearly, repeatedly and directly that WE do not think there IS a "sin of homosexuality. ""
1. So what.
2. Who cares what you "think".
3. I love how you hide behind the "WE" as if you speak for some vast group of people.
4. I love how you think that appealing to the alleged numbers behind "WE" somehow makes your position correct.
5. Your hunch about the existence of any particular sin doesn't mean that the sin does not exist.
6. I, and Art, I suspect don't think that there is a "sin of homosexuality" either.
That is, for instance, that we don't think two gay folk getting married IS a sin.
"We don't think God condemns such."
See above.
"Now, could we be mistaken? Just like Marshal or you could be (likely ARE) mistaken?"
Your notion that anyone who disagrees with you and your mystery "WE" is "likely" "mistaken", is just one more indication of the hubris you exhibit brought on by your narcissism and your veneration of your Reason.
"Sure. We could be sincerely mistaken, just as you could be."
Ho magnanimous of you to allow us the gracious possibility that we could be right.
"I'm saying that simply being mistaken about a policy, behavior, action does NOT condemn us to hell."
1. I am not, nor have I ever said that "simply being mistaken about a policy, behavior, action does NOT condemn us to hell."
2. I suspect that Art agrees with me.
3. Please show me one actual example (quote, context, and link) of anyone saying that "simply being mistaken about a policy, behavior, action does NOT condemn us to hell.".
4. I'll wait for your proof.
5. Even if someone DID say exactly what you claim is being said, that still wouldn't negate the possibility of forgiveness/repentance/salvation.
"Marshal thinks it does. Ask him. At least on that topic and a vague handful of others. Ask him."
1. I can't help but note that you have made a claim of fact here ""Marshal thinks it does." without providing even one tiny bit of evidence for your claim.
2. How about if you prove your claims, rather than demanding that others do your work for you?
3. Even if your claim is accurate, who cares. It's entirely possible that Art is mistaken on this one area.
4. We can't evaluate any of this because you are too lazy to provide evidence of your claims.
5. Did I mention that you haven't provided any evidence for your claim?
6. If you'd like to provide evidence, that would be great.
7. If you don't provide evidence then I shall take this as license to make whatever claims I feel like without providing evidence, because why would I adhere to a standard you choose not to adhere to?
"If I am understanding him correctly, will you reject that graceless legalistic viewpoint as a form of saved by works heresy?"
1. You have provided no evidence that supports your claim, which undermines the notion that you are "understanding correctly". Given that reality, everything after "correctly" has absolutely zero value or credibility.
2. If you are NOT "understanding him correctly", will you actually acknowledge your failure and apologize for making false claims?
3. This notion that you can demand that others do certain things if you are "correct", while not offering to do the same if you are not "correct", is simply ridiculous.
BY all means, provide one unambiguous, clear, direct, unequivocal example from Scripture, Jewish tradition, any of the works of the Fathers of the Early Church, through the reformation that indicates that anyone believed that same sex sexual relations were not sinful. Again, I'll wait, but with your encyclopedic knowledge of religious texts, and your vaunted Reason, it shouldn't take long to come up with something.
What is there to misunderstand?
Context. There's always context.
1. So what.
2. Who cares what you "think".
The CONTEXT of the conversation between Marshal (and other conservatives) and myself have been about intentions and understanding.
I've always been saying that if we are condemned for that which we did not understand, then where is the justice or grace in that?
I've always said that, as a believer in salvation by God's grace, that it is GOD'S GRACE which saves us, not our perfect or correct understanding of some subset of undefined rules offered by certain humans.
I'm saying that if we are "lost" and "deserve to burn in hell for an eternity" simply because we didn't understand some point of belief or morality in just the right way, how is that Just? How is that loving and gracious?
I've asked Marshal repeated to define Grace, as he is using it. I'd do the same for you. How do you define grace?
3. I love how you hide behind the "WE" as if you speak for some vast group of people.
4. I love how you think that appealing to the alleged numbers behind "WE" somehow makes your position correct.
I'm stating an observable, demonstrable, objectively provable reality: That there ARE a large number of people who do not believe, for instance, that God is opposed to gay folks getting married. It's an objective fact that there ARE people who believe this. I am part of a church full of people who believe this. It is DEMONSTRABLE.
I'm not saying that, "because we believe this, we can force God to affirm it." That is NOT what I'm saying. I'm pointing to the reality of a large number of people who, IF we are mistaken about gay folks getting married, THEN it's because we are simply mistaken. We've looked at all the known data and come to the conclusion that it would be ridiculous to suggest God is opposed to gay folk getting married.
Do you understand that I'm not appealing to numbers to say I'm right about the question at hand... that I'm pointing to the reality of numbers of people who objectively agree with what I'm saying?
If you miss the point of what I'm saying, of course, you will be confused.
5. Your hunch about the existence of any particular sin doesn't mean that the sin does not exist.
And YOUR (or Marshal's) hunch that it is a sin for gay folks to get married does not mean that it IS a sin. Right?
6. I, and Art, I suspect don't think that there is a "sin of homosexuality" either.
That's me using short hand for what we have ACTUALLY been talking about. Marshal, at least, and maybe you believe that it is a sin for gay folks to get married, at least insomuch as they will likely have sex, which is what Marshal and probably you think is immoral.
That has ALWAYS been what this conversation has been about. Keep up, brother.
Further, it appears (and I don't think I'm mistaken) that Marshal doesn't believe that people like me truly don't think gay sex in the context of marriage is wrong. Marshal keeps insisting that it's "objectively proven" and that we who support marriages of gay folk "know" it's wrong.
Marshal is objectively wrong and I know this because I KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE. Marshal does not get to decide what I or we think, that he's in a better place to know what we think than we do. Do you, at least Craig, recognize the megalomania in his insistence that he knows what we think on this point, even when we tell him he's mistaken?
Do you, at least Craig, recognize that we do, indeed, believe marriage - gay or straight - to be a beautiful, wholesome, blessed thing to be a part of?
That is, for instance, that we don't think two gay folk getting married IS a sin.
And here, you're almost certainly mistaken to speak for Marshal on this point and I suspect that you're playing some semantic games for yourself.
Do you believe that a gay guy marrying a gay guy and having sex in the context of their marriage is a good, holy and blessed thing, something God can and would approve of?
OR do you think them doing that is a sin?
Keep up with what we're actually saying and stop dodging with vague obfuscations.
Your notion that anyone who disagrees with you and your mystery "WE" is "likely" "mistaken", is just one more indication of the hubris you exhibit brought on by your narcissism and your veneration of your Reason.
I do not know what you could possibly mean by this nonsense comment. Feel free to clarify. The "We" I'm speaking of are people I know intimately and where we've had these conversations. That we truly believe our positions is, you think, hubris and narcissism? Is it the same when you and Marshal truly believe your positions?
How is being confident in one's position hubris?
2. I suspect that Art agrees with me.
And I suspect you're factually mistaken.
3. Please show me one actual example (quote, context, and link) of anyone saying that "simply being mistaken about a policy, behavior, action does NOT condemn us to hell.".
The problem is you all speak in vague accusations and don't answer clear, reasonable questions directly. But multiple times, Marshal has said things like this...
Here I'm referring most specifically to
those who claim to be Christian
while willfully indulging in clearly prohibited behavior
on the lame premises Dan provides to give them cover
This sure makes it sound like that IF one is a Christian and IF they are engaging in behavior that they do not believe to be wrong and IF they don't confess for doing that which they don't know is wrong, THEN they will be punished/go to hell/are not a Christian. And yes, Marshal does say "WILLFULLY" there, but then, he continually, repeatedly denies that we don't "know" because, in his estimation, "it's clear" that gay sex is "wrong." Even when I tell him, But we don't think that. He'll say, yes, you do!
He's stated things like this throughout our interactions, AS WELL as making claims that I'm not a Christian because I'm "wrong" (in his eyes) on too many "clear" topics.
Now, I could almost certainly go and try to wade through decades worth of words OR we could just wait for Marshal to clarify.
Clearly, the more rational position is to simply get it straight from the horse's mouth.
Why wouldn't we?
On a recent blog post he built to attack me, I asked...
"Are you saying that, IF it turns out you're wrong (you are), then you're doomed to hell, according to your graceless "angry god demanding blood!" theology? If not, why not?"
And Marshal responded...
First, I'm not at all wrong and you're completely helpless in trying to find a way to successfully pervert Truth in order to make me wrong.
Second, to be wrong because no indication exists for one who is wrong regarding in what way one is wrong is different than having been taught that lesson and pretending without better evidence that one who is wrong is actually not wrong. That is to say, you know you're lying about God's Will because you have no evidence to support that you're understanding is possibly correct. There is no such evidence or you would have produced it by now.
So, it SOUNDS like Marshal is saying (and again, this is in a long line of him saying things like this) that it's NOT the case that we believe what we believe. We "know" we're "lying" about God's will and so, there's no way we're actually worshiping the true God and therefore, we're not Christians. We aren't saved.
Of course, the reality is, we DON'T believe what Marshal believes and don't "know" that gay folks getting married is wrong. So that leaves the question I keep putting to Marshal unanswered in a direct manner:
What of those who truly believe something that is obviously wrong. Does their imperfect knowledge mean that they aren't/can't be saved? Must we have a perfect knowledge on some set of beliefs in order to truly be saved?
Instead of me trying wade through decades worth of interactions, just let Marshal answer the questions directly.
2. If you are NOT "understanding him correctly", will you actually acknowledge your failure and apologize for making false claims?
Of course. I ALWAYS admit errors when I make them. I always apologize for those mistakes. I don't know how you all think I operate, but you're just mistaken if you don't think I admit mistakes when they've been proven wrong.
Now, I don't always agree with what you claim to be mistakes, but this one is easy.
IF Marshal says, "No, we don't have to have perfect knowledge on some subset of vague beliefs from some unknown list. One COULD be a Christian who is gay and married to a guy who has confessed their "known sins" and they could simply be wrong on that and still be saved..." and "one COULD be a supporter of gay folks getting married who are believers in God who've confessed their sin and asked Jesus to be their Lord and STILL be saved by God's grace even in their mistaken beliefs..." If Marshal wants to clarify that, then I will of course say, "Okay, I was wrong, that's not what I understood you to say. Thanks and I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. I sure appreciate you clearing that up."
Because of course that's what I do.
BY all means, provide one unambiguous, clear, direct, unequivocal example from Scripture, Jewish tradition, any of the works of the Fathers of the Early Church, through the reformation that indicates that anyone believed that same sex sexual relations were not sinful.
Why?
I do not believe in the Bible as a rule book. That there are actions condemned in the Bible or in Jewish tradition or in the early church does not mean, to me, that those actions are definitively wrong.
Likewise, that there are actions approved of in the Bible or in Jewish tradition or in the early church does not mean, to me, that those actions are definitively right. That's not how we measure moral behavior. I do not agree with that method of understanding morality.
So, why would I present something that I think is meaningless?
The Bible doesn't condemn slavery. I don't NEED the Bible to condemn slavery.
The Bible doesn't condemn polygamy. I don't NEED the Bible to recognize problems in polygamy.
The Bible approves of stoning to death adulterous women and men. I don't NEED the Bible to condemn that sort of capital punishment.
You're appealing to me to "prove" something in the way that YOU believe in, but why would I when it's not the best way to understand morality? That, indeed, it's a problematic way to understand morality and human rights?
It's like you're saying "Here are the parameters of what I accept as "proof" or evidence, give me something from within those parameters or you fail..." One would have to have agreement on the parameters to make such a demand.
You and I don't have agreement on those parameters.
BY all means, provide one unambiguous, clear, direct, unequivocal example from Scripture, Jewish tradition, any of the works of the Fathers of the Early Church
For my part, I am glad to affirm that throughout much of history, many religious folks would have condemned any suggestion of homosexuality.
Throughout much of history, many religious folks would have condemned the notion of women having equal rights.
Throughout much of history, many religious folks would have accepted enslaving people as a moral option.
All of this is likely true in most of the biblical stories, too.
I just don't find that to be a moral defense of oppressing/killing LGBTQ folks, enslaving others or oppressing women.
Do you?
So, when asked to provide me with a direct quote of Art saying what you claim he said you offer me the following hunch based on what it "sounds like" he's saying based on your biased, prejudiced, hunches.
"So, it SOUNDS like Marshal is saying (and again, this is in a long line of him saying things like this) that it's NOT the case that we believe what we believe. We "know" we're "lying" about God's will and so, there's no way we're actually worshiping the true God and therefore, we're not Christians. We aren't saved."
1. "Lying" usually requires intent, so if you accuse someone of lying, you'd need to prove intent.
2. Art literally just clarified something similar to this in a comment at my blog.
3. It seems as though his point isn't specifically directed at homosexuals, but at anyone who claims to follow Christ, but continuously justifies engaging in sin.
4. Given the words of Christ regarding the whole "new creation"/"new life" thing, it's hard to disagree with the principle.
5. From what I can see, Art's point does not automatically present hell as the only possible option.
6. SO, you haven't (so far) been able to produce proof.
"Of course, the reality is, we DON'T believe what Marshal believes and don't "know" that gay folks getting married is wrong. So that leaves the question I keep putting to Marshal unanswered in a direct manner:"
Which is totally irrelevant, unless you are suggesting that whatever "we DON"T believe" is somehow the objectively correct position to take. It's you hunch, no more, no less.
"What of those who truly believe something that is obviously wrong. Does their imperfect knowledge mean that they aren't/can't be saved? Must we have a perfect knowledge on some set of beliefs in order to truly be saved?"
No, no. But I am aware of no one who has made these sorts of claims, and you haven't provided any evidence of anyone making these claims.
"Instead of me trying wade through decades worth of interactions, just let Marshal answer the questions directly."
It's not your place to demand anything of anyone. You made the specific claim that Art said something very specific, it's on you to prove your claim, put up or shut up. Your laziness isn't an excuse.
"Of course. I ALWAYS admit errors when I make them. I always apologize for those mistakes. I don't know how you all think I operate, but you're just mistaken if you don't think I admit mistakes when they've been proven wrong."
Excuse me, I can't type and laugh at the same time. Be back in a few minutes.
"IF Marshal says, "No, we don't have to have perfect knowledge on some subset of vague beliefs from some unknown list. One COULD be a Christian who is gay and married to a guy who has confessed their "known sins" and they could simply be wrong on that and still be saved..." and "one COULD be a supporter of gay folks getting married who are believers in God who've confessed their sin and asked Jesus to be their Lord and STILL be saved by God's grace even in their mistaken beliefs..." If Marshal wants to clarify that, then I will of course say, "Okay, I was wrong, that's not what I understood you to say. Thanks and I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. I sure appreciate you clearing that up.""
The very fact that you couch your bullshit in "If Marshal says,..." followed by your made up "paraphrase" of what things "sound like" or what you "think" he said invalidates your entire claim. Just show me exactly where he said the things you claim he said, or shut the hell up. I don't care.
"Because of course that's what I do."
Of course it is.
"Context. There's always context."
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Just a bunch of self aggrandizing bullshit, whit absolutely zero proof of the Truth or accuracy of your claim.
"And here, you're almost certainly mistaken to speak for Marshal on this point and I suspect that you're playing some semantic games for yourself."
Thank goodness that I didn't actually speak for Art, but merely offered my opinion based on what I suspect he might say.
"Do you believe that a gay guy marrying a gay guy and having sex in the context of their marriage is a good, holy and blessed thing, something God can and would approve of?"
1. What I believe is irrelevant.
2. If you believe that to be the case, then by all means provide one specific reference from scripture, The Torah/Talmud/Writings of the Early Church to corroborate your hunch.
3. I do not believe that simply getting "married" somehow provides forgiveness for sinful behavior.
"OR do you think them doing that is a sin?"
I think that scripture is our best guide to answering these questions, and that there is absolutely zero evidence from scripture (Torah/Talmud/Early Church writings) that suggests that sex with someone of the same sex is "blessed", "holy" or "good". I also know that you've offered no evidence beyond your limited, flawed, human, Reason that suggests that it is.
"Keep up with what we're actually saying and stop dodging with vague obfuscations."
I literally focused this discussion down to one specific, direct, accurate quote of a claim you made but cannot/will not prove to be True or accurate. You still haven't done some but instead have offered all sorts of bullshit obfuscation and excuses as to why you won't prove your claim. Usually, when you start posting multiple long obtuse comments that don't actually prove your claims or stick to the point, it's a clue that the obfuscation flag is raised and that I should abandon any hope of a clear, direct, unequivocal, answer.
"I do not know what you could possibly mean by this nonsense comment. Feel free to clarify. The "We" I'm speaking of are people I know intimately and where we've had these conversations. That we truly believe our positions is, you think, hubris and narcissism? Is it the same when you and Marshal truly believe your positions?"
Ahhhhhhhh, the mysterious, anonymous, vague, "WE" that gets deployed as a tactic to make your personal hunches seem more credible. I actually think there's a logical fallacy that covers this.
"How is being confident in one's position hubris?"
Just read your own words, unless you've blinded yourself to your own condescension.
"And I suspect you're factually mistaken."
Who cares. I honestly don't find validation in the agreement of people I've never actually met, nor do I seek to have people agree with me.
"The problem is you all speak in vague accusations and don't answer clear, reasonable questions directly. But multiple times, Marshal has said things like this..."
Asking you to provide specific, direct, unequivocal, quotes with context and links is somehow "vague" in your fantasy world is sad and pathetic.
"Here I'm referring most specifically to
those who claim to be Christian
while willfully indulging in clearly prohibited behavior
on the lame premises Dan provides to give them cover"
Yes. Are you suggesting that someone who claims to be a Christian and continually engages in "clearly prohibited" behavior (whatever behavior you consider "clearly prohibited"), is someone who is actually following Jesus in any meaningful way? That someone who claims to be a Christian, yet "rapes puppies" is really a practicing follower of Jesus? ( or of your undefined, vague Way of Grace?) Wouldn't someone who enables and encourages this continued life of sin by pretending that the sin, isn't really sin, be engaged in unhealthy/harmful behavior?
"This sure makes it sound like..."
Again, when you start with this idiocy, I'm not wasting my time. If you can't provide direct, specific, quotes with links and context, I'm not interested in how you can take an out of context quote and pour all sorts of other crap into it because of what something "sounds like". "Sounds like" isn't proof.
"He's stated things like this throughout our interactions, AS WELL as making claims that I'm not a Christian because I'm "wrong" (in his eyes) on too many "clear" topics."
So? You frequently characterize others in negative ways. But by all means, prove him wrong with something other than you hunches.
"Now, I could almost certainly go and try to wade through decades worth of words OR we could just wait for Marshal to clarify."
You made the claim at issue, the burden is on you. Put up, or shut up.
"Clearly, the more rational position is to simply get it straight from the horse's mouth. Why wouldn't we?"
Clearly the most rational position is NOT to make bullshit claims that you can't prove, then use this bullshit of expecting him to do your job for you, to dodge and obfuscate your failures.
"Why?"
1. Because you have objectively claimed that same sex sexual activity is "good", "holy" and "blessed".
2. Because for your claim to be True and accurate we'd need a source beside yourself, and your mysterious, vague, unidentified "WE".
3. Because failing to do so, would be your second logical fallacy strike today. One more and you're out.
"I do not believe in the Bible as a rule book. That there are actions condemned in the Bible or in Jewish tradition or in the early church does not mean, to me, that those actions are definitively wrong."
1. You're belief or lack of belief does not make something True or False, wrong or right.
2. Your characterization of the Bible as a "rule book" is intentionally deceptive. It suggests that there are some who believe that the Bible is only a rule book, and nothing more. It also ignores the fact that the Bible is full of "rules" (commands, etc) that we are expected to follow.
3. You are not the arbiter of right/wrong, good/evil, moral/immoral and your hunches about these things have absolutely zero value to anyone but yourself.
4. I understand that you place an exceedingly high value on your subjective hunches.
"So, why would I present something that I think is meaningless?"
By all means, choose NOT to support your claims. I don't care if you do or not, but stop pretending that your subjective hunches carry any weight beyond your own narcissistic mind.
August 24, 2023 at 10:34 AM
Craig said...
"You're appealing to me to "prove" something in the way that YOU believe in, but why would I when it's not the best way to understand morality?"
Then don't. Just stop insisting that your subjective hunch is NOT the "best way" to understand anything. Stop making claims that are totally grounded in your imperfect, subjective, biased, prejudiced, human hunches.
"That, indeed, it's a problematic way to understand morality and human rights?"
What is this grammatically? It's literally a statement with a ? at the end for some idiotic reason. But, by all means, prove your claim that following YHWH's commands as collected in scripture is an objectively "problematic" way to understand morality and human rights". Please do so without resorting to subjective hunches without objective proof.
August 24, 2023 at 10:39 AM
Craig said...
"It's like you're saying "Here are the parameters of what I accept as "proof" or evidence, give me something from within those parameters or you fail..." One would have to have agreement on the parameters to make such a demand."
yes, I have given you a set of parameters that are vast, that go way beyond the canon of scripture. I do so to point out the obvious. That you can't fulfill this one simple request. If you could tease one little line out of context to make your point, you'd trumpet it like you do every other time you eisegete some proof text that you can twist to support one of your claims. It's because you know that the examples others like you use (David and Jonathan) fail miserably and you think that hiding from your argument from silence is a better option.
"You and I don't have agreement on those parameters."
That may be True, but it is my blog and I do get to establish the rules at my blog. The fact the you disagree, doesn't mean that you're right, or that my request is improper. It just means that you chose that as your excuse.
August 24, 2023 at 10:44 AM
Craig said...
"Do you?"
Irrelevant.
But the fact that you now revel in your argument from silence is an interesting choice.
"You're appealing to me to "prove" something in the way that YOU believe in, but why would I when it's not the best way to understand morality?"
Then don't. Just stop insisting that your subjective hunch is NOT the "best way" to understand anything. Stop making claims that are totally grounded in your imperfect, subjective, biased, prejudiced, human hunches.
"That, indeed, it's a problematic way to understand morality and human rights?"
What is this grammatically? It's literally a statement with a ? at the end for some idiotic reason. But, by all means, prove your claim that following YHWH's commands as collected in scripture is an objectively "problematic" way to understand morality and human rights". Please do so without resorting to subjective hunches without objective proof.
"It's like you're saying "Here are the parameters of what I accept as "proof" or evidence, give me something from within those parameters or you fail..." One would have to have agreement on the parameters to make such a demand."
yes, I have given you a set of parameters that are vast, that go way beyond the canon of scripture. I do so to point out the obvious. That you can't fulfill this one simple request. If you could tease one little line out of context to make your point, you'd trumpet it like you do every other time you eisegete some proof text that you can twist to support one of your claims. It's because you know that the examples others like you use (David and Jonathan) fail miserably and you think that hiding from your argument from silence is a better option.
"You and I don't have agreement on those parameters."
That may be True, but it is my blog and I do get to establish the rules at my blog. The fact the you disagree, doesn't mean that you're right, or that my request is improper. It just means that you chose that as your excuse.
"Do you?"
Irrelevant.
But the fact that you now revel in your argument from silence is an interesting choice.
1. "Lying" usually requires intent, so if you accuse someone of lying, you'd need to prove intent.
Indeed. And when Marshal irrationally says we're lying, he would need to prove intent. He's just wrong in the accusation of lying as is evidenced by my own testimony of what I actually mean.
Are you suggesting that someone who claims to be a Christian and continually engages in "clearly prohibited" behavior (whatever behavior you consider "clearly prohibited"), is someone who is actually following Jesus in any meaningful way?
If someone is KNOWINGLY acting against "clearly prohibited behavior," then they are knowingly making bad/harmful choices. But I'm also noting the reality that we are fallible humans who do not always understand what is "clearly prohibited" behavior or agree with another human when THEY say a behavior is clearly prohibited.
I would say that Marshal's actions and attitudes are clearly prohibited by the Bible, by common sense and by the Golden Rule. Marshal clearly doesn't see it that way. He is a fallible, imperfect human.
I for one do not insist that he need to have a right understanding on every moral position in order to be saved because I'm a believer in salvation by grace, not by our perfect understanding.
Do you agree with me that one need not have a right understanding of every moral position in order to be saved?
I suspect you do.
What we don't know for sure until Marshal confirms is whether or not Marshal believes this. I think HE thinks that if we're wrong about LGBTQ issues, we can't be saved.
But let's let him clarify.
Just stop insisting that your subjective hunch is NOT the "best way" to understand anything. Stop making claims that are totally grounded in your imperfect, subjective, biased, prejudiced, human hunches.
I can't. We shouldn't. Just because we can't objectively prove that enslaving people is objectively proven to be immoral (and you can't), doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight against it.
People are being harmed and it's EASY for people in places of privilege to say, "Let them eat cake," but lives are in the balance and we must strive to find common ground on moral issues when lives are at stake, when harm is being done.
I reject your moral anarchy as not sustainable, moral or rational.
"I get that this is what YOU personally think. That the "best guide" for answering modern questions about the basic human right of gay folks to marry who they wish. That IS your prerogative to think that the ancient texts and ways of people who enslaved their daughters, sold them into marriages, practiced polygamy, KILLED "men who lay with men" and adulterers, who allowed rapists to marry their victims, etc. But not everyone accepts the "Bible as rule book" rubric, for reasons I just implied."
What a bizarre response. You literally asked me what I "thought" and I answered you with what I "thought". But yes, I think that I would prefer to follow the Bible (keeping context in mind) as opposed to your personal, individual, subjective, biased hunches.
"The Biblical traditions of humanity thousands of years ago are quite problematic to the notions of modern liberty and human rights."
If you say so.
"So, beyond you and your wish to use this ancient text as the "best guide" to handling modern marriage and other moral questions, why would those who don't care about your biblical understandings care?"
I was unaware that you had proven your hunch that "modern" "marriage and other moral questions" are somehow different from pre modern. Why would "modern" get some sort of a pass, reset, or new standard? Who beyond you is making this claim?
"That isn't meant to be a harsh condemnation. It's just a reasonable question. Why should people who don't share your opinions about the Bible and morality care about what you think the Bible might have to say?"
I honestly don't care what people like you think. Your opinions have literally zero value to me. Your subjective hunches have absolutely zero standing outside of your self. My self worth and value isn't tied to what people I disagree with think of me.
"It's a reasonable question."
If you say so.
"Harm. Human rights. An end to oppression."
Yes, those are your subjective hunches about how to ground a system of morality. Every one of those terms depends on how you define them and how you interpret them. I don't believe that you have shown that you have or deserve that power.
"I can point to the objectively provable HARM that has been inflicted upon LGBTQ folks throughout the centuries. The beatings, the imprisonment, the banishment, the ridicule, the murders, the vehement hatred towards LGBTQ over the centuries has been incredibly harmful to them and their loved ones and the world as a whole."
1. So.
2. So what?
3. The vast majority of current "harm" to the alphabet folx is in countries that follow Sharia law.
4. Why would I care about your subjective hunches?
5. I can objectively prove that "HARM" has been done to every single group of people that has ever existed.
6. Maybe you missed the whole circle of life, survival of the fittest, nature is red in tooth and claw Science that tells us that "HARM" is the normal, expected, natural consequence of a naturalistic/materialists/Darwinian approach to science.
"Now, our understanding of this harm may be limited, flawed and human, but so is your personal human opinion of treating the Bible as a rule book to glean modern moral values based upon ancient, sometimes atrocious policies."
I never said it wasn't. But don't let that reality stop you from trying to impose your bullshit on me.
"So, what do we do with that conflict?"
Don't care.
"We BOTH have limited, flawed and human opinions. But, outside of those who happen to share your human traditions and opinions about morality, why would your collective opinions matter to the rest of us? Harm may be an imperfect guide, but it's certainly more measurable and observable than "I think these ancient texts mean this..." isn't it?"
It's always hilarious when you make the same argument I've been making for years. People have the freedom to choose all sorts of things. I have no desire to force anything on anyone. I will say that if people choose the road that is broad and leads to destruction, they probably shouldn't complain when they get exactly what they chose. That's the difference between us, you are determined to craft a subjective moral code that allows you to objectively judge people (moral or immoral), and to apply your subjective moral code in an objective way to others who choose a different moral code.
Would I prefer that I could share The Gospel with everyone and that everyone would be saved, absolutely. Would I ever force that on anyone, no I wouldn't.
So, you've moved the conversation from one post to this post. Would you want me to respond to this here, or in the other post?
Dan:
"OR do you think them doing that (being gay and married) is a sin?"
Craig:
I think that scripture is our best guide to answering these questions, and that there is absolutely zero evidence from scripture (Torah/Talmud/Early Church writings) that suggests that sex with someone of the same sex is "blessed", "holy" or "good".
I get that this is what YOU personally think. That the "best guide" for answering modern questions about the basic human right of gay folks to marry who they wish. That IS your prerogative to think that the ancient texts and ways of people who enslaved their daughters, sold them into marriages, practiced polygamy, KILLED "men who lay with men" and adulterers, who allowed rapists to marry their victims, etc. But not everyone accepts the "Bible as rule book" rubric, for reasons I just implied.
The Biblical traditions of humanity thousands of years ago are quite problematic to the notions of modern liberty and human rights.
So, beyond you and your wish to use this ancient text as the "best guide" to handling modern marriage and other moral questions, why would those who don't care about your biblical understandings care?
That isn't meant to be a harsh condemnation. It's just a reasonable question. Why should people who don't share your opinions about the Bible and morality care about what you think the Bible might have to say?
It's a reasonable question.
I also know that you've offered no evidence beyond your limited, flawed, human, Reason that suggests that it is.
Harm. Human rights. An end to oppression.
I can point to the objectively provable HARM that has been inflicted upon LGBTQ folks throughout the centuries. The beatings, the imprisonment, the banishment, the ridicule, the murders, the vehement hatred towards LGBTQ over the centuries has been incredibly harmful to them and their loved ones and the world as a whole.
Now, our understanding of this harm may be limited, flawed and human, but so is your personal human opinion of treating the Bible as a rule book to glean modern moral values based upon ancient, sometimes atrocious policies.
So, what do we do with that conflict? We BOTH have limited, flawed and human opinions. But, outside of those who happen to share your human traditions and opinions about morality, why would your collective opinions matter to the rest of us? Harm may be an imperfect guide, but it's certainly more measurable and observable than "I think these ancient texts mean this..." isn't it?
Your characterization of the Bible as a "rule book" is intentionally deceptive.
YOU are the one who said that the best way to understand morality is the biblical text. Not me.
It suggests that there are some who believe that the Bible is only a rule book, and nothing more.
It does not. You might choose to read that into what I actually said, but it's not what I said.
I'd point out that you all "reading into" texts what isn't literally there is part of the problem... maybe your powers of understanding aren't all that keen or perfect..?
It also ignores the fact that the Bible is full of "rules" (commands, etc) that we are expected to follow.
Says you. What I read in the Bible specifically from Jesus is all sorts of warnings about misunderstanding rules. The Sabbath (rules) was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath (rules). What I read in the Bible warns repeatedly of the dangers of legalism, of legalistically, gracelessly demanding rule-following.
What I also read in the Bible are literally rules for a specific people and place and time, not any indication that they are universal rules. Nearly all the OT rules I can think of are specifically given specifically, literally to the people of Israel.
The exceptions are not so much rules but condemnations.... condemnations of nations who do not support justice for the poor, condemnations of nations and the wealthy and powerful who oppress the poor and marginalized. I see those which could illustrate more generally a concern for more universal understanding of some basics of morality - don't oppress, specifically don't oppress the poor and marginalized.
All of that to say that in spite of your claim, it's not a proven fact that there are rules in the Bible that "we are expected to follow..." at least, beyond the rule of Love. THAT, we are expected to follow in the Bible, for those who take the Bible seriously. But to reduce that to as a mere "rule" is sort of missing the point, seems to me.
"Stop it. I'm supporting my claims. I'm just not playing by the rules that you flippantly, haphazardly try to insist upon."
You literally cannot demonstrate that Art said what you specifically claimed he said. The fact that your trying to make excuses for this bullshit is hilarious.
"...would anyone feel a need to comply by your whimsical nonsensical "rules..."?"
This "whimsical" rule you're bitching about is that you provide actual evidence that your claim about Art is factually accurate. If you want to play this bullshit game, that's fine, just remember that you are the one who's defending making claims and not supporting them. I'll be glad to play by your rules, until you find it advantageous to change them again.
"Regardless, I'm supporting my claims."
No. You made a specific claim about something Art allegedly said. I asked for you to provide proof, you didn't. Stop lying.
Oh, by all means. Let's twist "Do unto others..." into license for everything.
If someone wants to drive 95 MPH in a school zone while vaping THC, then let's let them do what they want to do. What an idiotic pile of shit. You'll selectively apply this subjective anecdote, until you decide that it doesn't apply based on some more subjective bullshit.
"Now, you can say such claims of harm and human rights abuses don't MATTER to you as a measure of morality, but you can't say I'm not supporting my claims."
This is absolutely pathetic. The notion that you can avoid proving one specific claim, because you can come up with some subjective "support" for some other random claims doesn't absolve you of proving the specific claim.
"I'm just not playing by your rules, and why should I?"
You shouldn't. You should make up your own rules, demand that others follow your rules, and impose your rules at my blog. The problem is that "support your claims" is a rule you demand others follow.
"Again, not being mean. That's a reasonable question. WHY should I defer to your rules for making my case?"
You shouldn't. It just means that I regard you as a childish, narcissistic, idiot who can't live up the the demands that you place on others.
By all means, choose NOT to support your claims.
Stop it. I'm supporting my claims. I'm just not playing by the rules that you flippantly, haphazardly try to insist upon.
If we're playing a game of chess and then you suddenly say, "But we're playing by MY rules! And in MY rules, the White side (MY side) can toss a basketball upon the board and upset as many black players as possible, thus I can more likely assure my victory!! BWA HA HA!!!" ...why would anyone feel a need to comply by your whimsical nonsensical "rules..."?
Regardless, I'm supporting my claims.
Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
If you were gay and in love with a guy and had no attraction to females, and your church insisted that you MUST marry a female if you want to marry, they're not doing unto you as you'd like them to do.
If you were a lesbian couple who wanted to adopt a child and the adoption agency says, "NO! No children to lesbians! They'd be BAD parents!" ...that adoption agency is not doing unto you as you'd hopefully do unto them.
And also, just the harm (which factors into the Golden Rule). LGBTQ people HAVE been oppressed, their humanity denied, they've been imprisoned, beaten, mocked, abused and otherwise oppressed. Historically, observably so. This is an infringement on human rights.
Now, you can say such claims of harm and human rights abuses don't MATTER to you as a measure of morality, but you can't say I'm not supporting my claims.
I'm just not playing by your rules, and why should I?
Again, not being mean. That's a reasonable question. WHY should I defer to your rules for making my case?
If someone wants to drive 95 MPH in a school zone while vaping THC, then let's let them do what they want to do. What an idiotic pile of shit. You'll selectively apply this subjective anecdote, until you decide that it doesn't apply based on some more subjective bullshit.
1. Harm is not nothing. It's observable. It's measurable. The odds of harming someone while driving 95MPH in a school zone are something we can calculate and objectively demonstrate. We would have historical data to compare and bring to bear.
2. Interpretations on biblical meaning, on the other hand, are not nearly as observable, measurable or provable. It's very much a subjective he said/she said/they said/they all think matter. There IS no objective measure we can apply.
3. Thus, harm is not nothing. It's a reasonable measure, especially in a pluralistic society/world.
Using the Golden Rule and "doing no harm" and appeals to human rights is not an appeal to let people do ANYTHING they want to do. Literally, just the opposite.
It's an appeal to mind our business/decide for ourselves EXCEPT and UNTIL someone is actively causing harm or reasonably, potentially causing harm (the drunk driver in a school zone).
Whatever you may think of this standard, it's not unreasonable. It's a rational argument that most folks can understand and wrap their heads around... EVEN IF we have disputes about some of the specifics.
Do you disagree?
Are you suggesting that someone who claims to be a Christian and continually engages in "clearly prohibited" behavior (whatever behavior you consider "clearly prohibited"), is someone who is actually following Jesus in any meaningful way?
I'm saying that we are saved by GRACE, not our perfect understanding. I think the behavior that at least Marshal and others have exhibited towards LGBTQ folks and liberals and immigrants is ungracious and lacking in morality. BUT, I'm not claiming that his mistaken and harmful behaviors means he's not saved. I think he's acting in ignorance and it's causing harm to others... but I don't think his failure to understand morality aright means he's not saved.
Why?
Because I believe we're saved by God's grace, not by our perfect understanding on some set of rules.
Do you think there are some rules/behaviors/philosophies that we can believe in (mistakenly) that would mean we're not saved?
If so, where is that list? What is your justification for that list?
Yes, those are your subjective hunches about how to ground a system of morality. Every one of those terms depends on how you define them and how you interpret them. I don't believe that you have shown that you have or deserve that power.
Yes, to some degree, they are subjective.
But, there's something there to actually measure and take into objective account.
If someone shoots and kills a baby or a child or an innocent bystander, it's NOT subjective that they've caused harm to an innocent person. THAT much is measurable and demonstrably, objectively.
On the other hand, with appeals to "but the Bible has a ruling..." are all subjective. "The Bible has a ruling in that it allowed Israel to enslave people and
kill men who lay with men and disrespectful children and adulterers and
that allowed selling your daughter into a marriage arrangement and
that says we should welcome the immigrant and treat them with some basic decency and
that money can be a trap and that we should not store treasures on earth and..."
...and so on and so on. And the real world applications to ALL of those rulings is always a matter of subjective opinion with I don't know what possible appeal to anything objective.
Am I mistaken?
So, of the two:
Appeals to doing no harm and
appeals to our understanding of moral rulings that may or may not appear in an ancient text such as the bible or Quran...
Which of the two has MORE room for objective evaluation? ... (ie, continuing the questioning...) Especially in the context of a pluralistic world?
"You've asked this before. I find it hard to believe that you don't understand this."
That's strange, because you are the only person I've ever seen who tries to disguise a statement as a question. I guess it's too hard to simply format is as a question.
"You're appealing to me to "prove" something in the way that YOU believe in, but why would I when it's not the best way to understand morality?
That, indeed, it's a problematic way to understand morality and human rights?"
well, in context, I realized that I missed a couple of things.
1. That the first one isn't actually a question either.
2. You've tried to sneak a claim of fact (that you know the "best way to understand morality") by disguising it as a question.
3. Where is your objective proof that you actually do posses the "best way to understand morality"?
4. No, the second statement is also an attempt to hide a claim of fact (that you have a way to understand morality that is not "problematic") by tacking on a ?.
"Indeed, to be more grammatically correct, I would have inserted ellipses ("...that indeed, it's a problematic way to understand morality...?") but it's an understandable way of communicating. Why are you wasting words on what is clear?"
By all means, whenever possible choose the method of making your claims that is the least clear and "grammatically correct" that you possibly can.
"Is it the case that you're not familiar with continuing a line of questioning in this manner? ...that indeed, you're ignorant of it? ...or is it just the case that you're wasting words and time?"
No, just fascinated at how creative you are with your excuses, and how committed to justifying your lack of being "grammatically correct" and clear you are.
Always blame others first.
"Indeed. And when Marshal irrationally says we're lying, he would need to prove intent. He's just wrong in the accusation of lying as is evidenced by my own testimony of what I actually mean."
Interesting that you don't stand by what you actually write in your comments, but instead appeal to some hidden "what you actually mean". Why not just actually say what you actually mean, instead of hoping that other's will ferret out your "actual" meaning?
"If someone is KNOWINGLY acting against "clearly prohibited behavior," then they are knowingly making bad/harmful choices. But I'm also noting the reality that we are fallible humans who do not always understand what is "clearly prohibited" behavior or agree with another human when THEY say a behavior is clearly prohibited."
How bizarre, the first part of that actually appears to echo what Art says, but then you try to insist that "clearly prohibited behavior" is some how not clearly prohibited, but instead is unclear. Further, the fact that you are trying to use someone unintentional behavior (I didn't know what the speed limit was." to justify others who are "KNOWINGLY acting against "clearly prohibited behavior,". (Yeah, I saw the sign, but I decided to ignore it)
I would say that Marshal's actions and attitudes are clearly prohibited by the Bible, by common sense and by the Golden Rule. Marshal clearly doesn't see it that way. He is a fallible, imperfect human.
"I for one do not insist that he need to have a right understanding on every moral position in order to be saved because I'm a believer in salvation by grace, not by our perfect understanding."
Although you've ignored this multiple times, I'll try again. Can you show actual proof that either Art or I have ever claimed that "salvation" is by "our perfect understanding"? Further, how does not having "perfect understanding" of every possible sin, excuse engaging in sin that one does have (reasonably good) understanding of?
"Do you agree with me that one need not have a right understanding of every moral position in order to be saved?"
Of course not you moron. You keep pretending like this idiotic bullshit that you've made up actually represents what Art or I have said and keep demanding that we validate your made up bullshit.
"What we don't know for sure until Marshal confirms is whether or not Marshal believes this. I think HE thinks that if we're wrong about LGBTQ issues, we can't be saved."
Well, if you think so, then you must be right.
"But let's let him clarify."
Or you can prove your claims about what you "think" his position is.
"I can't. We shouldn't. Just because we can't objectively prove that enslaving people is objectively proven to be immoral (and you can't), doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight against it."
If you can't prove your claims, then why would you make them?
"People are being harmed and it's EASY for people in places of privilege to say, "Let them eat cake," but lives are in the balance and we must strive to find common ground on moral issues when lives are at stake, when harm is being done."
This is irrelevant, but no one is stopping your from trying to impose your personal, subjective, fallible, hunches on others. You go right ahead.
Hell, I just wrote a whole post about people that actually do this at great risk to themselves.
I reject your moral anarchy as not sustainable, moral or rational.
"YOU are the one who said that the best way to understand morality is the biblical text. Not me."
Yes, I did. But that doesn't give you unfettered freedom to embellish or twist what I actually said into something that I didn't say.
"It does not. You might choose to read that into what I actually said, but it's not what I said."
Wow, right after you do exactly what you claim I've done. But by all means, show me one person who would characterize the Bible as only or primarily a "rule book"?
"I'd point out that you all "reading into" texts what isn't literally there is part of the problem... maybe your powers of understanding aren't all that keen or perfect..?"
This is ironic, isn't it.
"Says you. What I read in the Bible specifically from Jesus is all sorts of warnings about misunderstanding rules. The Sabbath (rules) was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath (rules). What I read in the Bible warns repeatedly of the dangers of legalism, of legalistically, gracelessly demanding rule-following."
Well, if you say so. Because obviously "what" you "read" in the Bible is beyond questioning. The fact the you choose to ignore one aspect of scripture, and of Jesus teaching is certainly a choice you are free to make. But you ignoring something, doesn't make your subjective hunch True.
"What I also read in the Bible are literally rules for a specific people and place and time, not any indication that they are universal rules. Nearly all the OT rules I can think of are specifically given specifically, literally to the people of Israel."
Yes. Some of YHWH's commands were intended for certain specific people, in certain specific times, and certain specific places. I'm impressed that you managed to find this out after centuries of idiots who completely missed it.
"he exceptions are not so much rules but condemnations.... condemnations of nations who do not support justice for the poor, condemnations of nations and the wealthy and powerful who oppress the poor and marginalized. I see those which could illustrate more generally a concern for more universal understanding of some basics of morality - don't oppress, specifically don't oppress the poor and marginalized."
OK, if you want to read things into the text that aren't there, cherry pick proof texts, and engage in eisegesis, I can't stop you.
"All of that to say that in spite of your claim, it's not a proven fact that there are rules in the Bible that "we are expected to follow..." at least, beyond the rule of Love. THAT, we are expected to follow in the Bible, for those who take the Bible seriously. But to reduce that to as a mere "rule" is sort of missing the point, seems to me."
Thus sayeth Danthustera!!!!
3. Where is your objective proof that you actually do posses the "best way to understand morality"?
This is a reasonable question. My answer is based upon reason and notions of what we can and can't reason and with what level of certainty...
If one were to say, "Here is the Quran. It contains the objective words of Allah. In it, we can find the moral rules we need!"
We would have reasonable questions.
Who says they're the objective words of Allah (ie, God, in Arabic)?
Whose interpretation of those words/ideas are reliable and authoritative?
Why are the "moral rules we need" found in the Quran? Again, according to whom?
What would be the authoritative, reliable responses to those questions? Are there any? Are there ANY reliable, authoriative, proven answers to that at all? It's going to be an appeal to some subjective opinion from some group of humans who are starting with that presumption, but haven't proven it, will it not?
If, on the other hand, we say, "Using the standard of doing no harm to innocent people, we can reach a great deal of agreement on moral rules."
We might also have reasonable questions?
How is harm being defined?
By whom?
To what degree?
How will we find agreement, by what process?
To THESE questions, we can begin formulating some common ground, can we not?
"Harm is when someone is physically, emotionally or financially hurt - there is physical damage, there is a financial loss, there is death, there is undue anxiety..."
"The harm can be determined by medical, psychological and financial experts... and really, it's not that hard. IF someone is stabbed in the chest while out shopping for no reason, they HAVE been harmed... it's not hard to tell that and we can all generally recognize that. IF Bob's money has been taken from him - thousands of dollars! - by someone who had no claim to that money, Bob HAS been financially harmed!"
And so on. We have lots of room for finding some common ground around some demonstrable measures.
For these reasons, to start with, I would say that the Harm measure is a more practical way of determining morality... Because it is more objectively measurable.
Now that's a reasoning exercise and I don't know that we can or can't say it's objectively proven... but I think one would be hard pressed to deny its appeal and basis reasoning.
Do you disagree?
But by all means, show me one person who would characterize the Bible as only or primarily a "rule book"?
? I'm literally not making that claim.
then you try to insist that "clearly prohibited behavior" is some how not clearly prohibited, but instead is unclear.
? I literally didn't. Not sure of what you're talking about here. I suspect you're reading into my words something I didn't say. Again.
To illustrate a bit more: MARSHAL may think in his head that gay folk marrying is "clearly prohibited..." but that doesn't mean that he's right. It's his opinion. Just like it is MY reasonable opinion that oppressing others, denying them human rights, denying them the option of self-determination in, for instance, marrying who they want or moving where they want, is "clearly prohibited," in my opinion (and I think reasonably). But Marshal may not think so.
My argument is that there is not a list of behaviors/actions/philosophies about which we can be wrong which would then, by nature of our being mistaken in our human imperfection, make us "unqualified" to be saved or that would dictate that we are not Christian.
Do you agree? Disagree?
"1. Harm is not nothing. It's observable. It's measurable. The odds of harming someone while driving 95MPH in a school zone are something we can calculate and objectively demonstrate. We would have historical data to compare and bring to bear."
A. Where did I say that "harm" was "nothing" or not "observable" or "measurable"?
B. Yes, we can measure speed, see that a school zone exists, and measure the effects of THC. Yet None of those things either individually or collectively is actually harmful.
C. AT best that combination could be potentially harmful under certain specific circumstances.
D. The point remains that treating someone who acts in ignorance the same way we treat someone who acts knowingly, is what Art was pointing out.
2. Blah, Blah, Blah, who cares.
3. Blah, Blah, Blah, let's pretend that repeating #1 is really a separate bullet point.
4. Let's also ignore the fact that context matters.
5. In the school zone example, there is NO measurable "harm" present in those behaviors.
6. There is POTENTIAL harm, but not actual harm.
7. The POTENTIAL for harm changes with the context.
"It's an appeal to mind our business/decide for ourselves EXCEPT and UNTIL someone is actively causing harm or reasonably, potentially causing harm (the drunk driver in a school zone)."
But we don't condemn people for what they potentially might do, do we?
"Do you disagree?"
It's subjective and has no basis to be allied in a universal manner. Anything else is just you trying to get the results of an objective moral system, without the baggage of an objective moral system.
"Yes, to some degree, they are subjective."
Subjective/Objective is pretty much a binary/either or situation. But yes, your hunches are subjective to the highest degree.
"But, there's something there to actually measure and take into objective account."
Really?
"If someone shoots and kills a baby or a child or an innocent bystander, it's NOT subjective that they've caused harm to an innocent person. THAT much is measurable and demonstrably, objectively."
No, but the assignment of "harm" as the standard is subjective. In the sense that it's a subjective standard, and how harm is measured can certainly be applied subjectively. IN any case, you simply asserting this as if it's True is absurd.
"Am I mistaken?"
I believe that you are mistaken.
"Which of the two has MORE room for objective evaluation? ... (ie, continuing the questioning...) Especially in the context of a pluralistic world?"
According to you and your personal subjective standards, the answer is obvious.
IN the context of a "pluralistic world" where there is absolutely zero objective Truth, then what makes the most sense is a subjective "pluralistic" moral system. One which acknowledges that different societies, groups, tribes, and nations have different values, standards, and mores and that allowing each society/tribe/nation/group/etc to determine their local moral code. One which doesn't attempt to impose one subjective moral code on a society that doesn't share the same beliefs. One which acknowledges what Science?Materialism/Naturalism/Darwinism tell us to be scientifically True. That nature is completely amoral, that the natural state is one where survival of the fittest is the only law, where we acknowledge that nature is red in tooth and claw, and that life has no intrinsic value/meaning/purpose.
A world where you stop trying to tell everyone that you have all the right/best answers about morality.
I said...
"The Biblical traditions of humanity thousands of years ago are quite problematic to the notions of modern liberty and human rights."
Craig responded...
If you say so.
No, not "if I say so," but in many ways, objectively so, demonstrably so. 4,000 years ago, it was accepted and approved by weight of law that one could enslave people.
Today, that is not the case (although there are some nations still where it sneaks by/doesn't get prosecuted as much, I don't think it's legal anywhere, and certainly not in the free world.)
4,000 years ago, by and large, we didn't have anything like Democracies or Free nations led by the people (there were some exceptions). Increasingly, it's become normative and even in the places where it doesn't exist, they will often strive to pretend it does.
Likewise, while women still suffer greatly in the world from lacking full freedom, it's certainly, measurably better than it was in 4,000 BCE, for instance. And at least in relatively free nations like the US, women can choose their marriage partner, make their own parenting decisions, choose their careers, choose to get educated. This was objectively not an option in biblical times and places.
Same for LGBTQ folks. They are still oppressed and harmed around the world, but in at least free nations, there is the hope for their freedom and ability to enjoy basic human rights.
"So, beyond you and your wish to use this ancient text as the "best guide" to handling modern marriage and other moral questions, why would those who don't care about your biblical understandings care?"
I was unaware that you had proven your hunch that "modern" "marriage and other moral questions" are somehow different from pre modern.
Not sure of your point. My point would be that women should have self determination to choose their education, career, family, marriage partners and elected representatives. In free nations today, that is the case. Not so in ancient times. I'm saying that is a measurable improvement in morality.
Do you disagree?
Why would "modern" get some sort of a pass, reset, or new standard? Who beyond you is making this claim?
?
You asked this question in response to my question:
"So, beyond you and your wish to use this ancient text as the "best guide" to handling modern marriage and other moral questions, why would those who don't care about your biblical understandings care?"
What claim do you think I'm making? That women should have the freedom of self-determination? That having self-determination is a more moral option than DENYING self-determination to women??
"This is a reasonable question."
Yes it is.
Unfortunately, your response doesn't provide any objective proof that you posses the objectively "best" way to do anything. Just more self serving posturing.
"Do you disagree?"
I disagree with the notion that your meandering, bizarre, response was objective proof that you have the objectively "best" system of understanding morality. It was just the same old "come to a subjective consensus and impose that on those who disagree" bullshit you've spouted for years.
"? I'm literally not making that claim."
Then I guess you've just decided to be imprecise in how you describe those who disagree with you.
But we don't condemn people for what they potentially might do, do we?
Yes, and reasonably so. The person who is sloppy drunk and driving in a residential neighborhood MIGHT potentially (and reasonably) cause harm to an innocent bystander. We stop them by force (if needed) and charge them with a crime NOT because they have harmed someone but because of what harm they might reasonably potentially do.
The person who dumps toxins into a river MIGHT not actually kill any people, but there is the potential for harm. We charge them for the crime of what harm they MIGHT have caused.
We reasonably do this all the time and righteously so, I'd say.
Do you disagree?
"Do you agree? Disagree?"
Go back and read what you said, you literally argued that it's possible for someone to be ignorant of "clearly prohibited behavior", which would necessarily mean that the prohibition wasn't clear. But clarity is something you struggle with.
I disagree with your representation of Art's position in the absence of any direct quotes/links that demonstrate that your characterizations are accurate.
"Not sure of your point."
My point would be that I was unaware that there was objective proof that "morality" has significantly changed throughout history. You seem to be suggesting that because certain things were legal that they were considered to be moral, or that morality is somehow fluid based on the calendar.
"Do you disagree?"
I don't care about, or agree with your subjective hunches.
"What claim do you think I'm making?"
The claim that your hunches about Biblical moral codes or how those codes were treated, somehow justifies some sort of "modern" moral code that is the "best".
"That women should have the freedom of self-determination? That having self-determination is a more moral option than DENYING self-determination to women??"
No.
"Yes, and reasonably so. The person who is sloppy drunk and driving in a residential neighborhood MIGHT potentially (and reasonably) cause harm to an innocent bystander. We stop them by force (if needed) and charge them with a crime NOT because they have harmed someone but because of what harm they might reasonably potentially do."
No, we stop them and arrest them because the violated the law. It is against the law to drive impaired. Legality does not determine morality. You're original argument was that this was an offense to your subjective moral code based on "harm". But the person who drives through a school zone at 2:00 AM at 95, and pulls into their driveway has NOT caused anyone harm. This new tactic of conflating legal with moral seems to show desperation.
"The person who dumps toxins into a river MIGHT not actually kill any people, but there is the potential for harm. We charge them for the crime of what harm they MIGHT have caused."
It's illegal, not immoral.
"We reasonably do this all the time and righteously so, I'd say."
Yes, we do pass laws and punish people who break them. We don't confuse laws with morals.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, moral and legal are not synonymous.
The claim that your hunches about Biblical moral codes or how those codes were treated, somehow justifies some sort of "modern" moral code that is the "best".
1. I haven't made that claim, as you write it, anyway.
2. I do think, objectively speaking, we can recognize that:
A. In the bible, women didn't have the right of self-determination - a basic human right that many rational humans recognize as "self-evident."
B. Today in the free world, women DO have a right of self-determination.
C. I think reasonable people who can affirm human rights as "self-evident" and Self-determination as a basic human right can easily affirm that women are, in that regards, in a much better state and the system that promotes that is more reasonably moral than one that does NOT support/promote that.
Set aside whether or not you think it's objectively provable, do you personally have ANY doubts that women enjoy more human rights in today's free world than in biblical times? Do you personally affirm that this is clearly a MUCH more moral scenario than a realm where they didn't have human rights/the right to self-determination?
I'm not clear what you're objecting to, if anything.
No, we stop them and arrest them because the violated the law. It is against the law to drive impaired. Legality does not determine morality.
AH, but WHY did we create the law in the first place? To try to limit freedom? To try to whimsically choose to harm drunk drivers? OR to promote a healthier, safer community which is, itself, more reasonably moral?
If you think drunk driving or deliberate pollution is illegal not immoral, I'd question your moral compass.
No, moral and legal are not synonymous, but there is overlap. AT LEAST in a system where we recognize the rationality of morality as that which discourages harm and promotes freedom from harm.
Which seems to me to be yet another nail in the coffin in the Bible (or Quran, etc) as THE BEST moral compass over and against Harm.
My point would be that I was unaware that there was objective proof that "morality" has significantly changed throughout history.
What was considered morally acceptable in the OT is not the same as what is morally acceptable now. Whether or not you think the OT norms of morality were "less-than" or that morality has changed, one way or the other, what was accepted as moral has demonstrably changed and by and large, for the good.
Do you disagree?
Do you agree that the modern free world is in the right for condemning slavery and supporting rights for women and LGBTQ folks?
"I get that this is what YOU personally think. That the "best guide" for answering modern questions about the basic human right of gay folks to marry who they wish. That IS your prerogative to think that the ancient texts and ways of people who enslaved their daughters, sold them into marriages, practiced polygamy, KILLED "men who lay with men" and adulterers, who allowed rapists to marry their victims, etc. But not everyone accepts the "Bible as rule book" rubric, for reasons I just implied."
What a bizarre response. You literally asked me what I "thought" and I answered you with what I "thought". But yes, I think that I would prefer to follow the Bible (keeping context in mind) as opposed to your personal, individual, subjective, biased hunches.
"The Biblical traditions of humanity thousands of years ago are quite problematic to the notions of modern liberty and human rights."
If you say so.
"So, beyond you and your wish to use this ancient text as the "best guide" to handling modern marriage and other moral questions, why would those who don't care about your biblical understandings care?"
I was unaware that you had proven your hunch that "modern" "marriage and other moral questions" are somehow different from pre modern. Why would "modern" get some sort of a pass, reset, or new standard? Who beyond you is making this claim?
"That isn't meant to be a harsh condemnation. It's just a reasonable question. Why should people who don't share your opinions about the Bible and morality care about what you think the Bible might have to say?"
I honestly don't care what people like you think. Your opinions have literally zero value to me. Your subjective hunches have absolutely zero standing outside of your self. My self worth and value isn't tied to what people I disagree with think of me.
"It's a reasonable question."
If you say so.
"Harm. Human rights. An end to oppression."
Yes, those are your subjective hunches about how to ground a system of morality. Every one of those terms depends on how you define them and how you interpret them. I don't believe that you have shown that you have or deserve that power.
"I can point to the objectively provable HARM that has been inflicted upon LGBTQ folks throughout the centuries. The beatings, the imprisonment, the banishment, the ridicule, the murders, the vehement hatred towards LGBTQ over the centuries has been incredibly harmful to them and their loved ones and the world as a whole."
1. So.
2. So what?
3. The vast majority of current "harm" to the alphabet folx is in countries that follow Sharia law.
4. Why would I care about your subjective hunches?
5. I can objectively prove that "HARM" has been done to every single group of people that has ever existed.
6. Maybe you missed the whole circle of life, survival of the fittest, nature is red in tooth and claw Science that tells us that "HARM" is the normal, expected, natural consequence of a naturalistic/materialists/Darwinian approach to science.
4. Why would I care about your subjective hunches?
A. Because people ARE being harmed and
B. I assume you're not so immoral or hard of heart that you don't care.
C. In spite of the reality that neither of us can objectively prove our moral opinions, that doesn't mean that all moral opinions are equally valid, does it (do you think)?
D. In reality, those who act as moral anarchists (who say we have no duty to act to prevent harm if we can't objectively prove it) are aiding the oppressors and those who cause harm.
Those who act to find common ground to prevent harm are, on the other hand, taking actions that presumably reasonable people could find moral.
Do you disagree?
5. I can objectively prove that "HARM" has been done to every single group of people that has ever existed.
Apples and oranges.
Some straight people have been harmed throughout the ages, no doubt, because they are straight. BUT there has been no consistent, systematic attempt to oppress and cause harm and demonize, attack, and deny rights to straight people, as a class/group.
The same is true for black and white folk in our history. That there are white individuals who have been harmed does not compare to the systemic racism, slavery, Jim Crow, systematic, widespread attempts to harm and oppress black people.
To pretend that the individuals who've been selectively harmed somehow compares to the groups who've been systematically oppressed is to miss the point and deny reality. There is an additional level of harm - indeed, called oppression - when it happens to a group(s), with additional harmful consequences.
So, what is the point of pointing to individuals who have one off been harmed who happened to be straight or white or men in power? Is it to deny or downplay the systemic oppression of peoples/groups? If so, isn't that itself an extra level of harm/damage/sin?
6. Maybe you missed the whole circle of life, survival of the fittest, nature is red in tooth and claw Science that tells us that "HARM" is the normal, expected, natural consequence of a naturalistic/materialists/Darwinian approach to science.
"Darwinists" or "science" does not tell us it's okay or even natural to harm fellow human beings. Naturalism does not support "It's okay to oppress this group or that." It just doesn't. Don't pretend that it does.
Oh, I'm sure there may be one off isolated instances of scientists who might say that, but it's nothing like common or necessary to the view of scientists. Spreading false slander like that could cause harm/be oppressive/be sinful, wouldn't you think?
3. The vast majority of current "harm" to the alphabet folx is in countries that follow Sharia law.
Today, maybe, in the places where extremist Muslim practices are in place (which is not true for all Muslim nations). This has not always been the case here in the "free" West and allegedly "Christian" nations.
It wasn't true that LGBTQ folks were safe from oppression in the US throughout the height of Christianity being normative in leadership and policy making (say, roughly 1776-1976). It's only progressive influence and, of course, first and foremost, the brave leadership of LGBTQ folks themselves that has made the change. And by making the changes (for the better, from a human rights point of view) here, we and other more free nations are helping the world be better globally.
Do you disagree?
3. The vast majority of current "harm" to the alphabet folx is in countries that follow Sharia law.
The more historically, literally accurate way of looking at it is this: In the nations with a more conservative, fundamentalist religious control of society, LGBTQ folks have been less safe and more oppressed. As nations become more progressive and less fundamentalist-religious, things have improved for LGBTQ as it relates to harm and oppression and having more ability to enjoy basic human rights.
Can you affirm that historical reality?
Maybe you missed the whole circle of life, survival of the fittest, nature is red in tooth and claw Science that tells us that "HARM" is the normal, expected, natural consequence of a naturalistic/materialists/Darwinian approach to science.
Maybe your understanding of the science involved is rather shallow and not as robust as one might hope.
https://www.kristinohlson.com/books/sweet-in-tooth-and-claw
Also, fyi, Tennyson ("red in tooth and claw") was a poet, not a scientist.
One last point, the sociological notion of "survival of the fittest" might best be attributed to more conservative viewpoints than progressive ones, but that might be debatable. I suspect it's true but don't have the proof of it right now.
Do you suspect this might be true, as well, given the conservative tilt towards "capitalism" and whatnot?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/joris-luyendijk-banking-blog/2011/sep/26/capitalism-banking-blog-computer-programmer
Legality does not determine morality. You're [sic, if you want to get picky about little grammatical errors...]original argument was that this was an offense to your subjective moral code based on "harm".
In a good and rational system, I'd suggest that what is illegal would correspond with what is immoral as it relates to causing harm to innocent bystanders OR reasonably potentially causing harm to innocents.
Which is to say, a less-than-ideal world, we'd have laws that corresponded with this or that religious system/set of values... but THAT would be problematic for obvious reasons. But in a more ideal system, our "crimes" would be that which are causing harm or reasonably potentially causing harm.
The idiots who plan and attempt a coup to interfere with a free election may not stop the election, for instance, but their ineptness would STILL be illegal because they are attempting to take actions which would cause harm. Same for drunk drivers. Same for polluters. Same for abusers/killers. The inept would-be killer or abuser who gets stopped before they committed their crimes would STILL be held accountable because of the harm/immoral action they were attempting.
Do you disagree?
And before you say, "But there's no objective proof..." we have NO OBJECTIVELY PROVEN rules that YOU or I can provide. That doesn't mean we bow to the tyrant of moral anarchy. THAT, too, would be immoral and irrational and result in likely harm.
That you can't prove your system of morality (and you literally can not as evidenced by your complete inability to even TRY to present it - so don't pretend that you have this arcane secret code of "provable" morality that you keep secret - that too, is reasonably immoral) does not negate the importance of agreeing upon some set of moral values as a basic minimum for our agreed upon legal system/structures.
Do you disagree?
Wow. It's wild how much gets posted before I have a chance to weigh in. I'll try not to comment on every little thing. I'll just jump in from:
August 24, 2023 at 9:16 AM
...and if there's some point about which I need to clarify or to which I must respond, be specific.
"I've always been saying that if we are condemned for that which we did not understand, then where is the justice or grace in that?
I've always said that, as a believer in salvation by God's grace, that it is GOD'S GRACE which saves us, not our perfect or correct understanding of some subset of undefined rules offered by certain humans.
I'm saying that if we are "lost" and "deserve to burn in hell for an eternity" simply because we didn't understand some point of belief or morality in just the right way, how is that Just? How is that loving and gracious?"
This is a blatant deflection. There's no way Dan doesn't understand, given his years of "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture. God's prohibition against homosexuality is clear (keep in mind, that the word "homosexuality" was at one time a word used to describe the practice of "same-sex sexual relations". Henceforth, I'll use it for that purpose as opposed to merely the desire which compels it. It will also include, however, those who have the desire and choose to regard it as normal, natural and that which God would never condemn because "that's how He made" a given homosexual.) There's no way to deny that God abhors a behavior if He refers to it as "abomination" or "detestable". I would love to see Dan try to argue his way out of that!
Furthermore, as there is no way to deny God's great displeasure with that behavior, there is no evidence one can bring about which so much as hints of a context or scenario in which the behavior can be perpetrated and NOT be abominable/detestable. Dan's never brought forth such evidence and without such evidence there is no legitimate, adult, compelling and honest argument one could produce in support of SSM, without the WILLFUL, INTENTIONAL and PURPOSEFUL rejection of God's Will.
And given God's prohibition is so crystal clear and without loopholes, to expect anyone could possibly believe that one who claims to have spent his life in "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture might somehow be "mistaken"....only another lying modern progressive would dare accept that as an honest and legitimate possibility.
So Dan wants to pretend he's being gracious by suggesting he "might" be mistaken on this subject? That would be totally impressive if it wasn't so damned dishonest, because there's no possible "might" about it. Not for someone who claims to be so "seriously and prayerfully" a student of Scripture for most of his life. And if he's so studied, then Luke 12:48 comes to mind. Dan claims to be a student, then it would be expected of him to abide what he studied, assuming he did so honestly with the intent to know God and His Will. Yet on this topic as well as others, he denies the teaching of Scripture and couches that denial in terms of "if I'm mistaken".
But how can he be mistaken if he's truly a student of Scripture? If we concede there are parts of Scripture which are hard to understand, how can this issue possibly be among them given the unequivocal and total prohibition against the behavior that two of the same sex who "marry" is sure to indulge? And if we look at the actual verse itself, which is for thousands of years taken to mean sexual relations between two males, the actual words (from the KJV) are:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (also ASV)
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (ESV)
And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination. (Darby)
You are not to go to bed with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination. (CJB)
Thou shalt not lie with the male as one lieth with a woman: for it is abomination. (GNV)
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (NIV)
Only the last, the NIV, speaks of sexual relations. Thus, the actual words of most versions simply prohibit laying with a man as a man normally and naturally does with a woman. If all one does is "snuggle", men don't typically "snuggle" with men, but with women. Thus, however one might lie with a man as is normally done with a woman, sexual behavior or not, would also be forbidden. (What we need now is the original language as directly translated as possible)
Along with this verse comes no alternative scenario in which the behavior isn't forbidden. 1 Corinthians asserts those who so engage will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. How much more so is this the case for those who have seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture and continue in such behavior? How much more so for those who seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture and have enabled others in their practice of that behavior and have promoted the "marital" unions of such practioners?
So just in this limited comment, where is there anyplace that is merely "opinion" on my part as opposed to an accurate presentation of Scriptural teaching? Where is the evidence to rebut my "opinion", my "human tradition" which like the last several thousand years of such is the consequence of proper Scriptural understanding of that which is so obvious?
Dan's NOT "mistaken". He's totally lying.
"I'm stating an observable, demonstrable, objectively provable reality: That there ARE a large number of people who do not believe, for instance, that God is opposed to gay folks getting married. It's an objective fact that there ARE people who believe this. I am part of a church full of people who believe this. It is DEMONSTRABLE."
This is not, nor never has been at issue. But it is the issue that those such as you refuse or are wholly incapable of producing any legitimate Scriptural evidence to support the defense of abomination. You whine on about "gay folks getting married", but to do that requires you ignore God's Will about the underlying behavior.
So let's look at "marriage" in Scripture. There is nowhere between the front and back cover of any legitimate Bible wherein "marriage" is described as anything but a man/woman union. As I've pointed out billions of times, even where a man has several wives, it's not a one man/several wives proposition. It's a case of multiple one man/one woman arrangements a single specific man has. But there is NEVER so much as a HINT of a same-sex union or even a same-sex relationship anywhere in Scripture. Thus, since homosexuality is forbidden as detestable, and no sexual relationships in Scripture exist between two men or two women, and since Paul states that those who are homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, it doesn't matter a whit who or how many disagree with the truth I present and defend. What matters is all those people supporting that which God clearly and unambiguously forbids and how many will come to believe it's OK as a result...meaning, your defense of the practice, and your pretense there is some way to be "mistaken" about it, will result in eternal separation from God at the very least. I'll take public ridicule any day over that.
"We've looked at all the known data and come to the conclusion that it would be ridiculous to suggest God is opposed to gay folk getting married."
"Known data"????? WHAT "known data"???? Whence comes this "known data"???? Certainly not from Scripture!! And no "known data" can ever override Scripture or subordinate it.
"Do you understand that I'm not appealing to numbers to say I'm right about the question at hand... that I'm pointing to the reality of numbers of people who objectively agree with what I'm saying?
If you miss the point of what I'm saying, of course, you will be confused."
Uh...I'm absolutely confused. You're not appealing to numbers, but point to numbers??? If those who agree with you aren't agreeing you're right, then appealing or pointing to them doesn't really matter to the "strength" of your position, does it? Clearly, you think you're "more" right because of the numbers of those who agree that you are.
Try to worm your way out of THAT one!!
"And YOUR (or Marshal's) hunch that it is a sin for gay folks to get married does not mean that it IS a sin. Right?"
Wrong. It's not a "hunch". It's the most logical conclusion at which any honest person can arrive after truly seriously and studying Scripture on the subject of homosexuality. Indeed, I submit it's an additional sin to celebrate a union in which homosexual behavior will occur as if it's a good thing. It's saying "evil is good" against which Scripture also warns aggressively.
"6. I, and Art, I suspect don't think that there is a "sin of homosexuality" either.
That's me using short hand for what we have ACTUALLY been talking about. Marshal, at least, and maybe you believe that it is a sin for gay folks to get married, at least insomuch as they will likely have sex, which is what Marshal and probably you think is immoral."
It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of accepting the easy to understand truth of God's abhorrence of homosexuality. Liars like Dan seemingly believe the creation of two sexes was just a fluke, that God had no purpose in designing all living creatures as having male and female counterparts. If you like, we can simply say that "gay folks" are already condemned long before they've "tied the knot", the marriage not being any more impactful on their eternal banishment from God's presence. Those, like Dan, who enable such unions and the celebration thereof, have a different problem. Their doing so is proclaiming a sinful behavior is not sinful and THAT is where THEY have massive problems, given the warnings against being a stumbling block, leading others, especially children, to sin by virtue of their approval of the detestable. The "vows" taken by homosexual partners to "wed" each other are cementing their condemnation. It's as if they're saying, "Not only are we admitting we're sinners, we're also going to take it up a notch by affirming our intention to live the rest of our lives sinning like rabbits!!"
"Further, it appears (and I don't think I'm mistaken) that Marshal doesn't believe that people like me truly don't think gay sex in the context of marriage is wrong. Marshal keeps insisting that it's "objectively proven" and that we who support marriages of gay folk "know" it's wrong.
Marshal is objectively wrong and I know this because I KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE. Marshal does not get to decide what I or we think, that he's in a better place to know what we think than we do."
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matt 7:20 KJV
It's not that you believe, Dan. It's that you reject what you know to be true and feel you can presume to regard sin in a particular context as not sinful. To say you believe it's OK that two who engage in detestable behaviors can wed and their behavior together is thus no longer detestable requires more than just your alleged "belief" to justify.
So it begins with the behavior. Your objection, when last submitted, was that Lev 18:22 refers to "some forms" of homosexual behavior without EVER providing any evidence to support that wild-ass claim. Since you can't get past that glaring error, you simply skip to the marriage issue and assert that since the two pervs in question took vows which cannot be accepted, given they're vowing to sin, that somehow that's a beautiful thing and it's what you want honest, intelligent people to accept is your belief???? I guess if you're only talking to modern progressives, that angle might work. But for honest intelligent people, that comes off as sophistry at best. It's really just a lie.
August 24, 2023 at 9:35 AM
Craig said,
"That is, for instance, that we don't think two gay folk getting married IS a sin."
I didn't look to find the context, but as it is stated, it's not true for me.
Then Dan responded,
"And here, you're almost certainly mistaken to speak for Marshal on this point and I suspect that you're playing some semantic games for yourself.
Do you believe that a gay guy marrying a gay guy and having sex in the context of their marriage is a good, holy and blessed thing, something God can and would approve of?
OR do you think them doing that is a sin?"
It is beyond question a sin to engage in homosexual relations in any context, including if the two miscreants vowed to only sin with each other until death to they part. It's the epitome of absurdity to presume that taking vows of fidelity to sin with only each other lessens the evil of the sin...that is the sin is now, as a morally bankrupt moron might say, "a good, holy and blessed thing, something God can and would approve of." There's absolutely no possibility whatsoever of this every being true. It's a lie.
"The "We" I'm speaking of are people I know intimately and where we've had these conversations. That we truly believe our positions is, you think, hubris and narcissism? Is it the same when you and Marshal truly believe your positions?"
The hubris and narcissism comes in when presuming a blatant rejection of God's Will as so clearly revealed in Scripture is justified by consensus opinion of like-minded reprobates. The positions I take are directly and unequivocally clear teachings of Scripture. Dan wants to assert it's just "my interpretation", but it's word for word renderings of what Scripture clearly says. I merely then accept it as Truth until someone with an actual brain and an intelligent argument can disabuse me of the prospect. Dan hasn't come close to being that person. He's like an infant whining for more candy.
"How is being confident in one's position hubris?"
When it's based solely on what you want to believe, as opposed to what is true or most likely to be true. You have nothing beyond your desire that what you "believe" is reflective of God's Will, while I have Scripture which clearly spells it out any honest person can easily see. (Here's where Dan responds "Nyuh uh" with nothing more.)
"And I suspect you're factually mistaken.
At what point will we be presented with those "facts"?
"The problem is you all speak in vague accusations..."
I could not be more clear and direct: you're a reprobate who willingly and knowingly rejects the clearly revealed Will of God when it suits you to do so, and for the purposes of where this discussion has gone, on the issue of homosexuality.
The thing is, this is not opinion. It is based on your position versus what any truly serious and prayerful student of Scripture knows to be true because of what Scripture actually says on the subject of the behavior you defend if perpetrated in a context you choose to refer to as acceptable for the purpose.
"But multiple times, Marshal has said things like this...
Here I'm referring most specifically to
those who claim to be Christian
while willfully indulging in clearly prohibited behavior
on the lame premises Dan provides to give them cover"
...because the truth never gets old.
"And yes, Marshal does say "WILLFULLY" there, but then, he continually, repeatedly denies that we don't "know" because, in his estimation, "it's clear" that gay sex is "wrong." Even when I tell him, But we don't think that. He'll say, yes, you do!"
Ah!...I see where you're going wrong! The fact is that when you insist you don't think homosexual behavior is wrong, I'm saying, truthfully, YOU'RE LYING!!! Either you're lying about this, or you're lying about having "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture, because both can't be true. I've pointed out in the past several times how several "pro-gay" scholars concede there is no possibility of God accepting homosexual behavior at any time in any context or scenario in which it might take place. You could call these miscreants "experts" who, their own irrational support for the agenda aside, are at least honest in their analysis of Scripture on this subject. YOU'VE. GOT. NOTHING!!!! Nothing but your desperate desire to draw the favor of deviants.
"He's stated things like this throughout our interactions, AS WELL as making claims that I'm not a Christian because I'm "wrong" (in his eyes) on too many "clear" topics.
Now, I could almost certainly go and try to wade through decades worth of words OR we could just wait for Marshal to clarify.
Clearly, the more rational position is to simply get it straight from the horse's mouth.
Why wouldn't we?"
Hard to imagine there's any question. Dan's a reprobate who rejects the Will of God and as such is in total rebellion against Him. No "Christian" acts like Dan on such obvious questions of what pleases/displeases God as the question of homosexuality. No Christian, no honest person, makes such desperate assertions about the morality of a behavior without providing some evidence in support of the position. Dan offers jack. I've offered Scripture which is clear, unequivocal and beyond dispute, though the miscreant Dan disputes it nonetheless.
Wow. All I've typed and I've only covered two of Dan's tortured comments in defense of the indefensible! Amazing!
August 24, 2023 at 9:44
"So, it SOUNDS like Marshal is saying (and again, this is in a long line of him saying things like this) that it's NOT the case that we believe what we believe. We "know" we're "lying" about God's will and so, there's no way we're actually worshiping the true God and therefore, we're not Christians. We aren't saved."
Close, Dan. But to be more specific: You claim to have seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture all your life. That can't be true if you "believe" what you say you "believe". I insist you don't believe it so much as want it to be true IN SPITE of what you KNOW Scripture says. You can't resolve the two disparate points of view. Either one thing is true or the other is, but they can't both be true, because no serious study of Scripture provides the slightest justification for your position. IF there was such justification, you'd be repeating it ad nauseum. Instead, you attack my righteous refutation of your claims of being a Christian. And given that Scripture says those who indulge in homosexual behavior are denied heaven, it would follow that those who support and promote as "moral" such indulgence is likely denied as well.
You'll whine on about "Grace" and such, but never provide a damned thing which allows such an egregious and obvious rejection of the clearly revealed Will of God...and then dare say you're "saved" nonetheless...which leads again to the question of how far astray can one be from Scriptural teaching and still be saved. By your logic I can put a bullet in your head without any warning and walk away knowing I'm still right with God. That He'll still accept me into His eternal embrace without me doing a damned thing acknowledge my having murdered you. Aside from your inability to defend your reprobate position on homosexuality, you can't defend against me "getting away" with putting you down like a rabid dog. God's Grace, by your logic, covers everything!!! That's not what Paul teaches, but who cares what HE thinks!!!
"Of course, the reality is, we DON'T believe what Marshal believes and don't "know" that gay folks getting married is wrong."
You choose not to believe the truth. You do nothing to refute the truth. Thus, you damned well know that homosexuality is always wrong, and two pervs marrying doesn't change that fact.
"So that leaves the question I keep putting to Marshal unanswered in a direct manner:"
Another lie.
"What of those who truly believe something that is obviously wrong. Does their imperfect knowledge mean that they aren't/can't be saved? Must we have a perfect knowledge on some set of beliefs in order to truly be saved?"
Irrelevant. Stop this crap. If you're truly one who "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture, you'd not need to default to this lame crap, but would instead present a Scripturally evidence-based argument in defense of your perversion. As you default to the bullshit, it's clear you have no such evidence and thus you aren't "mistaken". You simply choose to reject God's Will to curry favor from deviants.
"Instead of me trying wade through decades worth of interactions, just let Marshal answer the questions directly."
A great and routine waste of time. Instead, bring some evidence that your position is right or mine is wrong. Otherwise, take a hike.
"Of course. I ALWAYS admit errors when I make them. I always apologize for those mistakes. I don't know how you all think I operate, but you're just mistaken if you don't think I admit mistakes when they've been proven wrong."
I've NEVER seen that happen. EVER!!! I'd wager neither has Craig, nor Glenn, nor Stan, nor Neil, nor Mark, nor Bubba nor anyone with whom Dan has pretended to engage in what for him passes for "good faith" discourse.
"Of course, the reality is, we DON'T believe what Marshal believes and don't "know" that gay folks getting married is wrong."
Liar. There's no way to pretend it isn't or you would be constantly presenting it.
"What of those who truly believe something that is obviously wrong. Does their imperfect knowledge mean that they aren't/can't be saved? Must we have a perfect knowledge on some set of beliefs in order to truly be saved?"
This is a dodge from someone who claims to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture. When you can provide something substantive which in any way justifies your contrary position, then we can talk about those who don't have "perfect knowledge". That discussion is irrelevant here because I don't believe you can make the case there's any way you're unaware of what God's Will on the subject is.
"IF Marshal says, "No, we don't have to have perfect knowledge on some subset of vague beliefs from some unknown list."
Stop right there, Sparky!!! Lev 18:22 isn't some "subset of vague beliefs from some 'unknown' list". What kind of modern progressive bullshit it THAT???? How could one NOT have "perfect" understanding of what that verse says???? It isn't possible. Only a modern progressive would suggest there's any ambiguity there...some way to still enjoy the behavior and NOT have it be an abomination!!! You lying sack of sh*t!!!
"One COULD be a Christian who is gay and married to a guy who has confessed their "known sins" and they could simply be wrong on that and still be saved..." and "one COULD be a supporter of gay folks getting married who are believers in God who've confessed their sin and asked Jesus to be their Lord and STILL be saved by God's grace even in their mistaken beliefs...""
There's no "mistaken" at play here given the unambiguous nature of the behavior in question, and no possibility that it could be indulged WITHOUT it still being detestable and forbidden in the Eyes of God. You're a liar. As I've stated this as clearly as I need to...even for a morally bankrupt person like you...there's no way to misunderstand my position.
"Because of course that's what I do."
HA!!! That's funny. What you "do" is lie like a rug!
1. Close enough.
2.
A. Irrelevant. You're talking about multiple different political systems, not about a moral code.
B. See above.
C. If our "inalienable rights" actually come from "our Creator", and "human rights" was the standard for morality, then you'd be arguing for a moral code based on "our Creator".
"Set aside whether or not you think it's objectively provable, do you personally have ANY doubts that women enjoy more human rights in today's free world than in biblical times?"
Why should I "set aside" a vital component of the conversation? Because you demand that I do? Again, "human rights" and morality are not the same thing.
"Do you personally affirm that this is clearly a MUCH more moral scenario than a realm where they didn't have human rights/the right to self-determination?"
No, "human rights" and morality are two different things.
"I'm not clear what you're objecting to, if anything."
1. The subjective nature of your moral code (which you've admitted).
2. The fact that you seem to want to apply your subjective moral code as if it's objective.
3. You conflating "human rights" with morals.
"AH, but WHY did we create the law in the first place? To try to limit freedom? To try to whimsically choose to harm drunk drivers? OR to promote a healthier, safer community which is, itself, more reasonably moral?"
"In the civilian world, laws are designed to prevent undesirable behavior, ensure public safety and resolve disputes peacefully". Yes, laws DO limit freedom, it's inherent in the notion of law. Not whimsically, but again, yes. You act as if the "reasonably moral" part of that statement is simply True because you assume it is. Of course, "reasonably moral" is a subjective term and therefore irrelevant.
"If you think drunk driving or deliberate pollution is illegal not immoral, I'd question your moral compass."
Since you clearly didn't read what I said, I question your sanity. This straw man crap gets old.
"No, moral and legal are not synonymous, but there is overlap. AT LEAST in a system where we recognize the rationality of morality as that which discourages harm and promotes freedom from harm."
Subjective hunch on your part.
"Which seems to me to be yet another nail in the coffin in the Bible (or Quran, etc) as THE BEST moral compass over and against Harm."
If you say so. Although is something "seems" right to you, then I'm pretty sure I want nothing to do with it.
"What was considered morally acceptable in the OT is not the same as what is morally acceptable now. Whether or not you think the OT norms of morality were "less-than" or that morality has changed, one way or the other, what was accepted as moral has demonstrably changed and by and large, for the good."
Again, that's your subjective hunch on the matter, as such valueless to anyone besides you. You apply your biased, subjective, 21st century, politically/socially liberal hunches to the past and you find your hunches "better", shocking.
"Do you disagree?"
Different doesn't always mean better.
"Do you agree that the modern free world is in the right for condemning slavery and supporting rights for women and LGBTQ folks?"
Subjectively, sure.
Your continued vehemence on "slavery" and women's "rights" of thousands of years ago, versus your virtual silence on modern slavery and oppression of women has always amused me. I guess it's safer to bitch about how dead people lived back in the day, than living people in 2023.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"So, what is the point of pointing to individuals who have one off been harmed who happened to be straight or white or men in power?"
Because it's literally objectively provable history. Because literally every "group" has been mistreated/oppressed because of the "group" they're is. But yeah, the @20,000,000 white Europeans who were exterminated by Hitler and Stalin had it easy compared to some ABC dude in 2023 who can't do every thing he wants in public.
Is it to deny or downplay the systemic oppression of peoples/groups? If so, isn't that itself an extra level of harm/damage/sin?
""Darwinists" or "science" does not tell us it's okay or even natural to harm fellow human beings. Naturalism does not support "It's okay to oppress this group or that." It just doesn't. Don't pretend that it does."
Interesting point. It's an inherent contradcition for people to insist that humans are just one more animal species, or "computers made of meat" on the one hand while also justifying the notion that humans are exempt from the laws that govern the rest of the animal kingdom. Of course, there are plenty of prominent scientists with a naturalistic/materialistic/Darwinian/ worldview who would disagree with you.
"Oh, I'm sure there may be one off isolated instances of scientists who might say that, but it's nothing like common or necessary to the view of scientists. Spreading false slander like that could cause harm/be oppressive/be sinful, wouldn't you think?"
Well, if you say so. Again, it's difficult to dismiss the single most important scientist on the subject as a "one off", or "isolated", but hey if you want to dismiss that guy who literally wrote the book on the subject, go ahead.
1. Fake slander is redundant.
2. If it's True, then it's neither fake nor slander.
"Today, maybe, in the places where extremist Muslim practices are in place (which is not true for all Muslim nations). This has not always been the case here in the "free" West and allegedly "Christian" nations."
1. No, you mean today definitely.
2. The data is irrefutable, the nations where oppression/slavery are highest are mostly Muslim majority/Sharia law following countries.
"It wasn't true that LGBTQ folks were safe from oppression in the US throughout the height of Christianity being normative in leadership and policy making (say, roughly 1776-1976). It's only progressive influence and, of course, first and foremost, the brave leadership of LGBTQ folks themselves that has made the change. And by making the changes (for the better, from a human rights point of view) here, we and other more free nations are helping the world be better globally."
This is quite an impressive way to prove that you are more concerned with alleged "persecution" from hundreds of years ago, that you are with current persecution.
Do you disagree?
"Can you affirm that historical reality?"
No.
*North Korea has the world's highest rate of slavery, with about one in 10 people enslaved, followed by Eritrea (9.3%) Burundi (4%), Central African Republic (2.2%), Afghanistan (2.2%), Mauritania (2.1%), South Sudan (2%), Pakistan (1.7%), Cambodia (1.7%) and Iran (1.6%).
*India is home to the largest number of slaves globally, with 8 million, followed by China (3.86 million), Pakistan (3.19 million), North Korea (2.64 million), Nigeria (1.39 million), Iran (1.29 million), Indonesia (1.22 million), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1 million), Russia (794,000) and the Philippines (784,000).
The data tells us otherwise.
"Maybe your understanding of the science involved is rather shallow and not as robust as one might hope."
No, it's a topic I've spent over a decade studying, have read extensively on, and am very familiar with.
"Also, fyi, Tennyson ("red in tooth and claw") was a poet, not a scientist."
Yes he was, which has no bearing on the accuracy of his observation.
"Do you suspect this might be true, as well, given the conservative tilt towards "capitalism" and whatnot?"
No. It's absurd to refer to Dawkins, Darwin, Huxley, Gould, Singer, Lamark, Lewontin, Sanger, and the like as "conservatives" in any meaningful sense of the word. But please keep arguing from your position of ignorance, it's great comic relief. I suspect that you never even considered the possibility that the application of "survival of the fittest" to business came after it gained popularity in the scientific world.
"In a good and rational system, I'd suggest that what is illegal would correspond with what is immoral as it relates to causing harm to innocent bystanders OR reasonably potentially causing harm to innocents."
Based on your subjective hunches about what is "moral" and what level of "harm" you subjectively want to punish. Of course, if you simply want to punish those who cause harm, then that would mean that a lot of innocent folks would get punished.
"Which is to say, a less-than-ideal world, we'd have laws that corresponded with this or that religious system/set of values... but THAT would be problematic for obvious reasons. But in a more ideal system, our "crimes" would be that which are causing harm or reasonably potentially causing harm."
Who cares.
"Do you disagree?"
That basing our legal system on the subjective motions of "harm" and "morality
you espouse would be a mistake, yes.
With your earlier admission that what is legal is not always what is moral, yes. Despite your attempt to argue against yourself.
Adultery is legal. Divorce is legal. Yet both regularly lead to emotional, financial, and mental harm. Are you suggesting those be made illegal, or that it's moral to harm one's spouse and children through adultery and divorce?
"That you can't prove your system of morality (and you literally can not as evidenced by your complete inability to even TRY to present it"
1. The problem is not that I "can't prove", that which I haven't claimed, it's that you can't prove what you have claimed.
2. Exactly where have I even suggested that I have a "system of morality" that I can "prove"?
3. Yet you still can't demonstrate why the rest of the world should be measured by your personal, subjective, moral system?
"- so don't pretend that you have this arcane secret code of "provable" morality that you keep secret - that too, is reasonably immoral) does not negate the importance of agreeing upon some set of moral values as a basic minimum for our agreed upon legal system/structures."
I'm not doing so, and never have. But it's great that you've brought this thread back to where it started by your presumption that I am required to present an alternative simply because I'm pointing out flaws in your subjective hunches about your personal hunches about your individual code.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes. absolutely nothing that you claimed about me is True?
2. Exactly where have I even suggested that I have a "system of morality" that I can "prove"?
By all means, HELP ME OUT: Do you think you have a system of morality that you can prove objectively?
Your words and your repeated suggestions that those of us who admit the reality that we can't objectively prove our moral notions - EVEN IF we can make a strong reasonable case based upon harm - SEEM to suggest that you either
a. Have a secret moral system that you've proven objectively but aren't willing to share, for some strange and likely immoral/certainly irrational reason... or
b. Don't think that ANYONE can prove their moral opinions objectively and so we should just not care about immoral actions, even when they rise to the level of atrocities will many people being harmed or oppressed.
Are either of those right? Or is there a third option?
HELP ME UNDERSTAND and answer the questions.
3. Yet you still can't demonstrate why the rest of the world should be measured by your personal, subjective, moral system?
Because people are objectively being harmed, oppressed, maltreated and it's not okay to ignore that harm. CERTAINLY it's not okay for anyone who takes the Bible in some sort of literal way, since the biblical authors repeatedly cite the importance of siding with the least of these, the poor, the marginalized and oppressed.
That is factually correct, is it not, that this is a constant set of teachings throughout all the bible?
Is it the case that you personally don't care that Jesus himself taught that we should take care of/side/ally with the poor and marginalized?
If you care about the teachings of Jesus and take them rather literally, then you care if oppression and harmful actions are being done, isn't that right?
If you care, then don't you want to take steps to prevent or minimize the harm being done to the poor and marginalized and oppressed?
If you DO, but you're also arguing that we have NO proven moral grounds to do so, then what will you do?
Help me understand.
August 24, 2023 at 9:49 AM
"I do not believe in the Bible as a rule book. That there are actions condemned in the Bible....does not mean, to me, that those actions are definitively wrong."
Proof Dan subordinates the Will of God to personal desires. I don't know what more proof we need to expose Dan as a fake who simply exploits the label of "Christian" to serve his own ends, rather than actually live life devoted to serving God. Dan's statement above is equally applicable to everything he would claim is wrong if he believes Scripture makes the assertion.
"Likewise, that there are actions approved of in the Bible....to me, that those actions are definitively right. That's not how we measure moral behavior."
Scripture is the true Christian's primary and overriding source of understanding right and wrong according to God's Will. How can it possibly be otherwise?
"I do not agree with that method of understanding morality."
OF course you don't. You couldn't support your love of sexual perversion by respecting the teachings of Scripture even when it's inconvenient for you to do so. You're clearly opposed to carrying your cross for His sake. Fake.
"So, why would I present something that I think is meaningless?"
This "Christian" believes Scripture is "meaningless"???
"The Bible doesn't condemn slavery. I don't NEED the Bible to condemn slavery."
https://ronconte.com/2019/10/25/does-the-bible-condemns-slavery-yes/
Without Scripture...that is, without God (essentially the same thing depending on the issue being discussed)...your condemnation of slavery is worthless as a metric of right vs wrong. It's simply your personal opinion and as such, who cares what you think?
"The Bible doesn't condemn polygamy. I don't NEED the Bible to recognize problems in polygamy."
https://christianeducatorsacademy.com/the-truth-about-polygamy-in-the-christian-bible-what-you-need-to-know/#Is_Polygamy_Condemned_in_the_Bible
Dan again perverts Scripture to assert it doesn't condemn, simply because there's no specific words Dan insists must appear. The truly serious student of Scripture would never play this game. And given that any sexual relations between a man and another woman not his wife is considered adultery, this stands as a condemnation, even if not spelled out for the modern progressive looking to diminish the importance and authority of Biblical moral teaching in order to protect immoral sexual practices...as Dan routinely does.
"The Bible approves of stoning to death adulterous women and men. I don't NEED the Bible to condemn that sort of capital punishment."
More perversion of Scripture to make his immoral point. Penalties for infractions during the theocratic times of ancient Israel are moral. They're not necessarily immoral now because the proud, like Dan, believe themselves too sophisticated for such things. They're simply not how Christians deal with every sin, nor are we required to respond to every sin as was the case in ancient Israel. Yet the lifting of certain punishments pertaining to certain behaviors doesn't mean the immoral behaviors are no longer as immoral as God proclaimed them to be. Indeed, penalties...or their being discontinued...are completely irrelevant to the question of a given behavior's immoral status.
"You're appealing to me to "prove" something in the way that YOU believe in, but why would I when it's not the best way to understand morality? That, indeed, it's a problematic way to understand morality and human rights?"
Because it confirms your claim of being devoted to pleasing God. Ignore the Will of God as clearly revealed in Scripture, in favor of some personal "reasoning", is to put yourself above God. No true Christian does that. No true Christian rejects Scripture as the basis of understanding morality, and thus the best way for making such a determination, for that's where morality is found. Otherwise, you're simply applying the label "moral" on the basis of your personal preferences, which is clearly how you determine things.
Worse, connecting morality to human rights as if the latter is so connected to your personal preference as to what is moral presents a host of problems. If enough modern progressives come to believe there's nothing immoral about incest, pedophilia, bestiality...the "human rights" of the incestuous, "child-attracted" and bestial must be respected as well.
But Dan approves of the sexual immorality of his homosexual/lesbian "beloved" by pretending they have a legitimate argument for their "human right" to indulge their compulsions and demand acceptance of it from others on a civil level, if not a moral one...because they refuse to reject their compulsion in favor of God's Will and for His sake.
"It's like you're saying "Here are the parameters of what I accept as "proof" or evidence, give me something from within those parameters or you fail..." One would have to have agreement on the parameters to make such a demand."
The rank hypocrisy of this ironic statement reaches a new height of depravity. Consider this in light of Dan's ever changing, never satisfied terms for proving one's position to him.
"You and I don't have agreement on those parameters."
Yours are absurd and self-serving. Ours serve truth to the extent its even possible.
Are you suggesting those be made illegal, or that it's moral to harm one's spouse and children through adultery and divorce?
For those concerned about morality as it relates to harm, it's a good question.
It is not, of course, moral to harm one's spouse. And we reasonably have laws about mental, sexual and physical abuse, reasonably so, I'd say.
Do you agree?
When it comes to more vague conditions of harm, emotional harm of adultery, for instance, do we want to criminalize that?
I think reasonably, free societies don't criminalize emotional distress/harm and I think that's reasonable. There are so many factors that would make that a probably impossible area to measure. In the case of divorce, for instance, a wife may be harmed financially by a divorce, where the husband is the larger money-maker (which is often the case)... but she would also be harmed to be forced into staying in a marriage where, the husband has cheated on her. We have competing harms there and in those cases, we reasonably leave more room for personal choice.
It's an imperfect solution, of course, but so would a simple ruling, "The Bible says don't divorce, so divorce is illegal! If the husband cheats or abuses her, she still must stay with him..."
Do you agree that leaving room for personal decisions when it comes to divorce, at least, is the most moral/rational thing we can do, or do you have an other opinion?
"Do you disagree?"
That basing our legal system on the subjective motions of "harm" and "morality
you espouse would be a mistake, yes.
What do you propose, instead?
August 24, 2023 at 9:57 AM
Good gosh! The dishonesty never stops with this guy!!
"For my part, I am glad to affirm that throughout much of history, many religious folks would have condemned any suggestion of homosexuality."
Because God does, as Scripture plainly states and without exception.
"Throughout much of history, many religious folks would have condemned the notion of women having equal rights."
To the extent that any might have, they'd have no Scriptural basis for doing so, especially if they're Christians.
"Throughout much of history, many religious folks would have accepted enslaving people as a moral option."
To the extent that any did so, they did so in stark contradiction to Biblical teaching, much the same way you reject God's clear prohibition of homosexual behavior.
"All of this is likely true in most of the biblical stories, too."
What appears in Biblical stories is simply reporting history, not commenting on the moral nature of the situation. Thus, if slavery or mistreatment of anyone appears, it's nothing more than an objective historical presentation.
"I just don't find that to be a moral defense of oppressing/killing LGBTQ folks, enslaving others or oppressing women."
There is no oppression of "LGBTQ folks" and denying their whiny demands to be socially regarded as moral and legally regarded as equally entitled to that enjoyed by normal people is not "oppression" any more than denying a thief his "right" to steal would be.
In the meantime, you defend modern progressive political policies which result in slavery and the oppression of women, so cut the crap.
"Do you?"
I don't know that you could find anything either Craig or I have said which so much as hints at support for abusing anyone. We certainly don't appeal to Scripture to justify such, either.
You keep questioning me about modern slavery, as if I might not be opposed to it. Of course, I'm opposed to it.
I've been looking at some numbers and there appear to be tens of millions of people enslaved today. 50 million is one estimate. Or about .625% of the world population. A horror!
And while I couldn't find the global numbers, I see that in the US in 1790, there were 700,000 enslaved people in the US which had a total population of ~4 million. That is roughly 17.5% of the population enslaved.
There were many nations around the world that had legal protections for slavery in the 1500-1800s (and before). Historically, slavery has largely been accepted as a reasonable option and that has changed only in the last ~100/150 years.
Today, legal ownership of people has been abolished in all countries in the world... but it's still not criminalized everywhere. In roughly half the nations, I read.
All of that to say, I am glad to read that legal ownership of people has been abolished, but it's horrifying that it's still not criminalized in so many places and that so many people are enslaved - again .625% is a distressing number to hear in the hear and now.
And yet, it's certainly vastly improved from our own nation 150+ years ago, where there was 17% of the population legally enslaved.
I suppose we both can agree that .625% of the world being enslaved is a tragedy, and that 17% being enslaved in the US legally is an even greater tragedy?
I fully support the US working in conjunction with other nations and criminal courts around the world to try to stamp out slavery entirely. Do you?
Or what would you suggest as a way to combat it? Or do you think we should ignore it, since we can't objectively prove it's wrong?
Reasonable questions, all.
I would like to clarify my position on the following:
"1. "Lying" usually requires intent, so if you accuse someone of lying, you'd need to prove intent."
Lying does require intent. A "lie" is knowingly stating what one knows is untrue for the purpose of deceiving. Some deceive themselves as Dan does.
Proving intent is impossible given no one knows what's truly in the hearts and minds of others. However, one can demonstrate how probable it is another is lying by citing any number of facts, evidence, data, whatever as the case may be.
I've proven Dan's a liar countless times. Regarding the issue of homosexuality, there's no way one can be both a serious and prayerful student of Scripture and at the same time "mistaken" about the grave sinfulness of the behavior regardless of the context or scenario in which it takes place or despite how "loving" are the two who indulge exclusively in fidelity to each other. It's absurd and laughable to dare suggest such a thing.
So, Dan's either lying about having "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture all his life, or he's lying about there being a possibility of being "mistaken" on the morality/immorality of homosexual behavior.
The question of "intent to lie" is obvious.
"Tennyson’s description of nature as red in tooth and claw reflected a bleak, increasing awareness that the cruelty of the industrial revolution and the expanding Empire showed the world not to be the warm creation of a loving God, but instead to be impersonal, material, and strictly physical. Like it or not, Nature was a hammer of destruction.
The remorseless cruelty of Nature certainly provides an opportunity for, but doesn’t imply,natural selection. Rather than having a talon for fine-tuning, much if not most of nature’s mayhem is indiscriminate. If life is tragic, it’s largely a universal tragedy."
Weiss 2010
"By all means, HELP ME OUT: Do you think you have a system of morality that you can prove objectively?"
By all means, I should get right on this. Dan makes bullshit claims about both Art and me, then he expects US to give him the ammunition to prove his bullshit claims are correct.
I am focusing on one thing. Pointing out the flaws in your hunches, I have no obligation to put forth an alternative, or to help you out of the pile of shit you're buried in.
"Are either of those right? Or is there a third option?"
No, and yes. I've pointed out the "third option" several times and see no reason to do so again.
"Because people are objectively being harmed, oppressed, maltreated and it's not okay to ignore that harm. CERTAINLY it's not okay for anyone who takes the Bible in some sort of literal way, since the biblical authors repeatedly cite the importance of siding with the least of these, the poor, the marginalized and oppressed."
So, are you really saying that you should be able to impose your subjective, individual, system of morality on others IF you decide it is necessary because "harm"? Who gave you this power?
But excellent Job of trying to make it look like your subjective hunches about morality actually line up with "Jesus".
"That is factually correct, is it not, that this is a constant set of teachings throughout all the bible?"
It's factually correct that you have made this claim. It's factually correct that some of those "teachings" were specifically designed for Israel (which you've already said disqualifies them from consideration). But you're still left with no standing to impose your subjective hunches about morality on others.
'Is it the case that you personally don't care that Jesus himself taught that we should take care of/side/ally with the poor and marginalized?"
I do care what Jesus Himself taught. I have absolutely no interest in your hunches about what your eisegesis leads you to conclude that He taught. Are you really suggesting that you impose your subjective hunches about what Jesus would do on others?
"If you care about the teachings of Jesus and take them rather literally, then you care if oppression and harmful actions are being done, isn't that right?"
Again, the problem is that I don't care about your hunches about Jesus. You keep conflating your hunches with Jesus' teaching.
"If you care, then don't you want to take steps to prevent or minimize the harm being done to the poor and marginalized and oppressed?"
Maybe you've missed my recounting actual steps I have taken to do exactly that. Maybe you shouldn't assume that just because I don't talk as much as you do, that I don't do anything. I just ignore your hunches, and don't seek your approval. I also try not to talk about what I do/have done.
"If you DO, but you're also arguing that we have NO proven moral grounds to do so, then what will you do?"
I'm not, the premise of your question is false, therefore unworthy of an answer.
"You keep questioning me about modern slavery, as if I might not be opposed to it. Of course, I'm opposed to it."
1. Your above claim about me is 100% false.
2. What I HAVE said is that you spend endless hours and thousands of words bitching about slavery and oppression that happened hundreds/thousands of years ago, and are virtually silent on the horrors of slavery in 2023.
3. You could choose to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery in 2023, yet choose to bitch about slavery in the distant past.
4. While I'm sure you'll say all the right words about how much you deplore current slavery, actions speak louder than words.
"I suppose we both can agree that .625% of the world being enslaved is a tragedy, and that 17% being enslaved in the US legally is an even greater tragedy?"
Well given that there are currently more people enslaved worldwide than have ever been enslaved before, I'd say that the greater tragedy is NOW not 150+ years ago. But thanks for illustrating my point.
"I fully support the US working in conjunction with other nations and criminal courts around the world to try to stamp out slavery entirely. Do you?"
Ohhhhhhhh, how milquetoast of you. You support the very bare minimum, impressive. Yes, I do support, at a minimum, the legal system working.
"Or what would you suggest as a way to combat it?"
There are multiple organizations engaged in combating worldwide slavery. I'm surprised you are unaware of them and don't support them.
"Or do you think we should ignore it, since we can't objectively prove it's wrong?"
No. It's interesting that you've now introduced "wrong" as another alternative. It's illegal, and that's reason enough to oppose it.
"There are multiple organizations engaged in combating worldwide slavery. I'm surprised you are unaware of them and don't support them."
Well, seeing as how my son worked for one of them while living in Albania, so, of course I'm aware of groups working against slavery. And of course, as a progressive surrounded by social workers, human rights workers and others, of course I'm aware of efforts beyond my son.
I'm surprised you would make such an irrational and baseless suggestion.
Dan
"What do you propose, instead?"
I thought I'd established that my disagreement with your subjective, capricious, hunches about basing our legal system on "harm", does not require me to propose an alternative. I'm not the one proposing something new, you are.
"It is not, of course, moral to harm one's spouse. And we reasonably have laws about mental, sexual and physical abuse, reasonably so, I'd say."
Which is not an answer. So, I'll be more clear. Currently in the US the standard is a no fault divorce, which allows one spouse to divorce the other unilaterally and with no cause. Do you support this legal policy? Do you think it's a good thing? Do you agree that if a husband divorces his wife and leaves his ex and children in difficult financial straits, that he is causing them harm? If so, then why would it be moral to legalize the means for him to do so?
"Do you agree?"
With your your vague, bland, vacuous, platitudes, no.
"When it comes to more vague conditions of harm, emotional harm of adultery, for instance, do we want to criminalize that?"
That's an excellent question for someone who thinks that we should base criminal law on "harm". Perhaps you'll explain how this "vague conditions of harm" is "immoral"? Or perhaps where the line is between "harm" (immoral), and little, teeny, vague harm that is "legal/moral/unknown"?
"I think reasonably, free societies don't criminalize emotional distress/harm and I think that's reasonable. There are so many factors that would make that a probably impossible area to measure. In the case of divorce, for instance, a wife may be harmed financially by a divorce, where the husband is the larger money-maker (which is often the case)... but she would also be harmed to be forced into staying in a marriage where, the husband has cheated on her. We have competing harms there and in those cases, we reasonably leave more room for personal choice."
Excellent, you keep claiming that "harm" is an objective standard, yet you're already coming up with exceptions to your "objective" standard and excuses why some "harm" isn't really harmy enough to be bad. Like I said, it's subjective. I suspect that a wife who's been abandoned and summarily divorced by her husband wouldn't find your excuses and exceptions acceptable at all.
"It's an imperfect solution, of course, but so would a simple ruling, "The Bible says don't divorce, so divorce is illegal! If the husband cheats or abuses her, she still must stay with him...""
Really where does the Bible say that?
"Do you agree that leaving room for personal decisions when it comes to divorce, at least, is the most moral/rational thing we can do, or do you have an other opinion?"
No, I don't think it's right at all for you to summarily give people the right be make a personal decision to cause "harm" to someone else. I think that's barbaric and heartless.
"Well, seeing as how my son worked for one of them while living in Albania, so, of course I'm aware of groups working against slavery. And of course, as a progressive surrounded by social workers, human rights workers and others, of course I'm aware of efforts beyond my son."
Yet you didn't mention any options beyond "legal systems". But thanks for making my point once again. Your virtual silence on modern day slavery, as opposed to (one small %) of ancient slavery, speaks loudly.
"I'm surprised you would make such an irrational and baseless suggestion."
Given the fact that I based it on the words you chose to use, and your virtual silence on the topic, it was a reasonably rational conclusion to draw.
What is the absolute most hilarious about this thread, and others like it, is how hard Dan fights to hold an untenable position.
All he has to do in order to shut this down is to simply say something like, "Yes, I agree that my moral code is subjective, it makes sense to me, and that's all I need. I understand that there are others who don't agree with my subjective moral code, and I choose to simply live and let live.".
Instead he's hell bent on defending his subjective moral code, and his insistence that he can apply it to others, to the point of simply repetition.
August 24, 2023 at 11:01 AM
"Indeed. And when Marshal irrationally says we're lying, he would need to prove intent. He's just wrong in the accusation of lying as is evidenced by my own testimony of what I actually mean."
My accusation of you being a liar is not at all irrational given how grounded it is in the evidence I've provided ad nauseum over the years, and recently in particular. Given the evidence, intent is the only rational conclusion. But I don't much care that you think I have to prove anything beyond what the Truth of Scripture actually is. That you reject it as somehow a subjective opinion is itself a lie, unless you can provide evidence from Scripture which can be used to rebut what I accept is the Truth. You haven't done this ever.
Then of course is the suggestion that it's possible you might be mistaken in your belief that the sexual perversion of homosexuality, and the context of "gay marriage" as legitimizing the acts related to homosexuality is not sinful, while at the same time insisting you've spent so much of your miserable life in "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture. One can't have done the latter and then support as true the former at the same time, and then worse, refuse to provide how the latter leads to the former...beyond just your insistence that it did.
Thus, I've proven intent to lie on your part by exposing the fact you can't prove there's any possibility an honest person can come to the same twisted and tortured conclusions about homosexuality as you do.
"Are you suggesting that someone who claims to be a Christian and continually engages in "clearly prohibited" behavior (whatever behavior you consider "clearly prohibited"), is someone who is actually following Jesus in any meaningful way?"
This is what Dan is asserting while doing nothing to compel an honest belief that one doesn't know the behavior is clearly prohibited. Thus, it's a lie on Dan's part to make such a suggestion of one who is claiming to be Christian. It's not enough to say, "We don't infer the same thing you do about the behavior from our study of Scripture" and leave it at that. It's simply another "Nyuh uh" argument. What in Scripture could possibly lead an actual Christian to believe it's OK to partake of this clearly prohibited behavior? Dan offers nothing. He simply asserts it's in there somewhere.
"If someone is KNOWINGLY acting against "clearly prohibited behavior," then they are knowingly making bad/harmful choices. But I'm also noting the reality that we are fallible humans who do not always understand what is "clearly prohibited" behavior or agree with another human when THEY say a behavior is clearly prohibited."
This is a bullshit argument here, because there's no "mistaking" God's Will on the subject of homosexuality. It's an intentional lie to pretend otherwise, and more so to do so without the least shred of evidence.
"I would say that Marshal's actions and attitudes are clearly prohibited by the Bible, by common sense and by the Golden Rule. Marshal clearly doesn't see it that way. He is a fallible, imperfect human."
More bullshit. While I don't insist I've not engaged in behavior prohibited by God...especially as regards my contempt for reprobates like Dan...nothing else about my defense of the clearly revealed Will of God is in any way prohibited. Indeed, it's encouraged and lauded as indicative of one devoted to God. My personal imperfections are irrelevant to that, and in this specific case, there's no threat of my personal imperfections leading to a distortion of what Scripture clearly reveals God's Will to be on this specific case. None.
"I for one do not insist that he need to have a right understanding on every moral position in order to be saved because I'm a believer in salvation by grace, not by our perfect understanding."
This is meaningless as it has no bearing on this situation where my understanding is "perfect enough"...that is to say, without any flaw which has any significance to the Truth Dan blatantly rejects intentionally.
"Do you agree with me that one need not have a right understanding of every moral position in order to be saved?"
A cheap dodge, as it has no relevance to your corruption and willful disregard for the clear teaching of Scripture on this behavior. That is to say, this is more evidence of Dan's intent to deceive.
"What we don't know for sure until Marshal confirms is whether or not Marshal believes this. I think HE thinks that if we're wrong about LGBTQ issues, we can't be saved."
I've already been crystal clear. You're not "wrong" in the sense that you "can't be sure" of the behavior being totally and unambiguously condemned by God as abomination. You're willfully, knowingly disregarding what is clear and unmistakable, suggesting a god which doesn't exist. A blasphemous rebellion against God. It's not the issue so much as the rebellion which condemns you.
So, I'll be more clear. Currently in the US the standard is a no fault divorce, which allows one spouse to divorce the other unilaterally and with no cause. Do you support this legal policy?
I'm sorry if you're not understanding my clear answer. Let me answer THESE questions as directly as possible.
YES. I SUPPORT PEOPLE HAVING THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE IF THEY NEED TO DIVORCE their spouse.
Do you seriously think this is a bad idea?
Do you think it's a good thing?
YES, ultimately, I think it's a good thing. Giving the reality - the demonstrable, observable historic reality of men abusing and harming their wives, women having the opportunity to get out of that abusive relationship is a vital rational moral imperative.
Do you seriously think this isn't rational or moral?
It's not GOOD, of course (of course, of course, of course - do NOT misunderstand what I'm saying) that a man or woman should be harmful or oppressive to their spouse, BUT, if and when they are, the spouse should have the opportunity to get away from their abusive spouse.
Beyond cases of abuse, I do think it's the best option to allow individuals to decide if they should remain married in what may be an unworkable marriage rather than the State deciding FOR people, even against their will.
Do you seriously disagree?
Excellent, you keep claiming that "harm" is an objective standard...
It doesn't matter if you repeat this 1 million times, it will still be a damned, stupid false claim.
Harm is a REASONABLE standard, and WAY more reasonable and measurable than your "I think the Bible thinks that God thinks this..." alternative.
OR, if that's not your position and your position that there IS no way to have reasonable (REASONABLE, not objective) agreement on some basic moral positions so we should live in a moral anarchy free for all... then Harm is a WAY more reasonable position than that.
Jesus makes it clear that we should side with the poor and least of these. Is there at ANY point where you're going to try to square your apparent moral anarchy so do nothing position with your claim to be a serious follower of Jesus?
OR, if you AREN'T advocating moral anarchy, as it appears, THEN CLARIFY.
But in the meantime, get the hell out of the way of adults who are trying to do the right thing using reasonable moral understanding. Lives are at risk and we don't have time for lightweight, empty-headed nonsense from vague people who won't even stake a claim about what their alternatives might be.
Get the hell out of the way of the adults, son.
"Do you seriously think this is a bad idea?"
Yes, I think that allowing people to divorce their spouse for any random reason is a bad idea. Setting aside the reality that marriage can be difficult at times, and working through difficulties can actually make one's marriage stronger. I'd appeal to your "harm" standard and suggest that divorce can and does regularly cause "harm" to one or more parties to the divorce. Obviously there are exceptions, and I'm not talking about abuse etc, I'm talking about the proliferation of no fault divorce where one spouse simply decides that they're done and leaving.
But, hey if you think that's a good idea and that causing "harm" to people under certain circumstances is appropriate, then that's cool. Just own it.
"Do you seriously think this isn't rational or moral?"
It looks like @ 23% of marriages end because of abuse or domestic violence, so if you think it's appropriate to justify the other 77% of divorce based on this 23% I guess that is one position to take.
However, this ignores the fact that my question was specifically about divorces where one spouse simply decides to walk away and get a divorce simply because they can. My question is about the divorces where one spouse and/or the children are subjected to "harm" because of the proliferation of no fault divorce.
But, keep focusing on things I'm not talking about, and the minority of divorce to draw attention away from your support of those divorces that cause "harm".
"Do you seriously disagree?"
Interesting question. You spend a bunch of time setting up various straw men, then make up some bullshit about the state forcing people to divorce or not divorce, then ask if I agree with your made up bullshit.
No, I do not agree that your made up bullshit accurately represents anything I have said or implied.
"Harm is a REASONABLE standard, and WAY more reasonable and measurable than your "I think the Bible thinks that God thinks this..." alternative."
1. Make up your damn mind. You continually bitch about me not providing an alternative moral code, while simultaneously making false claims about something you've simply invented.
2. Of course "REASONABLE" is still a subjective standard and just you lowering the bar.
3. "REASONABLE", still doesn't give you the standing to apply your subjective moral code to anyone else.
4. You can keep coming up with different terms all you want, but they're all still subjective and based on your personal hunches.
"OR, if that's not your position and your position that there IS no way to have reasonable (REASONABLE, not objective) agreement on some basic moral positions so we should live in a moral anarchy free for all... then Harm is a WAY more reasonable position than that."
Please, let your imagination run wild as you continue to argue against yourself. As is you arguing against something you've made up strengthens your position in any way. The fact that you've stopped making positive arguments for your subjective hunches about morality and decided to attack positions you've made up and attributed to me (sort of), tells me all I need to know.
"Jesus makes it clear that we should side with the poor and least of these. Is there at ANY point where you're going to try to square your apparent moral anarchy so do nothing position with your claim to be a serious follower of Jesus?"
Yes, that is one thing that Jesus talked about a few times, but it's certainly not the extent of His message. Again with the made up "moral anarchy" bullshit. Did Jesus teach you to make up falsehoods about other people?
"OR, if you AREN'T advocating moral anarchy, as it appears, THEN CLARIFY."
I am not required to offer an alternative to your subjective, capricious, moral code simply because you demand that I do so.
"But in the meantime, get the hell out of the way of adults who are trying to do the right thing using reasonable moral understanding. Lives are at risk and we don't have time for lightweight, empty-headed nonsense from vague people who won't even stake a claim 'Harm is a REASONABLE standard, and WAY more reasonable and measurable than your "I think the Bible thinks that God thinks this..." alternative.
OR, if that's not your position and your position that there IS no way to have reasonable (REASONABLE, not objective) agreement on some basic moral positions so we should live in a moral anarchy free for all... then Harm is a WAY more reasonable position than that.
Jesus makes it clear that we should side with the poor and least of these. Is there at ANY point where you're going to try to square your apparent moral anarchy so do nothing position with your claim to be a serious follower of Jesus?
OR, if you AREN'T advocating moral anarchy, as it appears, THEN CLARIFY.
But in the meantime, get the hell out of the way of adults who are trying to do the right thing using reasonable moral understanding. Lives are at risk and we don't have time for lightweight, empty-headed nonsense from vague people who won't even stake a claim about what their alternatives might be.
Get the hell out of the way of the adults, son."
Impressive. The repetitive, condescending, ad hom combination with some self aggrandizement thrown in. Again, I'm sure you got this from following the teachings of Jesus.
Your attempt to paint your subjective hunches about Jesus' teaching as carrying the same authority as Jesus' actual teaching (in it's entirety) is either incredibly disturbing or an indication of mental health issues.
Usually when you resort the this sort of attempt to demean, condescend, and make ad hom attacks, it means that you've run out of anything to actually prove your own claims. Too bad Skippy.
Wow. Dan being Dan in a way I'm not sure I included in my list of criticisms which led to his widespread banishment from more conservative blogs.
I have to comment on one of Dan's most recent droolings. He dares admonish you to stand aside while "adults" work to lessen "harm" to people. The policies he supports by the politicians who get his vote is the reason there is so much harm. Those policies have the same irreligious notions about "harm" which clearly have not served us in the least. His devotion to foreigners over his fellow citizens has led to deaths, rapes, economic loss and many other woes, yet he insists he's working to "do no harm". Your example of no-fault divorce is a lefty policy which also has led to harm in the manner you describe. Dan's response ignores how common marriages and families suffer from spousal abuse by the wives, because Dan wants to believe the leftist trope of the patriarchy. Progressive income tax negatively affects economic growth and job creation. "Racial equity" has led to more problems in the black community than modern progressives have the brain power to recognize...because they refuse to consider how the rejection of the objective moral code of God's Will has played such a large role in their suffering. The examples are many and I'm unaware of any which doesn't draw support in their perpetuation from the likes of Dan and his "adults".
His devotion to foreigners over his fellow citizens has led to deaths, rapes, economic loss and many other woes, yet he insists he's working to "do no harm".
1. My devotion is to humanity. Humanity includes foreigners and other poor and marginalized people, but it doesn't exclude fellow citizens.
Do you see how you're mistaken on that point, then?
2. Thinking it is a moral and rational thing to do to accept/welcome foreigners to our nation - at least those who struggle the most and yearn to be free - does not mean that I support "deaths, rapes, economic loss and puppy-eating..." Immigrants and refugees commit FEWER crimes than people who are already citizens.
We don't blame innocent citizens for the misdeeds of the guilty ones, nor should we penalize or blame innocent immigrants for the TINY minority who misbehavior.
This too is simply moral and rational. Heck, it's even biblical, if you're into that kind of thing.
August 28, 2023 at 1:46 PM
"Do you see how you're mistaken on that point, then?"
I'm not at all mistaken. But you're lying to suggest you have no devotion to foreigners as you continue to push for open borders by your constant whining about refugees and asylees. While any honest person can affirm the vast harm ("do no harm" being your prime directive) of modern progressive immigration policy...i.e. open borders, lax border security, etc., you pretend you and your kind are the "adults" working to reduce harm. That's crap. Your efforts increase the potential for harm across the board.
2. Cut this crap. In terms of percentage, illegals commit more crime than citizens. It begins by their crime of illegal entry, a first offense regarded as misdemeanor only to mitigate the clogging of the courts. Also keep in mind that the bulk of crime by American citizens is also connected to modern progressive policy.
No migrant who enters the country illegally or by any fraudulent means is "innocent" by any stretch of the imagination.
There's nothing at all Biblical about enabling illegal behaviors of any kind. But given you're no Christian, you disagree with such Truths.
And to be clear, I wasn't seeking to move the conversation toward an immigration tangent. I simply used that as an example of how modern progressive "adults" are causing harm by ostensibly working to reduce it. Leftists basically destroy everything they touch.
Art,
I recognized exactly what you were doing. Actions have consequences, and one inevitable consequence of this flood of unregulated immigration is the influx of more criminals. The reality is that while these people would likely have killed people in their home country, allowing them unrestricted access to the US means that they are now killing the citizens that the US government should be protecting. It's easy to paint this flood of immigration as 100% wonderful people who are oppressed and mistreated and just want a fair opportunity, but it's not reality.
Given the numbers flooding in, it would be difficult to suppose the truly oppressed are even a significant percentage. And by "oppressed", I'm referring to those whose lives are endangered by direct attacks or destructive acts to which they can't avoid falling victim without leaving the area for some indefinite period.
And it should be noted that the concept of refugee/asylee status includes the expectation that dangers will be removed so they can return home, which is where most people prefer to be.
Post a Comment