"For centuries, traditionalist/conservative folks in the Christian tradition have tried to define the "Gospel of Jesus" as fairly exclusively being a theology that defines "good news" as "the good news that most of humanity is going to be condemned to an eternity of torment by a 'loving god' who rejects most of humanity as unworthy of God's grace..." etc and MANY folks in other Christ-ian traditions have rejected that vision of "evangelism" and "good news" as being representative of Jesus' teachings. But rather than just releasing "good news," "gospel" and "evangelism" as words that conservatives own and can define, WE use those words in ways that we believe to be more faithful to Jesus' actual teachings."
Instead of dealing with the the actual text of the Geneva Conventions and how they demonstrate that the IDF is not engaging in war crimes, or with the actual text of the Hamas charter, Dan has chose to attack me. He's chosen to do so by asserting that I am trying to tell Muslims what they should believe. That I am imposing my interpretation of scripture on others and insisting that I can dictate the correct meaning that should be believed.
The obvious place to start is by noting that Dan has absolutely zero evidence to prove his claims. No quotes of me saying what he claims I've said, no links to these quotes, nothing. Just Dan insisting that I am engaging in these practices that he's falsely accused me of.
But, then I see the gen above. Dan is literally placing his own personal hunches about how scripture should be interpreted and what everyone should believe over "centuries" of "Christian tradition". He's pronounced that "WE" are "more faithful to Jesus actual teachings" than everyone else. Ignore the royal we, we al know he means himself and maybe a few people he personally knows, not some huge movement. Let's focus on his claims that "WE" know "Jesus' actual teachings", to the exclusion of everyone else. Let's focus on his argument that the existence of some groups who believe something different automatically invalidate the beliefs held for "centuries" by orthodox Christianity.
What I'm reading here sound like a modern offshoot of the Gnostic heresy. Sounds like someone demanding that either everyone must believe "Jesus' actual teachings" as divined by Dan, or that it's a theological free for all with everyone's beliefs all being equally correct.
121 comments:
Look man, we're not unintelligent. We're not incapable of communication. Let's work our way through this because there's just so much wrong and being misunderstood.
You said, above...
He's chosen to do so by asserting that I am trying to tell Muslims what they should believe.
That I am imposing my interpretation of scripture on others and insisting that I can dictate the correct meaning that should be believed.
What I said that, I think, generated that comment:
who says that YOU get to dictate to actual Muslims what "the teachings of Islam" are?"
I'm asking a question.
ON WHAT BASIS ARE YOUR PERSONAL WHITE CHRISTIAN OPINIONS AND UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE QURAN THE RIGHT ONES THAT DEFINE WHAT MUSLIMS BELIEVE?
I'm asking a reasonable question, not making an allegation.
You replied to that comment (highlights are clarifications I added):
No.
I [Craig White Christian Man] am able to read and comprehend what is written in the Quran,
and what is being taught publicly by [SOME - NOT ALL] Muslim clerics.
My pointing out the reality of what the holy writings of Islam say is merely that.
I'm not interpreting those writings, I'm letting them speak for themselves.
More reasonable questions:
I. So, you have read the Quran, what, all the way through one time? OR
II. You've read bits and pieces of it but not all of it?
III. You've read bits and pieces of it as an outsider to the religion and not with Muslim support to help you understand the words?
Please clarify.
So, here's the thing, Craig.
You've played with reading the Quran (is that fair? Is it fair to say that you're nothing at all like a scholar or educated on the Quran and Islam?) and then YOU CONCLUDED:
"The Quran references 'holy war,' which I CRAIG WHITE CHRISTIAN take to mean an actual literal war of conquest, and I take that to mean a literal genocidal war, therefore."
And some Muslims probably believe something like that, too. Many Muslims, probably.
AND, other Muslims reject out of hand the idea that they are commanded by God (Allah) to conquer the earth with genocidal practices or that they should like in order to commit genocide or other sorts of suggestions that many white conservative Christians will SAY that "this is the meaning of the text..."
cont'd...
That is, SOME Muslims do NOT accept your interpretation of Holy War or genocide or lying (of the sort that Glenn referenced and perhaps you agree with).
I'm not saying you think you get to dictate what Muslims believe. I'm asking the question: WHY does your interpretation overrule Muslims who disagree with your hunches about their holy texts?
It's a reasonable question, right? How is that not a reasonable question, if you disagree?
So, with those clarifications:
Craig...
That I am imposing my interpretation of scripture on others and insisting that I can dictate the correct meaning that should be believed.
ALSO Craig...
I [Craig White Christian Man] am able to read and comprehend what is written in the Quran,
and what is being taught publicly by [SOME - NOT ALL] Muslim clerics.
My pointing out the reality of what the holy writings of Islam say is merely that.
You see the logical flaw you're committing? You're begging the question. The question is "DOES the Quran teach genocide and wars of conquest as what modern Muslims should be doing?"
The observable answer in the real world is factually this:
SOME Muslims believe something close to this.
Many other Muslims disagree vehemently with this.
We don't know the numbers of those who believe in genocide or not. We just factually don't.
THAT is the reality.
Can you acknowledge that reality?
But you've skipped that step when you've stated as a fact:
I am able to read and comprehend what is written in the Quran,
and what is being taught publicly by Muslim clerics.
My pointing out the reality of what the holy writings of Islam say is merely that.
That is, You pointing out what YOU CRAIG have interpreted the Quran to say is "merely that," pointing out the reality of what the Quran says. According to me.
But you're not the decider.
Can you agree with that? I bet you can.
Craig...
The obvious place to start is by noting that Dan has absolutely zero evidence to prove his claims.
I've cited the words where YOU said that YOU, White Conservative Craig, are able to understand the words of the Quran and say what they mean. My QUESTION (which is literally not an attack but an extremely reasonable question) is - Many Muslims disagree with what YOU say is the literal clear meaning of the text... why does YOUR interpretation outweigh theirs? Are you saying that they are WRONG when they tell you, "That is not the teaching of Islam or of the Quran..."?
That, too, is a reasonable question. We'll see if you answer.
As to this misunderstanding, you said:
Dan is literally placing his own personal hunches about how scripture
should be interpreted and what everyone should believe
over "centuries" of "Christian tradition".
He's pronounced that "WE" are "more faithful to Jesus actual teachings"
than everyone else.
The difference is, I'm always clear that
1. This is my opinion. I (and the many who have thought in the same way over the centuries) think that, for instance, a Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory is not biblical or faithful to the teachings of Jesus. That is our reasoned opinion based on reading the Bible. That's one thing: I'm clear it's MY opinion.
2. I'm NOT saying that it's the ONLY possible interpretations or that those who hold other opinions have been objectively proven to be wrong. They have their opinions and I have mine/we have ours.
I'm not saying, as you did with the Quran and Muslims...
This notion that simply reading the words of the Quran and Muslim scholars, applying the most common meaning to the words...
I am able to read and comprehend what is written in the Quran, and what is being taught publicly by Muslim clerics. My pointing out the reality of what the holy writings of Islam say is merely that. I'm not interpreting those writings, I'm letting them speak for themselves.
You are LITERALLY interpreting them by saying, "We should understand this text to be a literal command for genocide/killing innocents..."
Come, be reasonable. You've made some mistakes, just let it go.
Rep Tlaib did NOT say she supports Israeli genocide.
Not all Muslims (probably nowhere like a majority of them) interpret the Quran as you do when it comes to genocide, jihad or killing innocent people.
These are two simple, observable, demonstrable objective real world facts.
Can you agree with that much?
Now, for some education about what many Muslims believe about the Quran and their own religion that defies what you, Old White Craig, think is the "clear understanding" of the Quran:
“Jihad” literally means striving, or doing one’s utmost.
Within Islam, there are two basic theological understandings of the word:
The “Greater Jihad” is the struggle against the lower self –
the struggle to purify one’s heart,
do good,
avoid evil and
make oneself a better person.
The “Lesser Jihad” is an outward struggle.
Jihad constitutes a moral principle to struggle against any obstacle that
stands in the way of the good...
Jihad may also involve fighting against oppressors and aggressors who commit injustice.
It is not “holy war” in the way a crusade would be considered a holy war,
and while Islam allows and even encourages proselytizing,
it forbids forced conversion...
The variety of interpretations of Lesser Jihad,
or just war,
over 1400 years in many settings is a complex discussion.
Hm. They believe in something called Just War. Who else ascribes to that? Ah, yes, most (but not all) Christians.
Or, dealing with White Man Glenn's false hunches about lying, there's this:
Taqiyya is an Arabic word that means to hide your faith
in times of persecution in order to protect your life and family.
It does not allow one to deceive and lie.
Muslims are allowed to practice Taqiyya when
open declaration of their faith leads to death and torture.
Do you disagree and think they SHOULD tell the truth if some Christian Crusader is prepared to kill them? Well, if so, good for you. Not everyone agrees with that approach.
How about so-called "honor killings..." is that a true Islam teaching?
No. According to Islamic teachings,
no Muslim may sanction or support murder;
the Qur’an explicitly forbids such actions (16:59, 5:27-32).
In fact, the Qur’an does not mention “honor killings,”
and in Islamic teachings,
there is no such thing as excusable murder.
There's more corrections to misunderstandings about what the Quran does and doesn't say/what Islam does and doesn't teach here:
https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/publications/what-is-the-truth-about-american-muslims/misunderstood-terms-and-practices
And just like MANY Christians have historically used the Bible for oppression and killing, so too, many Muslims have done that, as well.
Now, given the choice of what White Man Craig and White Man Glenn assert, in their opinion, the Quran "teaches" or what actual Muslims (some whom I know and many others including scholars and teachers and regular people) have to say about Islam, I'm going to ignore the heck out of white Christians telling me what Muslims believe.
ARE there SIGNIFICANT problems and injustices in MANY Muslim nations?
Yes, without a doubt.
Was Hamas wholly wrong to do what they did on Oct 7?
Of course, don't be obtuse.
My pointing out the reality that Muslims have a range of opinions and we shouldn't judge all Muslims on the actions of some 1% (give or take)... this is just rational.
Do you disagree with that last rational conclusion?
You can do this, it's easy. Just agree with reason and observation.
Now, I could point to many, many other Islamic scholars and experts who disagree with the violence of Hamas types (as well as the violence of Israel and the US, historically). But do you care what many (probably the vast majority) of Muslims have to say? Because I can point out actual Muslims defusing the lies and slander directed towards them (but how can that be!? Christians don't believe in lying!!??) all day long. This is not some insignificant fraction of Muslims.
"That is, SOME Muslims do NOT accept your interpretation of Holy War or genocide or lying (of the sort that Glenn referenced and perhaps you agree with)."
I'm quite sure that "SOME Muslims" do not agree with certain things the Quran teaches. I'd suspect that there's a correlation between Muslims who live in countries to are NOT Muslim Theocracies and Muslims that have a more liberal interpretation of the Quran.
"I'm not saying you think you get to dictate what Muslims believe. I'm asking the question: WHY does your interpretation overrule Muslims who disagree with your hunches about their holy texts?"
I've never, ever said that my "interpretation" overrules anything. You've imagined this idiocy and keep asking the same idiotic bullshit over an over no matter how often I correct you.
"It's a reasonable question, right? How is that not a reasonable question, if you disagree?"
It's an idiotic question, based on a false premise, that MIGHT be semi "reasonable" to ask once. After the 300th time (sarcasm alert) and being corrected, it simply becomes an exercise in idiocy.
"You see the logical flaw you're committing? You're begging the question. The question is "DOES the Quran teach genocide and wars of conquest as what modern Muslims should be doing?""
I see the logical flaw in your rewriting my answers and acting as if your made up version is more accurate then my actual answer. Who in the hell gave you the authority to rewrite and "clarify" my answer based on shit you made up?
"Can you acknowledge that reality?"
I can acknowledge that the numbers are in the tens of millions of those who believe in Jihad, genocide, and martial conquest. I can acknowledge that there are entire countries who support those things and that are actively taking steps to make their vision come to be. I can acknowledge that there is hundreds/thousands of Madrassas teaching children this interpretation of the Quran. I can acknowledge that these tens of millions of Jihadists or Jihad supporters are a clear and present danger to Israel, as well as nations that support Israel. You can minimize these tens of millions all you want, but that's the reality.
"I am able to read and comprehend what is written in the Quran,
and what is being taught publicly by Muslim clerics.
My pointing out the reality of what the holy writings of Islam say is merely that."
No, those things are all facts.
"That is, You pointing out what YOU CRAIG have interpreted the Quran to say is "merely that," pointing out the reality of what the Quran says. According to me."
That's not. If I quote the Quran verbatim, that's not me interpreting anything. That's you imposing your own subjective, bullshit, made up rubric in order to dismiss anything other then your hunches.
"Can you agree with that? I bet you can."
Since I've NEVER ONCE claimed to be the decider, obviously I can I agree with a false characterization of a position I've never held or claimed to have held.
"I'm not saying you think you get to dictate what Muslims believe. I'm asking the question: WHY does your interpretation overrule Muslims who disagree with your hunches about their holy texts?"
I've never, ever said that my "interpretation" overrules anything.
Again, I'm asking reasonable questions based on your rather strong language about what the Quran DOES say, as if it's a given fact. It's not.
Do you agree?
So, you agree that YOUR OPINION on the meaning of these texts are ONLY your opinions and interpretations and that many Muslims disagree - vehemently - with your interpretations of their texts?
Since I've NEVER ONCE claimed to be the decider, obviously I can I agree with a false characterization of a position I've never held or claimed to have held.
I'm glad to hear that. That is why I ask questions. When you state as if it's a fact that "This is what the Quran says." Period... it sounds like you're pronouncing a final factual judgment on what the Quran says.
But you're making clear now that this is ONLY your opinion, not a definitive objective reality, is that correct?
So, YES, the Quran mentions the Struggle (Jihad) and SOME people interpret that to mean war and killing innocents are okay, but many Muslims reject that as being the teaching of Islam.
It LITERALLY mentions Jihad, BUT, the meaning of Jihad is a matter of opinion, not an established fact.
Right? Do we agree with that observable reality?
If I quote the Quran verbatim, that's not me interpreting anything.
If someone quotes the Bible verbatim and out of context, we find a defense for moral atrocities like war, rape, forced marriage, murdering/killing children and genocide, among other atrocities.
Grade school literal verbatim interpretations of ancient texts is not an adult way of dealing with complex theological matters. Can you agree?
On the other hand, IF you quote out of context verses verbatim from the Quran (or Bible) and suggest, hint at or it is in the context of "some Muslims believe in genocide," in a manner that suggests maybe Rep Tlaib or other Muslims might believe in genocide, that is a dishonest/less than good faith way of citing a passage. Agreed?
Maybe we're making progress here.
By all means, answer the question so I can know. your position:
DO YOU THINK, in YOUR personal White Christian Craig opinion, that the Quran teach genocide and wars of conquest as what modern Muslims should be doing?
If so, do you acknowledge that this is your personal White Christian interpretation and not definitively what Islam teaches?
If not, good on you.
"I've cited the words where YOU said that YOU, White Conservative Craig, are able to understand the words of the Quran and say what they mean. My QUESTION (which is literally not an attack but an extremely reasonable question) is - Many Muslims disagree with what YOU say is the literal clear meaning of the text... why does YOUR interpretation outweigh theirs? Are you saying that they are WRONG when they tell you, "That is not the teaching of Islam or of the Quran..."?"
Asked and answered multiple times. This idiotic notion that reading anything and taking the words at their plain and usual meaning, is do ridiculous as to not merit any further response. the notion that the existence of disagreement automatically means that one person is wrong is also ridiculous. The fact that you have to base your questions on a false premise is strike three.
"1. This is my opinion. I (and the many who have thought in the same way over the centuries) think that, for instance, a Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory is not biblical or faithful to the teachings of Jesus. That is our reasoned opinion based on reading the Bible. That's one thing: I'm clear it's MY opinion."
If this is true, then I can freely ignore your hunch as it has absolutely zero value beyond your brain. The problem is that, if you read your own words which I quoted, you'll note the complete lack of any indication that your are offering an "opinion". I guess we just have to read your mind and assume that everything is your worthless, unproven, unprovable, hunch.
"2. I'm NOT saying that it's the ONLY possible interpretations or that those who hold other opinions have been objectively proven to be wrong. They have their opinions and I have mine/we have ours."
Nope,, you're just saying that you have access to "Jesus actual teachings", did you not mean "Jesus' actual teachings"?
"You are LITERALLY interpreting them by saying, "We should understand this text to be a literal command for genocide/killing innocents...""
No, I'm not. You are literally reading into what I actually said some made up bullshit.
"Can you agree with that much?"
I can agree that some small percentage of Muslims, might not agree with some interpretations of the Quran and the teachings therein. The problem is that those unknown Muslims are not actively trying to ameliorate the suffering in Gaza, have done nothing to ameliorate the suffering in the refugee camps caused by the Arab armies unprovoked attack on Israel in 1948. Are doing nothing to work against the tens of millions of their coreligionists who are actively engaged in all sorts of barbaric actions. Who are most probably being oppressed in the Muslim theocracies.
Wow Dan can proof text the Quran just like he proof texts the Bible.
I asked...
""The Quran references 'holy war,' which I CRAIG WHITE CHRISTIAN take to mean an actual literal war of conquest, and I take that to mean a literal genocidal war, therefore."
You answered vaguely...
No, this is false.
So... when the Quran reference Holy War or Jihad, you do not take that to mean that Islam is teaching a literal genocidal war?
If so, good on you. Well done.
This idiotic notion that reading anything and taking the words at their plain and usual meaning, is do ridiculous as to not merit any further response.
But no, it literally is not ridiculous.
The Bible speaks of God commanding forced weddings, rape, genocide, slaughter of children, slavery and other atrocities. IF we take the Bible at its "plain and usual meaning" on those texts, we would have a bloodthirsty evil little demon god who sometimes commands people to commit atrocities.
GIVEN the reality of texts from ancient times that have potentially problematic verses for those religions, it's not as simple or simple-minded as saying, "If it says, rape the women!' then God/Allah supports such actions, at least at times."
What a vile and childish approach to literary understanding.
Do you agree that EVEN THOUGH there are biblical commands to commit atrocities, that does not mean that God sometimes commands atrocities as a Christian teaching?
Please, Good God in heaven, help him say Yes, that God does NOT sometimes command atrocities!
Have you read any of it?
Some of it. Not impressed, by and large. But then, I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Christian.
Restating the same question in a slightly different form before I have the chance to answer is idiotic. Who are you to put restrictions on how the Quran must be read?
I'm not. I'm saying that Muslim scholars and Muslims in general are more trustworthy than a white conservative Christian with an agenda as to what THEY think the Quran says and what Islam teaches.
Can we agree that this is a reasonable position to take?
"I'm glad to hear that. That is why I ask questions. When you state as if it's a fact that "This is what the Quran says." Period... it sounds like you're pronouncing a final factual judgment on what the Quran says."
No, in the past I've literally copy/pasted the exact words of the Quran and simply allowed them to speak for themselves.
For example, if I was to say that the Bible tells us that "Jesus wept", my reading of that and concluding that Jesus (the second person of the Trinity) actually wept (cried, eyes watered, etc), involves no interpretation.
"But you're making clear now that this is ONLY your opinion, not a definitive objective reality, is that correct?"
It's neither, both, or something else.
"So, YES, the Quran mentions the Struggle (Jihad) and SOME people interpret that to mean war and killing innocents are okay, but many Muslims reject that as being the teaching of Islam."
So what. The fact that some Muslims "reject" or reinterpret that doctrine isn't an indication that they're hunch is accurate or correct. It simply reduces a book they claim to be a direct revelation from Allah to Muhammad (without error), to the hunches people have about their own interpretations.
"It LITERALLY mentions Jihad, BUT, the meaning of Jihad is a matter of opinion, not an established fact."
Well, if you say so, then it must be True. I guess you're saying that the armies that Mohammad dispatched to convert or kill "unbelievers" were misinterpreting his directions? By all means, let's ignore the real history of Muslims spreading their faith through conquest.
"Right? Do we agree with that observable reality?"
I guess we agree on some simplistic, surface, generalization based on your hunches about some small group on Muslims who seemingly do very little to contain or correct those of their faith who believe differently.
Dan can proof text the Quran just like he proof texts the Bible.
Wow. Craig can make up false claims about Dan just like he does about Representative Tlaib or a sizable group of Muslims.
I have not offered ANY opinions about specific texts of the Quran. What I DID do is cite Muslim scholars explaining their understanding of the Quran, but that has nothing to do with me, and that's the point. I listen to MUSLIMS for THEM to tell me what the Quran does and doesn't say. I don't tell them what the "obvious verbatim" words of the Quran mean.
I'm not arrogant that way.
Dan:
"It LITERALLY mentions Jihad, BUT, the meaning of Jihad is a matter of opinion, not an established fact."
Well, if you say so, then it must be True.
Well, human opinions about ancient texts that they can not prove one way or the other what the original intent was are, BY DEFINITION, a matter of opinion, NOT an established fact. That's just reality.
Where is your source to "prove" that your hunches about the Quran are an established fact?
Can you admit you have NONE, nothing that objectively proves the intended meaning of Jihad - either Allah's intended meaning or the original author's intended meaning?
Reality is what it is, buddy.
"If someone quotes the Bible verbatim and out of context, we find a defense for moral atrocities like war, rape, forced marriage, murdering/killing children and genocide, among other atrocities."
Which assumes that those who use the Quran to justify Jihad, conquest, oppression, slavery, murder, rape, mutilation, kidnapping, and death to the "unbelievers", are doing so "out of context", an assumption you haven't proven.
"Grade school literal verbatim interpretations of ancient texts is not an adult way of dealing with complex theological matters. Can you agree?"
No. Jesus Himself said that we must be like little children in our approach to His teachings. This notion that "grade school" children are incapable of understanding is quite strange.
"On the other hand, IF you quote out of context verses verbatim from the Quran (or Bible) and suggest, hint at or it is in the context of "some Muslims believe in genocide," in a manner that suggests maybe Rep Tlaib or other Muslims might believe in genocide, that is a dishonest/less than good faith way of citing a passage. Agreed?"
Who knows, that makes no sense. Where have I quoted out of context? Where is your proof that Tlaib's hunch is more correct than Mahmoud Khaled Zahhar, or Kahlid Shiek Mohammad, or Usama Bin Laden?
As long as you ignore the point of my post, it's unlikely.
I guess you're saying that the armies that Mohammad dispatched to convert or kill "unbelievers" were misinterpreting his directions?
Well, given the reality that I don't treat the Quran as a literal history book or a literal word from Allah any more than I take the Bible as a literal history book, I have no opinion on what did and didn't happen in these ancient stories.
Do you have some provable evidence that Allah literally spoke to Mohammad and wanted Mohammad to convert or kill unbelievers and that this is STILL a teaching of Islam that Allah wants Muslims to follow?
Of course, the reality is, no, you don't. You have subjective and less-than-scholarly opinions. Nothing else, as a point of objective reality.
Am I mistaken? By all means, provide objective proof.
You can't. Just admit that, man. There's no shame in admitting you have unproven subjective human opinions, not objective facts.
"DO YOU THINK, in YOUR personal White Christian Craig opinion, that the Quran teach genocide and wars of conquest as what modern Muslims should be doing?"
I think that the Quran says what it says. I think that my demographic information has no role in this conversation. I think that my views are less important that the views of the leaders of Iran, Afghanistan, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, the PLO, Saudi, Wahhabis, and their ilk.
"If so, do you acknowledge that this is your personal White Christian interpretation and not definitively what Islam teaches?"
No, I do not. Unlike you I don't see Islam as monolithic. I do see that the above list of actors are the primary drivers of what happens in the Islamic world, and as such have a significant voice in what Islam teaches.
Jesus Himself said that we must be like little children in our approach to His teachings. This notion that "grade school" children are incapable of understanding is quite strange.
Child-like. Not stupidly child-ISH. There's a difference.
Are you suggesting childish, less-than-informed, emotional literally childishness is a good approach for considering philosophy and religion?
Come now, let's reason like adults.
if I was to say that the Bible tells us that "Jesus wept", my reading of that and concluding that Jesus (the second person of the Trinity) actually wept
And if someone says that the Bible tells us "Go and slaughter all the people of the town, even the children and babies and livestock, for GOD commands you..." do you take that to mean that God sometimes commands that humans SHOULD kill babies?
It's a reasonable question for someone trying to take the Quran literally and who claims to take the Bible literally. Ish.
""The Quran references 'holy war,' which I CRAIG WHITE CHRISTIAN take to mean an actual literal war of conquest, and I take that to mean a literal genocidal war, therefore."
Yes you did, and I answered. I'll add that the actual history of Islam and it's succession of Holy Wars intended to conquer and convert infidels by the sword cannot be overlooked. What people do, how people act, says a lot about what they really believe. Perhaps you are aware of the history of Muslim invasion/conquest of a significant portion of the world as it existed then. Perhaps you are unaware that had northern Europeans allied in defense of Vienna that much of Europe would have been forcibly converted to Islam. Of course to ignore the role of Islam in both the historic and modern slave trade, would be to ignore the actions of those who claim to follow the Quran.
No, this is false.
"So... when the Quran reference Holy War or Jihad, you do not take that to mean that Islam is teaching a literal genocidal war?"
Look at the history of Islamic conquest starting with Mohammad. I'm saying that for most of the short history of Islam Jihad was part and parcel of it's spread, as was the enslaving or killing of those they conquered. Actions speak louder than words. Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
"But no, it literally is not ridiculous."
Danthustera has spoken.
"The Bible speaks of God commanding forced weddings, rape, genocide, slaughter of children, slavery and other atrocities. IF we take the Bible at its "plain and usual meaning" on those texts, we would have a bloodthirsty evil little demon god who sometimes commands people to commit atrocities."
No, because if we take the plain meaning of those stories in context we'd see that they were specific commands for specific people at a specific time for a specific purpose. Not blanket commands for all people at all time.
"GIVEN the reality of texts from ancient times that have potentially problematic verses for those religions, it's not as simple or simple-minded as saying, "If it says, rape the women!' then God/Allah supports such actions, at least at times.""
If Danthustera speaks, then we must listen and accept his wisdom.
"Do you agree that EVEN THOUGH there are biblical commands to commit atrocities, that does not mean that God sometimes commands atrocities as a Christian teaching?"
See above. I anticipated this idiotic response and dealt with it.
"Some of it. Not impressed, by and large. But then, I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Christian."
So by the standard you apply to me, then you really have nothing of value to offer.
"I'm not. I'm saying that Muslim scholars and Muslims in general are more trustworthy than a white conservative Christian with an agenda as to what THEY think the Quran says and what Islam teaches."
What a bizarre notion. That you would consider a Wahhabi Scholar to be somehow be more acceptable than someone like me who has no particular agenda is bizarre.
"Can we agree that this is a reasonable position to take?"
No, I cannot agree that any random Wahhabi scholar is automatically a better option that a person approaching the Quran from a mildly skeptical perspective, but interested in learning what it actually says.
"Well, human opinions about ancient texts that they can not prove one way or the other what the original intent was are, BY DEFINITION, a matter of opinion, NOT an established fact. That's just reality.
Where is your source to "prove" that your hunches about the Quran are an established fact?
Can you admit you have NONE, nothing that objectively proves the intended meaning of Jihad - either Allah's intended meaning or the original author's intended meaning?
Reality is what it is, buddy."
Yes, and the reality is that Islam has a long and bloody history of spreading their faith by conquest, enslaving the people they conquered, and killing or maiming those who refused to convert. Perhaps it's possible to gain some insight into Islam by observing the actions of Muslims including Mohammad and his closest followers.
Well, given the reality that I don't treat the Quran as a literal history book or a literal word from Allah any more than I take the Bible as a literal history book, I have no opinion on what did and didn't happen in these ancient stories.
"Do you have some provable evidence that Allah literally spoke to Mohammad and wanted Mohammad to convert or kill unbelievers and that this is STILL a teaching of Islam that Allah wants Muslims to follow?"
No, but I can look at what Mohammad claimed happened, what he commanded his closest followers to do, what he wrote in the Quran (The direct, divinely, revealed, exact words of Allah), and what Muslems have done since He died. The historical record stands very clearly.
"Of course, the reality is, no, you don't. You have subjective and less-than-scholarly opinions. Nothing else, as a point of objective reality."
No. Islam began much later than your arbitrary date of accurately recorded history, we have the archeological and historical evidence of Muslim conquests, and we have the evidence of how Islam treated those they conquered. But maybe that history isn't of value.
"Am I mistaken? By all means, provide objective proof."
Are you really so unaware of the actions of Muslim leaders since the days of Mohammad? The history of conquest, enslavement, killing infidels, and destruction?
"You can't. Just admit that, man. There's no shame in admitting you have unproven subjective human opinions, not objective facts."
I can't offer historic proof that Allah gave Mo a flying horse and the the hoof print of that hose can be seen in the rock sheltered by the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, nor can I offer proof of what Allah actually said to Mo. What I can do is look at what Mo and his descendants did with the specific, exact words of Allah contained in the Quran. L can look at the historical record of war, conquest, slavery, mutilation, killing, and destruction and draw some reasonable conclusions. Actions speak louder then words.
Dan asked...
..."IF we take the Bible at its "plain and usual meaning" on those texts, we would have a bloodthirsty evil little demon god who sometimes commands people to commit atrocities."
Craig responded...
"No, because if we take the plain meaning of those stories in context we'd see that they were specific commands for specific people at a specific time for a specific purpose. Not blanket commands for all people at all time."
Look at my actual words written in English in a modern setting...
"IF we take the Bible at its "plain and usual meaning" on those texts, we would have a... god who SOMETIMES commands people to commit atrocities."
Your opinion, then, is that SOMETIMES, your pathetic little godling WILL/DOES/HAS commanded humans to slaughter babies?
Is that the hill you want to die on?
What a diabolical godling you imagine.
Dan
"Child-like. Not stupidly child-ISH. There's a difference.
Are you suggesting childish, less-than-informed, emotional literally childishness is a good approach for considering philosophy and religion?
Come now, let's reason like adults."
As long as you can define adult, and set the parameters.
I'm suggesting that scripture is accessible to and understandable by children.
"And if someone says that the Bible tells us "Go and slaughter all the people of the town, even the children and babies and livestock, for GOD commands you..." do you take that to mean that God sometimes commands that humans SHOULD kill babies?"
Excellent non answer. Fortunately, i've already dealt with this foolish "question".
"It's a reasonable question for someone trying to take the Quran literally and who claims to take the Bible literally. Ish."
In your mind every question you ask is "reasonable" based on your individual, subjective, definition of reasonable with you as the epic of reasonable.
"Your opinion, then, is that SOMETIMES, your pathetic little godling WILL/DOES/HAS commanded humans to slaughter babies?"
No. As I read the scripture, I am confronted with the fact that there are recorded instances where YHWH (the Creator of everything that exists, the great I AM, The Alpha and Omega) commanded people to do things that are difficult for me to completely understand. However, i am not full of enough hubris to pass judgement of YHWH, and His commandments. Clearly you are unable to prove that these commandments we NOT given by YHWH to s specific people at a specific time for a specific purpose, therefore your hunches and judgements of YHWH are of no value to me.
"Is that the hill you want to die on?"
Yes, I am willing to die on the hill of YHW's complete and total sovereignty. I'm also willing to die on the hill of you having absolutely zero grounds to pass judgement on YHWH.
commanded people to do things that are difficult for me to completely understand. However, i am not full of enough hubris to pass judgement of YHWH
You're begging the question. The question is: SHOULD rational adults think that texts that APPEAR to speak of the ALMIGHTY God of perfect love, justice and grace SOMETIMES commands humans (what an AWFUL bit of terrorism right there, fella) to SLAUGHTER BABIES... that they should be taken as literal history representative of what an almighty perfectly loving God sometimes does.
YOU are willing to guess, Yep, sometimes the PERFECT GOD OF LOVE AND JUSTICE has commanded humans to slaughter children.
Is that correct?
But why? HOW is that consistent with a perfect God of perfect love and justice?
It is a great evil always and forever and precisely WHY Hamas attacks were so evil. But you're willing to concede the point that SOMETIMES God might command humans to do just what Hamas did.
I'm not willing to concede such an evil notion or paint the perfect Almighty God in such a vile, pathetic, evil manner.
For my part, I am in NO way passing judgment on God. I'm pointing out the evil description of a sick, evil godling that you describe. My judgment is on YOUR opinion, not God.
So, given your hunch about your godling, WHY exactly are you criticizing Hamas...?
Are you really so unaware of the actions of Muslim leaders since the days of Mohammad? The history of conquest, enslavement, killing infidels, and destruction?
I'm aware of the evil done by some (many) Christians throughout the ages in the name of Jesus, right up into our life time. The oppression, the slavery, the denial of rights.
AND, I'm aware of the comparatively EVEN WORSE behavior of some (many) Muslims throughout history.
I don't think it's rational to judge Christians by their worst representatives nor Muslims by their worst representatives.
Do you see how that is fair and reasonable?
As I read the scripture, I am confronted with the fact that there are recorded instances where YHWH (the Creator of everything that exists, the great I AM, The Alpha and Omega) commanded people to do things that are difficult for me to completely understand.
You mean, commit atrocities? Bash in babies' heads? You really have a hard time completely understanding that?
Good. That's your humanity and moral compass calling out for you to pay attention to that of God in your heart and soul. Don't turn God's call away in favor of human traditions, dear brother! LISTEN to that torment in your heart, that gross revulsion at the notion of a god that commands humans to commit atrocities and don't try to dial down or explain the actions away: They are just what they appear to be - atrocities. Evil.
The question then is, do you believe that your god commands evil or do you reject the notion of a perfectly Loving, perfectly Just, Perfect God who would possibly command evil actions?
Listen to that revulsion, that's the good in you. The God in you. Listen.
"You're begging the question. The question is: SHOULD rational adults think that texts that APPEAR to speak of the ALMIGHTY God of perfect love, justice and grace SOMETIMES commands humans (what an AWFUL bit of terrorism right there, fella) to SLAUGHTER BABIES... that they should be taken as literal history representative of what an almighty perfectly loving God sometimes does."
No, I'm not. The real question is should the created ever be so full of hubris as to pass judgement on the Creator? I am fully aware that the ways, thoughts, and commands of YHWH are far above those of humans, therefore I see no circumstance in which I could conceive of placing myself in a position to pass judgement on YHWH. The very notion that you are in a position to define "rational adults", let alone dictate what they "should" do simply makes me laugh at your pride and arrogance.
"YOU are willing to guess, Yep, sometimes the PERFECT GOD OF LOVE AND JUSTICE has commanded humans to slaughter children. Is that correct?"
No.
"But why? HOW is that consistent with a perfect God of perfect love and justice?"
I'm not YHWH, I can't answer questions regarding Him.
"It is a great evil always and forever and precisely WHY Hamas attacks were so evil. But you're willing to concede the point that SOMETIMES God might command humans to do just what Hamas did."
Well if you can't comprehend that there's a difference between YHWH and Hamas, I can't help you.
"I'm not willing to concede such an evil notion or paint the perfect Almighty God in such a vile, pathetic, evil manner."
Good for you. You must feel so proud to be in a position to pass judgement on YHWH. Unless this is just one more example of your worthless hunch about something.
"For my part, I am in NO way passing judgment on God. I'm pointing out the evil description of a sick, evil godling that you describe. My judgment is on YOUR opinion, not God."
No, it's not. My "opinion" is that YHWH is God, and I'm not, therefore it's not my place to pass judgement on Him or His commands. FYI, this is not something I "describe" at all.
"So, given your hunch about your godling, WHY exactly are you criticizing Hamas...?"
Because they're barbarians.
"I'm aware of the evil done by some (many) Christians throughout the ages in the name of Jesus, right up into our life time. The oppression, the slavery, the denial of rights"
Which doesn't answer the question. Further, it's just offering "the other guys do it" as an excuse.
"AND, I'm aware of the comparatively EVEN WORSE behavior of some (many) Muslims throughout history."
Really? I find that hard to believe given your frequent assertions of how wonderful Islam and Muslims are.
"I don't think it's rational to judge Christians by their worst representatives nor Muslims by their worst representatives."
I don't really care what you think, as usual.
"Do you see how that is fair and reasonable?"
No.
"You mean, commit atrocities? Bash in babies' heads? You really have a hard time completely understanding that?"
I mean that there are many things recorded in scripture that I don't fully understand. Yet, because of my understanding of who and what YHWH is, I rest confidently in Him. I don't need to understand everything, I don't need to pass judgement on that which I don't understand. More importantly, I don't need or want your approval. You trying to pass judgement on me, shame me, or ridicule me or YHWH means less than nothing to me. It's a complete and total waste of your time to try to shame me into believing that your hunches are correct.
"Good. That's your humanity and moral compass calling out for you to pay attention to that of God in your heart and soul. Don't turn God's call away in favor of human traditions, dear brother! LISTEN to that torment in your heart, that gross revulsion at the notion of a god that commands humans to commit atrocities and don't try to dial down or explain the actions away: They are just what they appear to be - atrocities. Evil."
More futile attempts to shame me into accepting Dan's hunches and his judgement of YHWH. Layered with that condescending superior attitude that we all know and love.
"The question then is, do you believe that your god commands evil or do you reject the notion of a perfectly Loving, perfectly Just, Perfect God who would possibly command evil actions?"
Neither.
"Listen to that revulsion, that's the good in you. The God in you. Listen."
The only revulsion is caused by your constant attempts to shame me into accepting your hunches and the condescending superior attitude that leads you to pass judgement on YHWH and me based on your hunches.
I'm going to point out what's Dan has been doing in his last few comments where he's attempting to shame me into accepting his hunches.
He's essentially doing what prompted this post in the first place. In the original post I quoted him as saying that he knows and is "more faithful to Jesus' actual teachings". Now as he's trying to sham me, he's being very clear that he knows to a certainty that YHWH's actions and commands are "evil". Obviously Dan does not have the capability to objectively declare the actions and commands of YHWH "evil". Which leaves us with his usual dodge when he states something as an objective fact, and gets called on it. He'll hide behind "It's my opinion". Which as I've pointed out renders his claims to be meaningless and without a shred of worth. The very notion that he thinks that I should be shamed into believing his "opinion" on this topic is laughable at best. Yet, he'll keep trying.
In the original post I quoted him as saying that he knows and is "more faithful to Jesus' actual teachings".
I literally didn't say this. It is a false claim. What I said, if you read my words that you quoted yourself, was...
WE use those words in ways that
we believe
to be more faithful to Jesus' actual teachings."
That is, I can't prove my position on an unprovable topic any more than you can (which you 100% can't objectively prove, can you admit that?) but WE BELIEVE we are being more faithful to Jesus' actual words. Not that I "know" it in some objectively provable sense, but I believe it is quite obvious, given Jesus' actual words and the way he didn't espouse anything like a "gospel of penal substitutionary atonement."
he's being very clear that he knows to a certainty that YHWH's actions and commands are "evil".
No, that too, is not what I said. I do NOT believe that God DID what YOU believe, in your personal human opinions and traditions, that God did. I'm not disagreeing with GOD, I'm disagreeing with your personal human opinions and traditions.
Can you acknowledge that?
Now, IF (IF IF IF IF IF IF YOU can objectively prove God commanded the atrocities that you and your tradition claim that God commanded, that would be one thing.
But 100% factually, YOU can not objectively prove your subjective (and quite frankly, vulgar, evil, diabolical) suggestion.
Can you acknowledge that?
Obviously Dan does not have the capability to objectively declare the actions and commands of YHWH "evil".
Obviously, Dan has not DONE that. I've disagreed with YOUR opinions about what sort of atrocities and evils YOU THINK in YOUR MIND that God commanded. But, blech, what a sick monster of a godling that would be.
He'll hide behind "It's my opinion". Which as I've pointed out renders his claims to be meaningless and without a shred of worth.
1. It literally is my reasonable opinion, shared by many others.
2. You can't prove I'm mistaken, you absolutely 100% objectively can NOT prove I'm mistaken. You are entirely impotent and powerless to prove that I'm mistaken.
Can you admit that reality?
3. Since neither of us (and no one) can prove objectively our opinions about whether or not there was a monster godling who once upon a time in evil land commanded humans to commit atrocities, that does not follow that all opinions about it are meaningless and without worth. Or, conversely, your evil imaginations about the atrocities your godling might have commanded are not provable and thus, BY YOUR measure, are meaningless and without a shred of worth.
Can you admit to that reality?
That is, IF you think if we can't objectively prove that there once upon a time was a monster god commanding atrocities, does that render your hunches meaningless and without a shred of worth?
By your reasoning, it does.
Craig, speaking of his guess that his godling sometimes might command humans to slaughter babies, said...
I mean that there are many things recorded in scripture that I don't fully understand.
So, you don't understand WHY a godling might command the slaughter of babies?
OR - if your understanding is not perfectly figured out - is it also not possible why God might have allowed a Bible story that depicts actions attributed to God that are not OF God (since clearly, a perfectly loving, perfectly just God - BY DEFINITION - would not command humans to commit evil atrocities) to appear in the pages of the Bible that YOU are guessing must have told history fairly literally?
That is, IF you can admit that you can't figure out this apparent command to commit atrocities, is it ALSO not possible that what's mistaken are your hunches about God, the Bible and ancient stories being told in a literally factual, historic manner?
IF you can't figure it out, why is your human presupposition about biblical stories MUST needing to be literal history be what the problem is?
It's a reasonable question.
I think part of your problem remains that you can't ready for comprehension and you have difficulty understanding degrees. For instance...
I find that hard to believe given your frequent assertions of how wonderful Islam and Muslims are.
By all means, find ONE ASSERTION of the "frequent assertions" I have apparently made about how "wonderful Islam and Muslims are."
Do you have EVEN ONE quote from me you can cite?
You do understand that my saying, "Not all Muslims want to see the genocide of Israel" is not really a praise about "how wonderful" they are? Which is not to say that there AREN'T wonderful Muslims, I just don't think you can find one instance of me saying so.
And my pointing out that, of course, in the real world, there ARE some wonderful Muslims... is that something you would dispute? Because, why? They're Muslims and secret liars and wannabe oppressors?
Or can you agree that of course, there are wonderful Muslim people in the world?
At any rate, I think this is another instance of you reading INTO words of others something they literally did not say (like your literal suggestion in YOUR words that Representative Tlaib was an example of someone who, in YOUR literal words, wanted to see Israel eliminated, which of course, remains a false claim that you will/have not apologized for).
Read for understanding and not from a partisan presumption that the "others" are evil and you'll do much better of understanding what people actually have said.
I asked...
"So, given your hunch about your godling, WHY exactly are you criticizing Hamas...?"
You answered...
Because they're barbarians.
So, you think (rightly) that Hamas actions of raping, killing and killing babies makes them "barbarians" BUT, if YOU think that a perfect God sometimes commands humans to kill babies and innocents, that this godling is NOT a barbarian for the very same (OK, partially same) actions?
Do you think God commands evil actions sometimes, like slaughtering babies?
I asked...
"YOU are willing to guess, Yep, sometimes the PERFECT GOD OF LOVE AND JUSTICE has commanded humans to slaughter children. Is that correct?"
You vaguely answered, with no details...
No.
Let's try this another way:
1. YOU read passages where the story goes that God commands various actions that would normally be an atrocity: Forced marriages/rape, slavery and the slaughter of entire villages including the slaughter of children, just for a short list.
That is, you read those passages and acknowledge they're literally there (as do I).
Is that much correct?
2. You also acknowledge (and let's keep it simple and deal with the brutal slaughter of babies) that IN ANY NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCE, that action is a great and atrocious, hideous, monstrous evil. There are NO WORDS to adequately describe how evil it is to wholesale target and slaughter babies.
Is that much correct? Are you willing to take the bold step to say "Yes, of course it is a great evil to specifically slaughter babies..."?
3. Are you willing to take the bold step (not so much, really) to say, "It is ALWAYS a great evil to intentionally slaughter babies, along with their families? It is ALWAYS a great awful evil to intentionally target and deliberately wipe out an entire city, along with specifically their babies..."?
4. The ONE (potential) exception that you SEEM to be making to this clear evil (you tell me, but I don't think I'm mistaken) is that IF GOD commands you to kill babies, it is no longer an evil act... is that your position?
5. If so, then is it safe to say that, at least potentially, it IS possible that a perfectly good, loving and just God MIGHT sometimes command what would otherwise be a great evil?
6. AND is the reason you hold that awful theory is that because you find stories in the Bible where the story goes that god commands the slaughter of children and babies, AND SO, you assume that the story must be a factual representation of what God did?
7. AND if so, then is that because you hold to this human tradition that the stories in the Bible MUST be considered literal history and IF a story passed on by humans says that God commanded what would otherwise would be a great evil, then it must be so?
The real question is should the created ever be so full of hubris as to pass judgement on the Creator?
That is ONE question and that ONE question could have multiple answers.
Should. the created have opinions/"pass judgment" on the creator? I think that's entirely fine.
I think an almighty God can handle some questions.
I think an almighty God who is known to be a God of perfect justice and love can ESPECIALLY handle questions about "But how is that just and loving?"
I think an almighty perfectly loving God would WELCOME such questions. THOSE are the questions we SHOULD be asking if we're seeking to follow a God of love and justice.
Is it your human hunch that such an almighty perfectly loving, perfectly just God would somehow take OFFENSE at questions of this sort?
Do you not think that such reasoning would be offensive to an almighty God... that you'd think they'd be so easily put into a tizzy that THE ALMIGHTY GOD can't handle questions about justice and love?
I think that portrays a god as an irrational weakling, IF that's what you think.
I said...
"I don't think it's rational to judge Christians by their worst representatives nor Muslims by their worst representatives."
"Do you see how that is fair and reasonable?"
You replied...
No
So, you DO think it's rational to judge a whole group by the behavior of its worst members? IF the group of men includes many (but nothing like a significant percentage) who abuse, molest and rape women, ALL men should be judged as likely abusers and rapists?
You think THAT's rational?
If the group of white conservative Christians includes a minority who are racist white supremacists, you think ALL white conservative Christians should be judged that way?
You think THAT's rational?
1. I don't think you think that's rational.
2. It appears you are just wanting to disagree with Dan because it's Dan, no matter how common sense and rational the point is he's making.
3. THAT is irrational.
Well Dan does like to play his semantic games of equivocation, doesn't he? "Muddy the waters" is what passes for "good faith" dialogue in Dan's world.
Islam has been notorious for their particular methods of conversion and its despotic reign over even their own adherents. What we saw on Oct 7 isn't the least bit out of character for those members of the "faith" who have chosen (or been chosen---read: ordered) to be on the front lines of jihadist excursions against non-muslims. I recall reading of negotiations with the Barbary Pirates in the first days of our nation. The lead muslim warlord, who had directed the pirating of merchant vessels and enslaving those on board or returning them after a hefty ransom was paid, spoke in exactly the same way we hear islamists speak today. Indeed, if not for the dates and names being known, one would think it came from a current day islamist scumbag. The point being that what we see today is no different than it has ever been between muslims and those who aren't, going all the way back to its beginning.
The teachings of islam do indeed call for such atrocities. I easily found this essay (looks to be a student esssay, but it cites an expert on the subject), which quotes the Quran:
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=pretrib_arch
There's also Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
https://www.usip.org/publications/2015/11/islam-religion-violence
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has done yeoman's work in describing and proving the malicious commands to violence of islam. I have two of his books and he relies on islamic scholars and apologists throughout islamic history to support his information. Ergun and Emir Caner also sought info from similar sources to describe the truth of islam (though Ergun has had controversies regarding details of his autobiography).
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/10-reasons-not-peace.aspx
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/10-reasons-not-peace.aspx
I've been trying to add new articles which highlight just how down with the cause most...what one columnist is now referring to as...Gazastinians truly are, belying the notion of "innocent palestinians".
But Dan chooses to equivocate and obfuscate as usual. To pretend the islamic scriptures don't preach hatred for non-muslims and call for their destruction if conversion or submission doesn't take place, and then dare suggest there's some parallel in the Holy Bible Dan only pretends to have "seriously and prayerfully studied", is an absurdly vile attempt at moral equivalency. He insists that because God commanded the Chosen People to to destroy those who had rejected all opportunities to dispense with their wickedness, that such tracts can ever rationally be taken as commands to do likewise now. Thus, if God at one time commanded every living thing in a distinctly wicked city to be destroyed, including "sweet little babies, the poor things", somehow that's supposed to mean that God still sometimes commands WE do so as well. That's as pathetic an intentional lie as Dan has ever told...and he's told so very many over the years.
Maybe Dan should just go with the typical islamic apologist who insists an English translation won't do, but only one who is well versed in the arabic languages can truly understand the Quran. That's about as stupid as Dan pretending our explanations for what Scripture says is only a "hunch" while offering no better interpretation ever!
"That is, I can't prove my position on an unprovable topic any more than you can (which you 100% can't objectively prove, can you admit that?) but WE BELIEVE we are being more faithful to Jesus' actual words. Not that I "know" it in some objectively provable sense, but I believe it is quite obvious, given Jesus' actual words and the way he didn't espouse anything like a "gospel of penal substitutionary atonement.""
Excellent, you admit that your pridefully revel in your ability to "to be more faithful to Jesus' actual teachings.". even though your belief that leads you to do so is based on your utter inability to demonstrate what those are and to divorce your hunches from Jesus' actions in the OT. You offering your hunches about what "Jesus' actual teachings " were without any ability to prove your hunches more than hunches is simply you placing your hunches as the final arbiter of "Jesus' teachings".
"No, that too, is not what I said. I do NOT believe that God DID what YOU believe, in your personal human opinions and traditions, that God did. I'm not disagreeing with GOD, I'm disagreeing with your personal human opinions and traditions. Can you acknowledge that?"
Well, then clearly your "personal human opinions and traditions" are much more accurate than anyone else's. Of course, I've never actually offered what you claim I've said.
"But 100% factually, YOU can not objectively prove your subjective (and quite frankly, vulgar, evil, diabolical) suggestion. Can you acknowledge that?"
Which only highlights your problem. That you can't do what you demand others do, and then hold your personal, subjective, hunches out as "Jesus' actual teachings".
"Obviously, Dan has not DONE that. I've disagreed with YOUR opinions about what sort of atrocities and evils YOU THINK in YOUR MIND that God commanded. But, blech, what a sick monster of a godling that would be."
Since I've offered no opinions on the Actions of YHWH, how can your disagree with an opinion I haven't offered. How does disagreement when it involves disparaging, condescending, and vitriolic attacks help understanding?
"1. It literally is my reasonable opinion, shared by many others."
Well, since you've explaind that your feelings about what's reasonable are the only things underlying your hunch, then I should simply bow to your hunches because you feel like they're True. FYI, the appeal to numbers (especially when they're nameless, faceless, unidentified, alleged people, is still a logical fallacy.
"2. You can't prove I'm mistaken, you absolutely 100% objectively can NOT prove I'm mistaken. You are entirely impotent and powerless to prove that I'm mistaken. Can you admit that reality?"
The reality that you are making a de facto claim about "Jesus' actual teachings", then hiding behind the moving target of your hunches based on your feelings, sure. The problem you have is that once you pull out the "It's my opinion" dodge then you reduce your claims to mere personal preference and as such worthless.
3. Which only acknowledged that the hunches you so confidently present as reality, are merely your seasonal, subjective, preferences. Based on your feelings about how rational you are. Hardly anything to take seriously.
"That is, IF you think if we can't objectively prove that there once upon a time was a monster god commanding atrocities, does that render your hunches meaningless and without a shred of worth?"
I don't think so, because I've never claimed that I did. I'm sure that making up a position, assigning that made up position to someone else, and then arguing against the position you made up is some sort of logical fallacy. But logical fallacies only concern you when someone else commits them.
"So, you don't understand WHY a godling might command the slaughter of babies?"
No.
"OR - if your understanding is not perfectly figured out - is it also not possible why God might have allowed a Bible story that depicts actions attributed to God that are not OF God (since clearly, a perfectly loving, perfectly just God - BY DEFINITION - would not command humans to commit evil atrocities) to appear in the pages of the Bible that YOU are guessing must have told history fairly literally?"
Well, if I accepted all of the suppositions inherent in your "question", then you might have a point. However, the fact that you've already been quite clear that these are your personal, subjective, unproven, unprovable hunches, renders your question pointless. The very fact that you so completely reject even the possibility of an explanation counter to your hunches tell me how interested you are in finding the Truth.
"That is, IF you can admit that you can't figure out this apparent command to commit atrocities, is it ALSO not possible that what's mistaken are your hunches about God, the Bible and ancient stories being told in a literally factual, historic manner?"
Since you admit that you are unable to do so, why would you demand that I do what you can't?
"IF you can't figure it out, why is your human presupposition about biblical stories MUST needing to be literal history be what the problem is?"
Again with you trying to act as if my alleged "human presupposition" is inherently bad, while your "human presupposition" is inherently good. This doesn't even address the fact that you seem to be claiming (objectively) that I have a "human presupposition", and that you know exactly what it is.
"It's a reasonable question."
Coming from someone who defines "reasonable" based on themselves, I seriously doubt you know what reasonable actually is.
"Do you have EVEN ONE quote from me you can cite?"
If I chose to wade through your blog, It'd be relatively easy. https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-marrakesh-declaration.html would be one example where you spoke glowingly of Muslims and Muslim scholars.
"And my pointing out that, of course, in the real world, there ARE some wonderful Muslims... is that something you would dispute? Because, why? They're Muslims and secret liars and wannabe oppressors?"
No. No. NO. No. But I would suggest that these "wonderful" Muslims don't represent that majority of Muslims, and certainly not any Muslims with any power or influence. If you want to base your hunches about all Muslims on the very few Muslims you personally know, and a few cherry picked "Muslim scholars", that's your prerogative.
"Or can you agree that of course, there are wonderful Muslim people in the world?"
Sure, but I've already said this multiple times. But where are these "wonderful Muslims" when we see thousands of protesters cheering for Hamas and their actions on 10/7? Where are these "wonderful Muslims" in speaking publicly out against the majority of Muslims? Where are these "wonderful Muslims" having success in reforming Islam? How many of these "wonderful Muslims" are living in Muslim majority countries and actively engaged in overturning Sharia?
"So, you think (rightly) that Hamas actions of raping, killing and killing babies makes them "barbarians" BUT, if YOU think that a perfect God sometimes commands humans to kill babies and innocents, that this godling is NOT a barbarian for the very same (OK, partially same) actions?"
No.
"Do you think God commands evil actions sometimes, like slaughtering babies?"
No.
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've seen you do in quite some time. You ask a literal yes or no question, I answer it with a concise, specific, answer and you bitch that I was
Vague.
"You vaguely answered, with no details... No."
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Anything is possible.
6. No.
7. No.
"Should. the created have opinions/"pass judgment" on the creator? I think that's entirely fine."
Clearly you have no problem passing judgement on YHWH. However, asking questions isn't passing judgement. Asking questions, then using the lack of an answer or the lack of an answer that is to the questioner's liking do not automatically give the questioner the right to pass judgement.
"I think an almighty God can handle some questions."
I agree.
"I think an almighty God who is known to be a God of perfect justice and love can ESPECIALLY handle questions about "But how is that just and loving?""
Again, sure. But in the absence of a specific, direct answer, you have no grounds to jump to conclusions or pass judgement. Hell, if you were asking questions instead of making assertions, I'd have no problem. Of course, what you think carries no weight or has no value as proof.
"I think an almighty perfectly loving God would WELCOME such questions. THOSE are the questions we SHOULD be asking if we're seeking to follow a God of love and justice."
Because repeating your hunch somehow makes it magically True or gives it more weight.
"Is it your human hunch that such an almighty perfectly loving, perfectly just God would somehow take OFFENSE at questions of this sort?"
No.
"Do you not think that such reasoning would be offensive to an almighty God... that you'd think they'd be so easily put into a tizzy that THE ALMIGHTY GOD can't handle questions about justice and love?"
No. Of course I don't think I've got enough hubris to determine what YHWH might find offensive.
"I think that portrays a god as an irrational weakling, IF that's what you think."
I think that once again, what you "think" is wrong.
"So, you DO think it's rational to judge a whole group by the behavior of its worst members? IF the group of men includes many (but nothing like a significant percentage) who abuse, molest and rape women, ALL men should be judged as likely abusers and rapists?"
Well, I guess I'd include the tens of mullions of the group who cheer for and support those who engage in those actions. I'd include the countries who actively support those who engage in those actions. I guess I'd take into account that this "minority" consists of tens/hundreds of millions of people before I so blithely wrote them off as insignificant. I'd also consider the history of this group repeatedly trying to destroy another group/nation/ But, that's me, I tend not to take a narrow view of things to support my personal, subjective, hunches.
"You think THAT's rational?"
I think that very little of what you do or say is rational. Including this idiotic habit of making a statement (claim of fact), then tacking on a question as if the question nullifies the statement.
"If the group of white conservative Christians includes a minority who are racist white supremacists, you think ALL white conservative Christians should be judged that way?"
No. But this tiny minority doesn't represent tens/hundreds of millions of people actively engaging in terrorist activity. This tiny minority doesn't have people cheering in the streets when they do anything. This tiny minority doesn't have multiple countries that are actively supporting it's activities. Apples/oranges.
"You think THAT's rational?"
See above.
1. I don't care.
2. Then you would be wrong again. But the pride and hubris demonstrated is impressive nonetheless.
3. If one were to take you as the perfect standard of what is "rational" this claim might be True. But your not, and no one takes your subjective bullshit seriously anyway.
It's interesting that Dan is judging the entire US military, and by extension the entire federal government, and by extension "We the people", based on the actions of a very few people who were likely punished if their actions violated the UCMJ.
https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-fbi-data-reflects-deeply-alarming-record-high-number-reported-hate
https://www.voanews.com/a/why-the-gaza-war-has-sparked-a-wave-of-antisemitism-and-islamophobia-in-the-us-/7358885.htm
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gaza-crisis-antisemitism-us-hamas-israel-palestine-rcna123163
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/oct/20/antisemitic-hate-crimes-in-london-rise-1350-since-israel-hamas-war-met-says
https://www.vox.com/23930119/hate-crimes-muslims-jews-palestinians-arabs-fear
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/antisemitic-incidents-on-rise-across-the-u-s-report-find
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/antisemitic-incidents-on-rise-across-the-u-s-report-find
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4301897-new-york-214-percent-increase-anti-jewish-hate-crimes-israel-hamas/
I'm going to point out that support for Israel/Jews tends to be higher among conservatives in the US, while liberals tend to be less supportive of Israel/Jews. Therefore it's not unreasonable to conclude that the anti Jewish hate crimes would correlate to the side of the political aisle that is less pro Israel/Jews.
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2016/06/from-op-ed-by-haroon-moghul-fellow-at.html
One wonders why the ideas put forth by this/these wonderful Muslims haven't gotten more traction?One wonders where the update on their success is?
Obviously, if I could search every comment you've made on the subject, it's likely I'd find more specifics.
But it's telling that a search on your blog turned up zero posts that were negative about Islam or the actions of Muslims which you claim to abject to.
One wonders why the ideas put forth by this/these wonderful Muslims haven't gotten more traction?One wonders where the update on their success is?
One wonders if it HASN'T gotten more traction and you're just unaware of it.
He makes a good point: Many buildings of religious groups (of all religions) sit empty and unused most of the time. I'd love to see more religious groups dedicating more time to peacemaking and justice causes.
But that many mosques, synagogues and churches go unused for peace and justice issues is not a sign that Muslims, Jews and Christians aren't concerned and it CERTAINLY doesn't indicate support for terrorism and bad behavior.
Because of course it doesn't.
I'm going to point out that support for Israel/Jews tends to be higher among conservatives in the US, while liberals tend to be less supportive of Israel/Jews.
I'm going to point out that while broad support for Israel specifically might be more common in conservative circles, I don't think you have any support for the notion that liberals are not as supportive of Jews as conservatives are. In fact, I suspect the opposite would be true, insofar as liberals tend to be fine with Jews being Jews and conservative Christians want to see Jews converted to their religion. And liberals, I'd say, are right to be unwilling to give blind support to Israel.
On the Sunday after the Hamas attack, our church (and liberal churches everywhere) were praying for the Jews in Israel in the face of such a horrific attack.
On the Sundays after the Israeli retaliation that has cost thousands of innocent Palestinian lives, we prayed for Palestinians, as did liberal churches everywhere.
Liberals tend to have support for humanity, but not blind support for nations. Because, why would we?
It's interesting that Dan is judging the entire US military, and by extension the entire federal government, and by extension "We the people", based on the actions of a very few people who were likely punished if their actions violated the UCMJ.
Again, your naivete and ignorance of history is quaint.
Do you SERIOUSLY think that the military in the 1920s-1950s turned a blind eye to gay men being beaten and executed? Come now.
"One wonders if it HASN'T gotten more traction and you're just unaware of it."
Well, if this has gotten so much traction, why would you not have followed up on it? Why simply write the post, act as if simply having an idea was some momentous achievement, then move on? Why not stay engaged?
"He makes a good point: Many buildings of religious groups (of all religions) sit empty and unused most of the time. I'd love to see more religious groups dedicating more time to peacemaking and justice causes."
Well, that's certainly a vague, bland, milquetoast, generality.
I'm going to point out that support for Israel/Jews tends to be higher among conservatives in the US, while liberals tend to be less supportive of Israel/Jews.
"I'm going to point out that while broad support for Israel specifically might be more common in conservative circles, I don't think you have any support for the notion that liberals are not as supportive of Jews as conservatives are. In fact, I suspect the opposite would be true, insofar as liberals tend to be fine with Jews being Jews and conservative Christians want to see Jews converted to their religion. And liberals, I'd say, are right to be unwilling to give blind support to Israel."
Well, as long as Danthustera has spake, that decides it for all time.
"On the Sunday after the Hamas attack, our church (and liberal churches everywhere) were praying for the Jews in Israel in the face of such a horrific attack."
If you say so.
"On the Sundays after the Israeli retaliation that has cost thousands of innocent Palestinian lives, we prayed for Palestinians, as did liberal churches everywhere."
If you say so.
"Liberals tend to have support for humanity, but not blind support for nations. Because, why would we?"
That's quite the unproven, vague, generality. Maybe you missed the fact that it's individual, innocent, humans who've been the targets of Hamas and other groups for years.
So, dealing with your answers to my questions:
2. You also acknowledge (and let's keep it simple and deal with the brutal slaughter of babies) that IN ANY NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCE, that action is a great and atrocious, hideous, monstrous evil. There are NO WORDS to adequately describe how evil it is to wholesale target and slaughter babies.
Is that much correct? Are you willing to take the bold step to say "Yes, of course it is a great evil to specifically slaughter babies..."?
NO
No, you are NOT willing to call the slaughter of babies a great evil in normal circumstances?
Wow.
3. Are you willing to take the bold step (not so much, really) to say, "It is ALWAYS a great evil to intentionally slaughter babies, along with their families? It is ALWAYS a great awful evil to intentionally target and deliberately wipe out an entire city, along with specifically their babies..."?
NO
Again, WOW.
The reason I've said that you're giving vague answers is because (and I can't believe I have to explain this) if ANYONE says that it's not always a great evil to specifically target and slaughter babies and they simply say, "Nope, I don't think it is!" ...well, it's such an outrageous position to take. It demands some clarification and answer. No is not enough.
4. The ONE (potential) exception that you SEEM to be making to this clear evil (you tell me, but I don't think I'm mistaken) is that IF GOD commands you to kill babies, it is no longer an evil act... is that your position?
No.
Okay, you don't always think it is evil to kill babies AND you don't think the reason for that is because sometimes God might command it. So, WHAT could possibly make the slaughter of babies NOT evil?
5. If so, then is it safe to say that, at least potentially, it IS possible that a perfectly good, loving and just God MIGHT sometimes command what would otherwise be a great evil?
Anything is possible.
So, YOU think that it's POSSIBLE that a perfectly good God would command someone to do evil? What of verses like "God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one." (James 1)?
These are quite astoundingly strange answers to give for such an awful position. "YUP, God might cause evil. YUP, God might command you to do evil, at least what is normally recognized as evil."
Explain, please. Help me understand this awful-sounding position?
And once again as always, in asking YOU questions about YOUR hunches about God, I'm not judging or condemning God. I'm judging/disagreeing with human opinions.
"Again, your naivete and ignorance of history is quaint."
Coming from someone who seems to know so little about history beyond cherry picking bits and pieces to support your hunches, this is amusing.
"Do you SERIOUSLY think that the military in the 1920s-1950s turned a blind eye to gay men being beaten and executed? Come now."
1. You have shown no evidence of any "gay men" being "executed" in the '20's-'50's.
2. I have no reason to believe that the military would fail to enforce the provisions of the UCMJ that prevent "executions" or "beatings".
3. But I appreciate your problem, you need for these things to have happened, so you simply broad brush the entire military, et al based on your hunches that something must have happened at some point.
Many buildings of religious groups (of all religions) sit empty and unused most of the time. I'd love to see more religious groups dedicating more time to peacemaking and justice causes."
Well, that's certainly a vague, bland, milquetoast, generality.
1. Church buildings famously sit empty and unused a good portion of time.
https://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/study-church-worship-spaces-empty-nearly-70-percent-of-the-week.html
2. Are you saying that it's a vague generality that I, Dan Trabue (and that fella being cited) would love to see more religious time dedicated to peace and justice matters? It's our opinion, shared by many others. How about you, would you like to see more religious institutions using more of their time to work on peace and justice issues?
3. Or are you saying that's it's a vague generality that religious groups don't spend much time and space and energy towards peace and justice issues? I'd love to hear that this isn't the case. I've read no data on the topic at a national level, but just see no evidence that it IS the case that religious groups are spending time on peace and justice concerns.
Do you have data?
Do you have a guess that religious groups ARE spending significant time working for peace and justice concerns? I mean, I know it's a fact in some progressive churches and synagogues and mosques, but don't see it being widespread elsewhere. Food and clothes pantries, sometimes. "Mission trips," that may be of dubious real world impact.
"So, dealing with your answers to my questions:"
Making my point regarding you choosing not offer excuses not to answer questions, while merely accepting it as you due that your questions will be answered.
2. NO
"No, you are NOT willing to call the slaughter of babies a great evil in normal circumstances?"
No.
"The reason I've said that you're giving vague answers is because (and I can't believe I have to explain this) if ANYONE says that it's not always a great evil to specifically target and slaughter babies and they simply say, "Nope, I don't think it is!" ...well, it's such an outrageous position to take. It demands some clarification and answer. No is not enough."
When you ask a yes or no question, yes or no is always enough. I'll give you a hint though. The problem is with the formulation of your questions and the assumptions underlying them.
"Okay, you don't always think it is evil to kill babies AND you don't think the reason for that is because sometimes God might command it. So, WHAT could possibly make the slaughter of babies NOT evil?"
No.
"So, YOU think that it's POSSIBLE that a perfectly good God would command someone to do evil? What of verses like "God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one." (James 1)?"
Yes, I believe that for an all powerful God that anything is possible, including the possibility that we do not see things in the exact same way that YHWH does.
"Explain, please. Help me understand this awful-sounding position?"
No thanks.
"And once again as always, in asking YOU questions about YOUR hunches about God, I'm not judging or condemning God. I'm judging/disagreeing with human opinions."
So?
1. Church buildings famously sit empty and unused a good portion of time.
So? Are you the authority on what the proper usage of "church buildings" is and on what % of the time they should be filled?
2. Yes.
3. No.
"Do you have data?"
Data for what?
"Do you have a guess that religious groups ARE spending significant time working for peace and justice concerns? I mean, I know it's a fact in some progressive churches and synagogues and mosques, but don't see it being widespread elsewhere. Food and clothes pantries, sometimes. "Mission trips," that may be of dubious real world impact."
I can't and won't speak for all "religious groups".
"When you ask a yes or no question, yes or no is always enough. I'll give you a hint though. The problem is with the formulation of your questions and the assumptions underlying them."
You are being asked reasonable questions to get a clear answer about what you do and don't believe. Reasonable NOT just to me but certainly to most of humanity.
I'm starting with the assumption that, of course, you agree with most of humanity that it is of course evil to deliberately kill babies. But when I ask if you agree with this common sense notion, YOU say, No. That is WAY outside the norm.
Rather than play word games, why not make it clear what you believe?
Why be obtuse?
Or is it truly the case you don't think that targeting babies for slaughter is grossly immoral? ...That COMMANDING someone to slaughter babies is evil?
Dan
"I believe that for an all powerful God that anything is possible, including the possibility that we do not see things in the exact same way that YHWH does..."
So, you think that it's possible that your god might command someone to rape a child repeatedly... that we poor humans created in God's image just might not see things the way your rapist godling sees it, is that what you're saying?
Is there ANY great evil (as we mortals understand it) that is beyond possible for your godling to command?
Do you see why these are reasonable questions?
Dan
Wow! It just never stops with this guy, does it? In no particular order:
---Surely Dan can provide the extensive polling data he has of churches (both conservative and modern progressive fakes and posers) regarding who and how many prayed for either Israeli OR pallies. If this putz wants to speak about what he and his other Jeff St pretenders do on Sunday, that's less than trustworthy enough. But to dare suggest he knows what other congregations do demands some proof, given making such unsupported claims are verboten at his blog of lies.
---While Dan proudly claims he's working for peace and justice concerns (without any evidence it's made any difference anywhere), I would counter by saying that Christian and Jewish congregations are best serving their congregants by preaching the Word of God. Where God's Word is taken seriously, peace and justice naturally follow.
---Dan continually plays this game regarding the recording of God's commands of destroying entire cities/nations and all living creatures therein. He needs to insist this history indicates God doing evil because babies died. One who insists on having "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture can't be speaking the truth if he can't speak to the interpretations of these passages and offer a more compelling alternative explanation for them. He simply asserts they can't be true because they depict God commanding evil simply because babies were possibly killed. Dan has never made the slightest effort at resolving this issue, but only rejects it. Thus, it makes Scripture unreliable as a truthful source.
Dan's argument against this historical record is to reject the fact claims of the record, suggesting that because it is evil for people to murder infants therefore there's no way or reason God would make a command which includes the death of infants and thus, to do so would mean God commands evil. Again, there is no shortage of scholarly responses to the concerns raised by these passages. Dan has nothing but his self-serving (not God serving) assertions about God's "justice".
----Dan dares pretend his "questions" about what God does or doesn't do are "reasonable". Again, he does this without actually studying what's already available regarding such questions, while at the same time offering no compelling alternative to what Scripture relates to us. Speculation is one thing. Questioning as if sitting in judgement of God is quite another, and that's unquestionably what Dan's "questioning" is. Like Craig, I assume the Supreme Being knows precisely what He's doing at all times, and all things serve His "Master Plan" which is all which is important. I don't need to understand it, despite my attempts to do so. I'm quite content assuming that even babies put to death on His command to His Chosen People are manifestations of His Love, Mercy and Justice, even if I can't understand how. Why would I doubt it? How could I doubt it? I know the difference between God telling me to do something versus me assuming the authority to do something contrary to His Commandments to His creation...meaning, us. Dan, instead, mocks and insults God ("sick godling of a monster", "barbarian", "irrational godling") simply because God does not behave in the manner Dan decrees. No. It has to be that Scripture is wrong, God is evil and those of us who revere Scripture and Who it describes are wrong and evil. It couldn't possibly be Dan.
----More later.
Look, some of the things that my dear conservative Southern Baptist Bible teachers told me when it comes to understanding the Bible correctly:
1. Read the text and try to understand what it's literally saying.
2. Try to understand the context and language that was being used.
3. Interpret the obscure/hard to understand through the clear and obvious.
4. Interpret everything through the literal teachings of Jesus.
The bible (and just good plain common sense and moral decency) teaches ABUNDANTLY clearly that doing good, not causing harm to innocent people, that THIS is God's way.
The Bible (and just good plain common sense and moral decency) teaches ABUNDANTLY clearly that GOD is a mighty and perfectly good, loving and just God. The Bible teaches clearly that a good God will not command the most vile, disgusting sorts of evil like rape and killing children. GOD will not command evil. This is clear from the Bible. And reason.
So, GIVEN THE CLEAR (that God is not a vile murdering monster, nor a godling that would command atrocities), then when we find the harder to understand (a passage where God commands rape or slaughter of children) we must FIRST remember the obvious: That God does not command atrocities. So, we can try to translate and understand the obscure/hard to understand passage in a variety of ways, BUT any solution that ends with, Yeah, sometimes God commands atrocities, is just a failure of reason and good biblical understanding. And that, according to the teachings of my conservative teachers growing up.
Please, be reasonable. Don't defend atrocities.
In Puritan America into the first decades of the US, homosexuality was a capital offense. Did you know that?
Now here does this self-identification of the Puritans, in legal matters,
with the Jews of the Old Testament show more clearly than in the
opening lines of the preamble to Connecticut's Laws of 1672, which
declared that "the Serious Consideration of the Necessity of the Establishment
of wholesome LAWES,for the Regulating of each Body Politik; Hath enclined
us mainly in Obedience unto] EH 0 V AH the Great Law-giver: Who hath been
pleased to set down a Divine Platforme, not only of the Morall, but also of
J udiciallawes, suitable for the people of Israel" (Brinley, 1865). The first
American "code," if it can be called that, was a simple list of "Capitall
offences lyable to death" drawn up in Plymouth Colony in 1636.
These included treason, murder, witchcraft, arson, sodomy, rape,
buggery (here denoting bestiality), and adultery.
In the same year the General Court of Massachusetts asked the Rev.
John Cotton to draw up fundamental laws. Interestingly enough,
Cotton proposed to place lesbianism on a par with male homosexual-
ity as a capital offense. The English buggery statute had been taken to
apply to anal relations between men, or between men and women, as
well as relations of both with animals, but not relations between two
women. No doubt this reflected the fact that the Old Testament
prescribed the death penalty for male homosexuality but made no
reference to lesbianism. On the other hand, church canonists inter-
preting the traditions of Roman law as they bore on sodomy regularly
included lesbian acts as meriting capital punishment, and records
exist of executions in France and Italy. Section 20 of Cotton's pro-
posed list of capital crimes reads: "Unnatural filthiness, to be
Louis Crompton 279
punished with death, whether sodomy, which is carnal fellowship of
man with man, or woman with woman, or buggery, which is carnal
fellowship of man or woman with beasts or fowls" (Staples, 1847, p.
35n).
Cotton's suggestion, however, was not followed. Instead, the Bay.....
Colony adopted in 1641 its famous Body of Laws and Liberties, which
punished 12 capital crimes, among them sodomy. Once again, this
legislation, which set a precedent in its language for several other
states, made clear the Puritan determination to form a Bible Com-
monwealth and to bring their laws into line with the Old Testament.
The Bay Colony, in making sodomy a capital crime, did not follow the
English statute but instead adopted the language of Leviticus 20: 13.
Section 8 of the 1641 laws was thus a word-for-word translation of a
Hebrew law more than 2,000 years old: "If any man lyeth with
mankinde as he lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed
abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death" (Whitmore,
1890, p. 55). Astonishingly, this phraseology was to remain on the
books of at least one American state-Connecticut-until some 46
years after the Declaration of Independence...
This same capital law was reprinted with only slight verbal
changes in the Acts and Laws of 1796 and again in the Laws of 1808,
and remained on the books until 1822. In contrast to this conser-
vatism was the New Haven law of 1655 published in New Raven's
Settling in New-England and Some Lawesfor Government. In the case of
other capital crimes the New Haven code generally followed the style
of the 1641 Body of Liberties. The sodomy statute, however, repre-
sented a unique and startling departure from New England tradition.
The death penalty was extended to cover lesbianism, heterosexual
anal intercourse, and even, in certain circumstances, masturbation...
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=englishfacpubs
Beginning in the 19th century, the various state legislatures passed legislation which ended the status of capital punishment being used for those who were convicted of homosexual behavior. South Carolina was the last state, in 1873, to repeal the death penalty for homosexual behaviour from its statute books. The number of times the penalty was carried out is unknown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_homosexuality
Did you know any of this? If not, maybe you should educate yourself more.
More...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/indecent-advances-book-gay-panic-crime-846756/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense
"You are being asked reasonable questions to get a clear answer about what you do and don't believe. Reasonable NOT just to me but certainly to most of humanity."
Wow, Dan speaks for "most of humanity". Of course, answering yes or no questions with yes or no, is reasonable by any standard.
"I'm starting with the assumption that, of course, you agree with most of humanity that it is of course evil to deliberately kill babies. But when I ask if you agree with this common sense notion, YOU say, No. That is WAY outside the norm."
Well, that's an assumption based (as you note) 100% on you and your hunches about the "rest of humanity" (throughout all of time seems implied). But I don't believe that you ever asked that specific question, in that way, therefore I didn't answer it. I'm curious, do you mean "the rest of humanity through all times, places, and cultures or do you mean the "rest of humanity" circa 2023? Because, let's not ignore the reality that all sorts of societies regularly kill their children, as do many other mammal species.
"Rather than play word games, why not make it clear what you believe? Why be obtuse?"
Who's playing word games? I'm answering yes or no questions with simple direct answers. You're the one asking the same question in slightly different ways multiple times in the hopes that I'll give you some sort of ammunition.
"Or is it truly the case you don't think that targeting babies for slaughter is grossly immoral? ...That COMMANDING someone to slaughter babies is evil?"
In my personal, humble, individual, opinion, I personally find the slaughter of individual, living, human, babies repugnant. Under all circumstances.
"So, you think that it's possible that your god might command someone to rape a child repeatedly... that we poor humans created in God's image just might not see things the way your rapist godling sees it, is that what you're saying?"
No.
"Is there ANY great evil (as we mortals understand it) that is beyond possible for your godling to command?"
Obviously there are things YHWH does and commands that "we mortals" might see as "evil" based on our imperfect, limited, "mortal" viewpoint.
"Do you see why these are reasonable questions?"
No. Obviously they are "reasonable" to you in your individual, subjective, self elevating, definition of "reasonable". Yet, unlike you, I answer them regardless of how stupid the questions are and how much you misrepresent what I've said. Too bad you don't do me the courtesy of the same.
"In Puritan America into the first decades of the US, homosexuality was a capital offense. Did you know that?"
Well, for someone who claims to know history, you missed the point that the US didn't exist until 1783. If you think that local "laws" from the 1600's are relevant, go ahead. If you put this much effort into going after Muslim countries where homosexuality is a capitol offense in 2023, I might be able to take you seriously.
My request was that you cite the US UCMJ, or US criminal code, it's clear that you can't do so and are left with dredging up laws from the 1600's.
As to the fact that some of those laws remained in some state law codes is irrelevant in regard to demonstrating that you can answer the question I actually asked.
I'll just point out that none of Dan's "evidence" shows a specific US Criminal code, or section of the UCMJ where the killing of gays (only for being gay), is allowed.
Obviously, gays can be killed and executed for the same reasons and capitol offenses as anyone, I'm asking for the specific law that says "it's perfectly legal for anyone to kill gays for being gay as the only reason for the killing. Or words to that effect.
Again, the amount of effort Dan has put into dredging up 250 year old local and state laws in the US, while being gay is a capitol offense in many Muslim countries today tells me that Dan is more interested in fighting the (easy) battles against bad things in the past, rather than the (hard) battles against bad things in 2023.
"Obviously there are things YHWH does and commands that "we mortals" might see as "evil" based on our imperfect, limited, "mortal" viewpoint."
So, are you saying that you do not believe that ANYTHING is immoral, it's all based on the whim of your godling on a given day?...A godling whose sense of morality is beyond our ability to understand?
Or, do you think some actions are always immoral. Period? If the latter, which behaviors are always, objectively immoral and based on what?
It sounds like you're speaking of a very subjective and unknowable and cruelly whimsical moral "system. "
Dan
"In my personal, humble, individual, opinion, I personally find the slaughter of individual, living, human, babies repugnant. Under all circumstances."
Good for you. But the question is do you think it is always evil, wrong, diabolical?
Do you think commanding someone to commit that evil is, itself, evil?
Dan
"My request was that you cite the US UCMJ, or US criminal code, it's clear that you can't do so and are left with dredging up laws from the 1600's..."
I never said there was a military law endorsing killing gay people.
I am just noting the reality that for the vast majority of US and Western history, being LGBTQ was made unpleasant and often illegal. You could lose your job, your family and church if it became know you were LGBTQ. If you were a male who was too "gay" in appearance, you WOULD be mocked and likely beaten and sometimes killed and until recently, that was culturally accepted.
Things have only started getting better for the LGBTQ community because of the decline of the dominance of conservative religion in the US.
Do you recognize how oppressed LGBTQ have been over most of our history in the real world?
Dan
"So, are you saying that you do not believe that ANYTHING is immoral, it's all based on the whim of your godling on a given day?...A godling whose sense of morality is beyond our ability to understand?"
No. Yes, complete understanding of YHWH, is impossible given our limited, imperfect, human abilities.
"Or, do you think some actions are always immoral. Period? If the latter, which behaviors are always, objectively immoral and based on what?"
As an objective definition of "moral and immoral" seems problematic, I'm not sure I can answer. Based on the current sociological definition of morality, it would be argues that since morality is subjective and varies from society to society that nothing is objectively always moral of immoral. The question seems to be, "If YHWH has proposed an objective moral code for His creation, is He required to be bound by His creation's hunches, opinions, and understanding of His moral code?". As I am not YHWH, I really can't answer that. Scripture seems to indicate that YHWH's ways are "beyond: our ways and His "thoughts" beyond our thoughts. Given that I am comfortable trusting in Him and not trying to make His behavior conform to my opinions.
"It sounds like you're speaking of a very subjective and unknowable and cruelly whimsical moral "system. ""
It actually sounds like I'm not "speaking" of any "moral system". I'm speaking of you acting as if YHWH is bound by your limited, imperfect, subjective, personal hunches about morality and your willingness to lecture Him if He fails to meet your standards.
"Good for you. But the question is do you think it is always evil, wrong, diabolical?"
In my personal opinion, I think that it is almost always wrong to kill a living, individual, unique, human child. That doesn't mean that there are not situations where it might be an acceptable consequence of an otherwise greater "good".
"Do you think commanding someone to commit that evil is, itself, evil?"
For a human to intentionally and specifically order someone else to kill children would be, in my personal opinion, wrong.
"I never said there was a military law endorsing killing gay people."
No you did say that the laws in the US and the west (including the UCMJ), were "just like" the Sharia law codes that prescribe death for gays. You still haven't proven that.
"I am just noting the reality that for the vast majority of US and Western history, being LGBTQ was made unpleasant and often illegal. You could lose your job, your family and church if it became know you were LGBTQ. If you were a male who was too "gay" in appearance, you WOULD be mocked and likely beaten and sometimes killed and until recently, that was culturally accepted."
Which falls well short of your claim that US and western laws were "just like" Sharia law. You've dodged and avoided proving your claim, so now you move the goal posts. FYI, you could substitute the word Jews for gays, and make all the same arguments, but you won't.
"Things have only started getting better for the LGBTQ community because of the decline of the dominance of conservative religion in the US."
Danthustera has spaken, we must listen and blindly accept.
"Do you recognize how oppressed LGBTQ have been over most of our history in the real world?"
I recognize that all sorts of people have been "oppressed" throughout history. I recognize that you're more obsessed with blowing things from 250 years ago out of proportion than in spending the same amount of energy dealing with the reality of LGBT oppression in Islamic countries.
"I recognize that all sorts of people have been "oppressed" throughout history."
This kind of glib downplay response is part and parcel of the privilege that white conservative men have lived with for centuries. Why not answer the question I actually asked?
Look, it's easy: the Jewish people in the US and globally have historically been greatly oppressed. Period. In the US, while they weren't targeted for genocide as happened in Nazi Germany and as Hamas would like to see (at least in the region), still antisemitism gas been horrific in its own way here in free USA. The oppression has been Particularly problematic coming from conservative white supremacists over decades of our history.
Like that. I would not in any way try to minimize Jewish oppression by saying, well, lots of people have been oppressed. Of course they've been oppressed!
And the same is true for LGBTQ folks throughout our history, legally and culturally oppressed. Do you recognize that reality?
Dan
"This kind of glib downplay response is part and parcel of the privilege that white conservative men have lived with for centuries. Why not answer the question I actually asked?"
No it doesn't. I did, you just don't like the reality of the history that demonstrates that virtually every group has been "oppressed" at some point in history and the gays are being actively persecuted in Muslim countries while you whine about some local or state bullshit from the 1600s.
"Look, it's easy: the Jewish people in the US and globally have historically been greatly oppressed. Period. In the US, while they weren't targeted for genocide as happened in Nazi Germany and as Hamas would like to see (at least in the region), still antisemitism gas been horrific in its own way here in free USA. The oppression has been Particularly problematic coming from conservative white supremacists over decades of our history."
Ahhhhhhh, the all of the ills of humanity can be placed at the feet of the freaded "conservative white men canard. In your world FDR was a conservative white male (well he was a white male", and his rejection of the Jews on the MS St Louis was all a conservative white male plot. But let's look at anti Jewish hate crimes in the last few years, much of the recent upsurge has been from black makes (liberal) and Muslims. But blame "conservative white" guys anyway. Don't mind history or reality.
"Like that. I would not in any way try to minimize Jewish oppression by saying, well, lots of people have been oppressed. Of course they've been oppressed!"
Yet that's the core of your argument regarding Gaza. Your argument boils down to "well Hamas did some bad things, BUT LOOK AT WHAT THE JEWS ARE DOING! WAR CRIMES!!!".
"And the same is true for LGBTQ folks throughout our history, legally and culturally oppressed. Do you recognize that reality?"
I recognize the reality that you haven't proven your "just like" claim, that you've moved the goal posts from "The US and the west has anti gay laws "just like" Muslim countries" to "Well people have been kind of mean to some gay folx". But hey, the gays have had it so much worse than the Jews.
"well Hamas did some bad things, BUT LOOK AT WHAT THE JEWS ARE DOING! WAR CRIMES!!!".
TO be clear: What I have said is that what Hamas has done WAS CLEARLY WAR CRIMES. What Israel is doing appears to be war crimes or human rights violations, according to many experts.
So, reading for understanding really helps. The reason why so many of us are focusing on Israel's human rights abuses in their reaction is PRECISELY because no one serious is disputing the war crimes of Hamas. That's a given. Hold them accountable. They should not be in power in the government. Period.
NOW, since that's a settled matter, let's take up the UN-settled matter of human rights abuses/war crimes/criminal behavior by Israel, by all appearances.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/
Consistency is a good thing and it really does help when one understands how someone is being consistent on a principle.
much of the recent upsurge has been from black makes (liberal) and Muslims. But blame "conservative white" guys anyway.
Some of the recent upsurge HAS been black males (not sure about liberal at all, and I'd be willing to bet you have ZERO support for that) and some Muslims.
But taken in total, factually, historically speaking, the greatest threat of antisemitism has been and continues to be from white supremacists who are nearly universally self-identifying as conservative, voting Republican and holding to extreme right views, by and large.
I point out the reality of where the threat has been and what we're seeing today because data matters. Again, if we start blaming "there's a bunch of antisemites out there and they're Muslim and liberals...!!" well, one, you run the risk of causing harm to Muslims (and perhaps liberals) and two, it's only partially true and it's useful to try to understand the whole truth, not just peddle a half-truth that attacks one's political enemies and religious minorities.
"Things have only started getting better for the LGBTQ community because of the decline of the dominance of conservative religion in the US."
Leave it to Dan to celebrate the enabling of disorder as making things better for the disordered. Now they are freer to destroy their bodies and souls. But what Dan is really saying is that things have gotten better for them with fewer people around who are more devoted to the Will of God than the desires of their own flesh. Dan puts the whims of the world above the Will of God to such an extent that He'll reject God for doing that which offends him. We've been struggling for years to get Dan to provide alternate interpretations of what is plainly stated in Scripture, with evidence to support it. But he simply defaults once again to questioning the accuracy of our understanding because it conflicts with his worship of the world.
And once again, because it can't be stated often enough because it's so very true, whatever "oppression" his cherished pervs have suffered was on account of their devotion to their perversions over righteous behavior. We all have temptations with which we struggle. Those of Dan's cherished pervs are no different in that they, like all other immoral temptations, must be resisted. They choose to indulge and it is that indulgence which has led to their "oppression" in the very same way others have been "oppressed" for indulging theirs. They used to hang horse thieves. Today, they're arrested and imprisoned. Liars are held to account. Tax cheats are. Bullies are. Murderers certainly are, except for those like Dan who supports the murder of people in utero.
And that final point goes to Dan's hypocrisy and posturing as one who pretends to care about the intentional slaughter of babies. He's complicit in that very act by his votes for those who push for more liberty for that very act.
And then he dares mock God for His commands Dan dislikes, as if Dan has any true regard or reverence for Him. As I said before, if Dan has any problem with troubling passages of Scripture, it's up to him to find a way to resolve that confusion without rejecting or perverting Scripture to do so. But that's the only way he gets it done.
I did, you just don't like the reality of the history that demonstrates that virtually every group has been "oppressed" at some point in history and the gays are being actively persecuted in Muslim countries while you whine about some local or state bullshit from the 1600s.
I'm pointing out the reality of our US history, from before we were started until TODAY where LGBTQ people have been harassed, criminalized, oppressed, beaten and murdered, often with no one being held accountable "because it's just the gays."
That you are trying to downplay the reality of our history is shameful. Why NOT just say, "YES, of course, LGBTQ people have been harassed and oppressed throughout MUCH of US history and thankfully (if you are thankful) it's gotten better in the last couple of decades. But STILL, conservatives are pushing back at the gains LGBTQ people have made when it comes to human rights and not being oppressed and marginalized."?
What's wrong with doing that? One can recognize the reality of THIS group being oppressed without saying "But all others have been oppressed, too." That's a petty, vindictive irresponsible dodge of reality.
Marshal...
"As I said before, if Dan has any problem with troubling passages of Scripture, it's up to him to find a way to resolve that confusion without rejecting or perverting Scripture to do so. "
That's precisely what I'm saying to you all. You want to espouse blasphemy of the Almighty God of love and justice and you dare to suggest that God commits atrocities AND God commands others to commit atrocities or to be punished if they DON'T commit atrocities... that's sick, truly perverse.
As my conservative Sunday School teachers and preachers taught me: interpret any confusing passages and ideas through the clear ones.
Clearly, God is a God of love and justice, especially towards children. So if someone says to you, Here's a verse that sounds like God is commanding atrocities, well we can be certain that's not a valid understanding because it's blasphemous.
So by all means, it's up to YOU to find an explanation that doesn't paint your godling as a monster.
Dan
"I'm pointing out the reality of our US history, from before we were started until TODAY where LGBTQ people have been harassed, criminalized, oppressed, beaten and murdered, often with no one being held accountable "because it's just the gays.""
Which still doesn't prove your original point.
"That you are trying to downplay the reality of our history is shameful. Why NOT just say, "YES, of course, LGBTQ people have been harassed and oppressed throughout MUCH of US history and thankfully (if you are thankful) it's gotten better in the last couple of decades. But STILL, conservatives are pushing back at the gains LGBTQ people have made when it comes to human rights and not being oppressed and marginalized."?"
No.
"What's wrong with doing that? One can recognize the reality of THIS group being oppressed without saying "But all others have been oppressed, too." That's a petty, vindictive irresponsible dodge of reality."
because you made a specific claim of fact "Muslim Sharia laws about gays are just like US western laws", and have yet to prove your original claim or admit your just made it up. The fact that you can "prove" a different claim, doesn't really help with your original bullshit claim.
because you made a specific claim of fact "Muslim Sharia laws about gays are just like US western laws", and have yet to prove your original claim or admit your just made it up.
What I actually said (which is not what you said...)
I'm aware that LGBTQ rights are very limited in Muslim nations JUST LIKE they used to be in the US and West. You probably share that in common with Muslim extremists, is that right?
I made no specific claim about Sharia laws. At all. I was pointing out the reality that "LGBTQ rights are very limited in Muslim nations just like they used to be here in the US." My point being NOT comparing specific law to specific law (as you can tell by the way I didn't say that. At all.) It was about pointing to the reality of LGBTQ oppression here JUST LIKE they have oppression there. That is, the OPPRESSION is the common ground, not the specific laws, which I never said.
Now just let that go. You misunderstood, reading something into what I said something I literally didn't say. I'll apologize for not being more specifically clear, but you own literally reading into it something that literally wasn't there.
Move on. That's a nothing point. The more serious problem is that you and Marshal can't condemn all instances of killing babies as always being a sin. The more serious problem is that you all are reading the obscure/hard passage ("sometimes God commands people to slaughter infants") and giving that priority over the clear teaching (God is not a God of evil or one who commands evil AND that it IS evil to slaughter infants.)
Deal with the plank in your eye before you worry about the splinter that may or may not be in my/others eyes.
Dan...
"You are being asked reasonable questions to get a clear answer about what you do and don't believe. Reasonable NOT just to me but certainly to most of humanity."
Craig...
Wow, Dan speaks for "most of humanity".
I'm stating that all humanity (that is, all people everywhere, setting aside the outliers of some sociopaths and other disturbed people - a TINY fraction of a minority) finds the deliberate mass slaughter of infants to be morally reprehensible. That IS the dominant, main opinion in the world today (and I suspect for most of human history).
You are suggesting an outlier position, that there are good numbers of people in the world today and forever who are okay with deliberately slaughtering innocent infants.
Are you seriously suggesting that opposition to the slaughter of infants is NOT the overwhelmingly near-unanimous position of humanity? If so, you're going to have to provide something like support for that deviant position. I don't think you can. I think clearly, the world is (and has been) opposed to slaughtering infants.
Please answer.
Good GOD, why is this even a conversation?
The fact that you can "prove" a different claim, doesn't really help with your original bullshit claim.
The fact that you misstated "my" "original" claim is on you, not me. YOU are the one citing a different claim, literally. Not me.
Craig asked:
where exactly did you say that Hamas committed "clearly war crimes"? OK, if you want to change your tune now, I won't stop you.
Dan (Nov 3, 3:02pm):
I've been quite clear that Hamas has clearly committed war crime atrocities.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8840366335457642958&postID=7259951779828828170
Don't you hate it when you're caught in a clearly abundantly an igorantly stupid false claim? OF COURSE, attacking and beheading innocent people, raping women, killing babies... CLEARLY, these are great atrocities and of course they are war crimes. Good God, why do I have to point out what is clear over and over and over and over and over again, ad nauseum?
Dan:
"Consistency is a good thing and it really does help when one understands how someone is being consistent on a principle."
Craig:
This self reverential crap just makes you look insecure and in need of pats on the back.
I'm speaking of all those, who like me, are consistently opposed to the deliberate killing of infants. It's not self-reverential in any sense at all, except that I'm with a good portion of humanity that opposes the deliberate killing of infants as a moral Red Line. It has nothing to do with me. That you are not willing to agree with what the majority of humanity takes as a given is your problem, not mine. I'm no hero. Just part of humanity that OF COURSE opposes killing infants.
Well, Dan chooses not to be consistent right after his self congratulatory comment praising himself for consistency. You can't argue that blacks are 95% liberal when it fits your narrative, then pretend that that doesn't carry over into other areas.
I'm just stating the reality that I do not know if those black people who express more anti-Jewish/antisemitic beliefs are liberal or not. Nor do you. Just stating the facts of it all, not willing to make claims I don't know. Are you?
I've seen that antisemitic beliefs is, to some degree, a problem for some parts (too large a number) of black people. But I don't know the specifics and I don't know what percentage of black people also are more progressive. They COULD be the ones who identify as more conservative, I just don't know and I'd be willing to bet that you don't know.
Facts matter. I'm not willing to make claims of fact that I don't know to be factual.
? because we wouldn't want to cause "harm" to the people who are actively engaging in anti Jewish hate crimes and the like. Who cares what happens to Jews as long as we don't hurt the feelings of Dan's pet minorities.
Literally not what I said. Of course. This is nonsense that has nothing to do with MY words. Are you willing to make false claims that "Dan said this" when Dan didn't say that? If so, why?
"I'm stating that all humanity (that is, all people everywhere, setting aside the outliers of some sociopaths and other disturbed people - a TINY fraction of a minority) finds the deliberate mass slaughter of infants to be morally reprehensible. That IS the dominant, main opinion in the world today (and I suspect for most of human history)."
I get it, you're claiming to speak or "state" for "all humanity". I understand that you just re stated your earlier claim.
"You are suggesting an outlier position, that there are good numbers of people in the world today and forever who are okay with deliberately slaughtering innocent infants."
And there goal the goalposts, and the "twist"ing of my words.
"Are you seriously suggesting that opposition to the slaughter of infants is NOT the overwhelmingly near-unanimous position of humanity?"
Well given the number of societies that embraced the slaughter of children at all stages of development, I'm not sure that "near-unanimous" throughout history.
"Good GOD, why is this even a conversation? "
Because you keep it going, misstate and argue against your made up bullshit that you ascribe to me, and because you can't take no for an answer.
'The fact that you misstated "my" "original" claim is on you, not me. YOU are the one citing a different claim, literally. Not me."
No, as I pointed out earlier, "Just like" means "Just like", not "kind of sort of, maybe, slightly, kind of, resembles". But if you think changing your tune after getting called out helps you win somehow, you do you.
"Don't you hate it when you're caught in a clearly abundantly an igorantly stupid false claim? OF COURSE, attacking and beheading innocent people, raping women, killing babies... CLEARLY, these are great atrocities and of course they are war crimes. Good God, why do I have to point out what is clear over and over and over and over and over again, ad nauseum?"
How is me asking you to demonstrate your claims somehow a "false claim" on my part? I regularly acknowledge when I make mistakes, it's just that you rarely do as you've done here and actually provide the evidence. But hey, if it helps your self esteem to pretend like you've accomplished some big win, the far be it for me to stand in the way of you manufacturing a win for yourself.
"I'm speaking of all those, who like me, are consistently opposed to the deliberate killing of infants. It's not self-reverential in any sense at all, except that I'm with a good portion of humanity that opposes the deliberate killing of infants as a moral Red Line. It has nothing to do with me. That you are not willing to agree with what the majority of humanity takes as a given is your problem, not mine. I'm no hero. Just part of humanity that OF COURSE opposes killing infants."
Oh, we're back to Dan speaking for some magical, huge collection of "all humanity" or some such bullshit. I think it's a logical fallacy to do this kind of crap.
"I'm just stating the reality that I do not know if those black people who express more anti-Jewish/antisemitic beliefs are liberal or not. Nor do you. Just stating the facts of it all, not willing to make claims I don't know. Are you?"
Well, the math tell us that if 95% of group X is Y, then it's highly likely that 95% of the people in group X that do Z are (in this case) liberal.
"I've seen that antisemitic beliefs is, to some degree, a problem for some parts (too large a number) of black people. But I don't know the specifics and I don't know what percentage of black people also are more progressive. They COULD be the ones who identify as more conservative, I just don't know and I'd be willing to bet that you don't know."
Well, the ignorance defense hasn't come out in a while, but any chance to excuse the bad actions of liberal black folx is always on the table.
"Facts matter. I'm not willing to make claims of fact that I don't know to be factual."
Yet you continue to insist that your "Just like" claim is "factual",that your various claims about me are "factual", and ignore the "factual history" leading up to the events since 10/7.
"Literally not what I said. Of course. This is nonsense that has nothing to do with MY words. Are you willing to make false claims that "Dan said this" when Dan didn't say that? If so, why?"
I'll repeat what I said in my first comment today. Sarcasm and Hyperbole obviously don't translate (for you) in this medium. However, your inability to deal with sarcasm and hyperbole in anything but a wooden literal manner is not my problem.
I repeat:
"Are you seriously suggesting that opposition to the slaughter of infants is NOT the overwhelmingly near-unanimous position of humanity?"
Your non-answer response:
"Well given the number of societies that embraced the slaughter of children at all stages of development, I'm not sure that "near-unanimous" throughout history."
So, you're guessing that opposition to the deliberate slaughter of babies is NOT universal, or are you just saying you don't know?
How many societies are you guessing "embraced the slaughter of children...?" 1 in 100?
10 out of 10,000?
And based on what?
This is a crazy guess you appear to be making, undone by real world data.
Dan
First of all, you either don't understand or don't know how to use sarcasm and hyperbole. What you said was not that.
Secondly, let me do you a favor and give you a quick lesson in reading for understanding:
1. Dan said LGBTQ people have been oppressed in the US just like they've been oppressed in many Muslim nations.
2. At that point, IF you're thinking, "Dan must believe that the US has laws just like some Muslim nations do, that makes homosexuality a Capitol offense..."
IF you're thinking that...
3. STOP! Ask yourself, "Is it possible at all that Dan literally thinks we have such laws here?" There is only ONE possible real world answe... No, Dan obviously doesn't think that.
4. At that point, you can avoid embarrassing yourself by suggesting Dan thinks that. Such a suggestion just makes you appear obtuse and foolish.
5. THEN, once you've eliminated the impossible, move on to a more plausible guess.
See? It's just not that hard for respectful rational adults.
Dan
"You want to espouse blasphemy of the Almighty God of love and justice and you dare to suggest that God commits atrocities AND God commands others to commit atrocities or to be punished if they DON'T commit atrocities... that's sick, truly perverse."
That's not "blasphemous" of Craig or myself to state what Scripture says. As explained at BibleStudyTools.com,
"Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is when you take the true work of the Holy Spirit and you speak evil of it, attributing his work to the devil."
This is what Dan's doing every time he rejects the reality of what Scripture records God having done in the OT. God commanded His people to destroy a corrupt city and all who live there. Dan refers to this in the most pearl clutching manner, taking the true work of the Lord and speaking evil of it. He ignores the context as if the context doesn't matter. He ignores how offended God was at the ongoing moral corruption and depravity of the people targeted for destruction via human agency. He instead prefers to present it as a case of God commanding evil. THAT is blasphemous.
The same source also presents a common understanding of the word "blasphemy" as an utterance which is an insult to God. I'd say that includes "petty godling" and other such condescension common to Dan when he tries to ignore the plain understanding of Scripture.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/blasphemy/
Most notable in that link is what comes at the end, the second to last paragraph, where it acknowledges the difference in teaching to adherents of Christianity versus muslims. It's wrong for Christians to respond aggressively toward those who mock our Lord. It's wrong for the muslim not to respond aggressively toward any who mock theirs.
"As my conservative Sunday School teachers and preachers taught me: interpret any confusing passages and ideas through the clear ones."
Your "conservative" Sunday School teachers were clearly very crappy at their job.
"Clearly, God is a God of love and justice, especially towards children. So if someone says to you, Here's a verse that sounds like God is commanding atrocities, well we can be certain that's not a valid understanding because it's blasphemous."
Again, it's blasphemous for Dan to describe God's command as an atrocity simply because it sounds to Dan like an atrocity. And indeed, if Dan was to simply choose to murder a child or any other defenseless, innocent person, it would indeed be atrocious because Dan has no authority over the lives of others. Not so with Almighty God who has complete authority over our lives. If He chooses that anyone must die, He has absolute authority as to how that might come to take place, including using His Chosen People to destroy an entire city, to rain down fire and sulfur or to simply rain down rain until it floods the earth. In each case it's impossible to assert no infants perished. Clearly Dan regards God as a monster. He's a blasphemer for daring to insist that God's destruction of infants along with their corrupt adults is an unforgivable atrocity.
And while all this is going on, Dan still pretends his support of abortion, as well as the "majority" we are told favors some legal allowance of it, mustn't be included in the percentage of people worldwide who are cool with the intentional destruction of babies. What's more, the manner in which abortion is carried out is every bit an atrocity as anything the pallies did to the Israeli infants, if not worse.
Dan's a moral monster, what his troll would call a "brutalizer" if he wasn't the liar Dan is. Thus, for Dan to bristle at the thought that Hamas is part of "his side" is laughable. They are birds of a feather.
"First of all, you either don't understand or don't know how to use sarcasm and hyperbole. What you said was not that."
The notion that you can authoritatively tell me what I think when I write something is absurd and just more indication of your hubris.
"Secondly, let me do you a favor and give you a quick lesson in reading for understanding:"
Instead of repeating myself multiple times, just consider this the answer to all of your bullet points.
The reality is that you made the specific claim that the laws in the US/west were "just like" laws in Muslim countries. You've gone to great lengths to try to work yourself out of proving this claim by making and proving all sorts of other claims. But making new claims is not proving your original claim.
"So, you're guessing that opposition to the deliberate slaughter of babies is NOT universal, or are you just saying you don't know?"
I'm saying that Rome (to give one large example) embraced the slaughter of babies. Let's not ignore the Aztec, Inca, and Maya. China (another pretty large) culture practiced child sacrifice, and currently practices forced abortion and the killing of unwanted female children. Egypt. Carthage. So, I guess that it's historically correct to point out the reality that child sacrifice was not as uncommon as your 21st century liberal worldview would suggest.
"How many societies are you guessing "embraced the slaughter of children...?" 1 in 100?"
See above.
"10 out of 10,000?"
See above.
"And based on what?"
History.
"This is a crazy guess you appear to be making, undone by real world data."
It's always pathetic and humorous when you offer your claims as "real world data", while ignoring actual real world data.
But hey, the fact that Hamas refuses to release a 9 month old hostage isn't technically child sacrifice as long as she's alive.
"The reality is that you made the specific claim that the laws in the US/west were "just like" laws in Muslim countries"
Of course, that is not the reality, at all. I literally did not say that.
What part of Read for Understanding are you failing to understand?
Dan
"Of course, that is not the reality, at all. I literally did not say that."
Except that you did say it, I've quoted it, and you've offered nothing to disprove the reality. You simply changing what you've said, and moving the goalposts isn't helping.
"What part of Read for Understanding are you failing to understand?"
The problem isn't my understanding of what you said.
Earlier Dan went to great lengths to find a quote of his that he believed I was wrong about. The fact that he hasn't done the same with his "just like" quote tells me quite a bit.
I repeat:
What I actually said (which is not what you said...)
I'm aware that
LGBTQ rights are
very limited in Muslim nations
JUST LIKE they used to be in the US
and West.
You probably share that in common with Muslim extremists, is that right?
Dan
More instances of me using the phrase, "JUST LIKE." NONE of them are talking about laws. Not one. Your claim is false and stupidly false and a sign that you are not reading for understanding AND that you're willing to make stupidly false claims. That's demonstrable.
I'm aware that LGBTQ rights are very limited in Muslim nations JUST LIKE they used to be in the US and West. You probably share that in common with Muslim extremists, is that right? Would you join Muslim extremists in criminalizing homosexual acts, if you could?
I'm also aware that women's rights are often woefully lacking in Muslim nations, just like they used to be here not so long ago.
I've said that some Muslim extremist nations oppress LGBTQ people, JUST LIKE the US and West used to oppress LGBTQ folks. That's just a demonstrable fact on both parts.
I've said that LGBTQ rights are limited in nations with Muslim extremists/fundamentalists in control JUST LIKE LGBTQ rights used to be limited in the US and the West. Again, demonstrably factual.
And I've said that women's rights are often lacking in Muslim fundamentalist nations, JUST LIKE they used to be lacking in the US and the West. Again, demonstrably factual.
But no where have I said the laws in the west and the US are just like in these fundamentalist-run Muslim nations. No where. That's the fact.
The question then is, WHY? WHY are you willing to make stupidly false claims over and over, embarrassing yourself so much with your stupidly false claims? Is it the case that you are able to read words and misunderstand them if it's a partisan "enemy..."? Is it the case that your partisanship has blinded you? Is it that you're deliberately making stupidly false claims?
I don't know. That's on you.
The point is clear at this point. What YOU say I have said, I haven't said. It's literally a false claim that you can't prove because it's a false claim. You can't just lift the words "Just like" and apply it to something I didn't say.
You messed up. Repeatedly. You have been caught in your stupid lies. You made a mistake and it's clear to reasonable observers. Just admit it, you messed up, apologize and move on.
Humble yourself, son. Don't be blinded by your pride. Be a better man.
Craig...
I guess that it's historically correct to point out the reality that child sacrifice was not as uncommon as your 21st century liberal worldview would suggest.
Yes, there were SOME (no evidence of it being global and widespread) acceptance of child sacrifice and killings in ANCIENT, pre-modern, more progressive societies (including Biblical Israel for you literalists). But you have provided NO evidence that support for deliberate mass child slaughter is common. Especially in more modern/progressive ages since the Enlightenment. It's universally reviled NOW, to be clear. Maybe it was more common in ancient times (again, including in biblical stories, if you take them to be literal).
But if having a more liberal worldview means that you're opposed to slaughtering babies, then BY GOD, let's all promote a liberal worldview.
Do you think that's some kind of insult? Do you not see how it's an embarrassment to more ancient/traditional-minded traditions to say "We're not universally opposed to slaughtering babies..."
What is WRONG with modern conservatives? Why are you not embarrassed by this?
WILL YOU COME OUT AND MAKE IT CLEAR that deliberately killing babies is a great evil, even if it's your own opinion? Will you not join me in denouncing ANY who would advocate slaughtering babies as a moral - even godly - option?
I asked the reasonable question:
"How many societies are you guessing "embraced the slaughter of children...?"
You "answered..."
I'm saying that Rome (to give one large example) embraced the slaughter of babies. Let's not ignore the Aztec, Inca, and Maya. China (another pretty large) culture practiced child sacrifice, and currently practices forced abortion and the killing of unwanted female children. Egypt. Carthage. So, I guess that it's historically correct to point out the reality that child sacrifice was not as uncommon as your 21st century liberal worldview would suggest.
I followed up with the reasonable question:
"How many societies are you guessing "embraced the slaughter of children...?" 1 in 100?"
You "answered..."
See above.
So, you cited Rome, Aztec, Inca, Maya, China, Egypt and Carthage. In ancient times, well before the Enlightenment.
So, SEVEN civilizations at some point in history out of the hundreds (thousands?) of nations/empires/civilizations supported SOME form of killing of babies. Is that your answer? So, like, one in a thousand? And almost entirely all more than 1,000 years ago (back in the time where Israel thought their god commanded the slaughter of babies - an action you won't denounce as evil...)?
Is that your argument? If so, you and I can agree that ancient societies had practices (in some cases) that were deplorable? Will you go so far as denounce ancient Israel when THEY slaughtered babies?
No. Of course, you won't.
So, does that mean that you AGREE with those ancient societies that it's morally acceptable sometimes to mass slaughter babies?
And if so, what does that say about you?
Do you have the moral rectitude and intellectual honesty to answer these questions directly?
"What I actually said (which is not what you said...)
I'm aware that
LGBTQ rights are
very limited in Muslim nations
JUST LIKE they used to be in the US
and West.
You probably share that in common with Muslim extremists, is that right?"
Yes, I know that's what you said, it's exactly what I quoted you as saying. You literally said that Muslim law (where LGBT rights are codified) is "JUST LIKE" the laws in the US and the West (used to be). Unfortunately, you still can't prove "JUST LIKE".
I apologize for my error. I'd quoted you as saying "just like", when you actually said "JUST LIKE", I know that my error is probably what caused your confusion.
"More instances of me using the phrase, "JUST LIKE." NONE of them are talking about laws. Not one. Your claim is false and stupidly false and a sign that you are not reading for understanding AND that you're willing to make stupidly false claims. That's demonstrable."
What an absurd attempt to get out of your absurd statement. Rights are codified in laws. In any case, you still can't prove your claim if "JUST LIKE".
"I'm aware that LGBTQ rights are very limited in Muslim nations JUST LIKE they used to be in the US and West. "
It's brave of you to make this claim again since you haven't been able to prove it up to now. I think you're confusing "JUST LIKE", with kinda, sorts, maybe, somewhat, similar of one look at a surface level comparison. Because capitol punishment for being gay is "JUST LIKE", the inconvenience of not being able to "marry" anyone you choose.
"You probably share that in common with Muslim extremists, is that right? Would you join Muslim extremists in criminalizing homosexual acts, if you could?"
No, and No. But really and excellent job of trying to move the goalposts.
"I'm also aware that women's rights are often woefully lacking in Muslim nations, just like they used to be here not so long ago."
Again you make these claims, but don't prove them.
"I've said that some Muslim extremist nations oppress LGBTQ people, JUST LIKE the US and West used to oppress LGBTQ folks. That's just a demonstrable fact on both parts."
Again, doubling down on a claim you can't prove. Unless you claim is that the US and West engaged in a much milder form of "oppression" than Muslim nations currently do. But unfortunately that's not "JUST LIKE".
"I've said that LGBTQ rights are limited in nations with Muslim extremists/fundamentalists in control JUST LIKE LGBTQ rights used to be limited in the US and the West. Again, demonstrably factual."
Maybe you don't understand that claiming that apples are "JUST LIKE" oranges because they are both fruit, is still a bad comparison and a misuse of "JUST LIKE".
"And I've said that women's rights are often lacking in Muslim fundamentalist nations, JUST LIKE they used to be lacking in the US and the West. Again, demonstrably factual."
because repeating your idiotic, unproven claim (and asserting that you've proven it, without proof beyond your assertion), makes you righht.
"But no where have I said the laws in the west and the US are just like in these fundamentalist-run Muslim nations. No where. That's the fact."
Because rights aren't codified in laws, is that your point? Because the majority of examples you've given are examples of laws.
"The question then is, WHY? WHY are you willing to make stupidly false claims over and over, embarrassing yourself so much with your stupidly false claims? Is it the case that you are able to read words and misunderstand them if it's a partisan "enemy..."? Is it the case that your partisanship has blinded you? Is it that you're deliberately making stupidly false claims?"
Clearly, it's because I'm following your example.
"Yes, there were SOME (no evidence of it being global and widespread) acceptance of child sacrifice and killings in ANCIENT, pre-modern, more progressive societies (including Biblical Israel for you literalists). But you have provided NO evidence that support for deliberate mass child slaughter is common. Especially in more modern/progressive ages since the Enlightenment. It's universally reviled NOW, to be clear. Maybe it was more common in ancient times (again, including in biblical stories, if you take them to be literal)."
Once again the goal post moves. Please prove your claim that killing children is "universally reviled now", I'll wait.
"But if having a more liberal worldview means that you're opposed to slaughtering babies, then BY GOD, let's all promote a liberal worldview."
If you say so.
"Do you think that's some kind of insult? Do you not see how it's an embarrassment to more ancient/traditional-minded traditions to say "We're not universally opposed to slaughtering babies...""
No. You made a universal claim, which I demonstrated to be not an accurate claim. You've now modified your claim to exclude the evidence I provided to demonstrate that your original claim wasn't accurate.
"What is WRONG with modern conservatives? Why are you not embarrassed by this?"
No idea.
"WILL YOU COME OUT AND MAKE IT CLEAR that deliberately killing babies is a great evil, even if it's your own opinion? Will you not join me in denouncing ANY who would advocate slaughtering babies as a moral - even godly - option?"
I've already done so multiple times, clearly those haven't been enough for you. I'm not playing this game where you keep repeating this idiotic question, I answer it, and you pretend that I haven't.
"So, SEVEN civilizations at some point in history out of the hundreds (thousands?) of nations/empires/civilizations supported SOME form of killing of babies. Is that your answer?"
No, I merely chose seven of the larger, more influential civilizations as examples of all the others I chose not to mention.
"So, like, one in a thousand? And almost entirely all more than 1,000 years ago (back in the time where Israel thought their god commanded the slaughter of babies - an action you won't denounce as evil...)?""
It's sweet when you go on the attack like this instead of acknowledging that your original claim was a significant overreach. It's also sweet when you choose to ignore the slaughter of babies in China, the (I admit it's not killing, but still) the vast number of children used for sex slaves, and the kidnapping of children by Hamas.
"Is that your argument? If so, you and I can agree that ancient societies had practices (in some cases) that were deplorable? Will you go so far as denounce ancient Israel when THEY slaughtered babies?"
No.
"So, does that mean that you AGREE with those ancient societies that it's morally acceptable sometimes to mass slaughter babies?"
No. It's more about demonstrating that your broad, overreaching, poorly worded original claim was inaccurate.
"And if so, what does that say about you?"
That I understand history, don't make absurd, overreaching claims, and don't ignore reality.
"Do you have the moral rectitude and intellectual honesty to answer these questions directly?"
Yes, I almost always do. Even when you ask the same questions over and over after I've answered.
It's strange that we're seeing an increased push from progressives to expand infanticide based on the "research" of Peter Singer and others, as well on the "we're all just mammals" worldview being taught over the last few decades. While it's currently a minority, it's a minority that's growing and increasing it's "research" to provide sciency reasons for infanticide. It's an offshoot of the magical birth canal argument.
"It's strange that we're seeing an increased push from progressives to expand infanticide..."
It's strange that you'd make such a crazy-sounding conspiratorial sort of nutty claim without any attempt to, you know, support it.
But then, that's what conspiracy nuts do, ain't it?
Dan
"It's strange that we're seeing an increased push from progressives to expand infanticide..."
"It's strange that you'd make such a crazy-sounding conspiratorial sort of nutty claim without any attempt to, you know, support it."
You act as if I haven't provided ample evidence to support this claim elsewhere, and that you've offered nothing to dispute the evidence I've provided. As a general rule, when you ignore the evidence I've provided more than once, I see no reason to continue to provide what you've ignored.
"But then, that's what conspiracy nuts do, ain't it?"
Nice Ad Hominem attack, while ignoring reality.
Post a Comment