Dan answered a question today, in itself something to be applauded, and his answer is interesting. It'll be worth keeping around for reference.
" It's quite easy: I'm NOT the one who should decide for everyone else on matters of subjective opinion. I've never said otherwise."
So are you claiming that all scriptural interpretation is "subjective opinion"? If so, then why bother to assert that anyone else's "subjective opinion" is incorrect? Or that yours is "correct"?
"On the
other hand, when we're talking about objective facts, then I'm STILL not
the one who decides. Objective facts are just objective facts."
So, are you claiming that "objective fact" is not testable? How do YOU determine when something is "objective fact"? Why should anyone accept anything you say about something being an "objective fact" or "reality"?
"As
a point of demonstrable, objective fact, the Bible has Jesus recorded
as saying he'd come to preach good news to the poor. Period. That's
observable, demonstrable. It's a fact."
What is the fact that you are claiming is "observable, demonstrable"? That there are words in the Bible that tell us that Jesus said that?
"Now, does that MEAN that
there was factually a literal Jesus? That this Jesus was literally
saying he'd come to preach good news to the literal poor? No, those are
matters of interpretations."
Interesting. Are you suggesting that there is nothing in the Bible that can be identified as "objective fact" with a high degree of accuracy? Or, are you suggesting that we have no possible way to identify "objective fact" when it's recorded in the Bible? That literally everything in the Bible becomes a matter of "subjective opinion" because we can't trust those who wrote the Bible? To what other ancient literature do you apply this standard? Are you claiming that the existence of Julius Caesar is "subjective opinion"? That Hannibal, didn't really exist? Pray tell, expound on this.
"From there, we can consider, OK, but
which interpretations are most reasonable?"
OK, but isn't "reasonable" in itself a subjective measure? Is it reasonable to take a text, and conclude that the text means something completely opposite from what the plain meaning of the words tell us?
"Marshal, apart from any real evidence, says that Jesus did not mean the literally material poor in that passage."
When you say "real evidence" do you not mean "evidence that you personally accept as subjectively reasonable"? "
'I note the plethora of passages from Jesus that, on the face of them, appear to be referencing the literal poor - this passage included - and note that we have no textual reason of significance that Jesus didn't mean literal poor. But I can't prove objectively what the author (Luke, in this case) meant or what Jesus - as recorded by Luke - objectively meant."
So, despite your repeated assertions that Jesus primary "gospel" was specifically aimed at "the poor", specifically the materially "poor", are you now saying that this is just your "subjective opinion"? Are you suggesting that we categorize the topics that Jesus is recorded as speaking of, and interpret those only in light of Jesus' teaching on topic X? Or isn't it reasonable to look at the whole breadth of Jesus teaching, and draw conclusions from that?
"I've been pretty clear on all this."
I'm sure you think you have, but I personally think that clarity is not one of your strong suits.
Especially when you insist that your "subjective opinion" be treated as "objective fact", or that you are simply pointing out "reality".
52 comments:
Good questions, Craig. Although, you should know my answers to them already, as I've been exceedingly clear and consistent, even if you don't think so.
So are you claiming that all scriptural interpretation is "subjective opinion"?
No, but much of it is.
"Genesis 1:1 reads, 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'" THAT is an objective fact. Anyone can read the text and verify it's objectively there.
"Genesis 1 proves that the universe and earth was created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago..." is a subjective opinion.
Further, it is a subjective opinion that is known to be false/mistaken/wrong because we know the universe was not created in six days nor was it created 6,000 years ago, objectively so.
Do you disagree?
So, are you claiming that "objective fact" is not testable?
No. That is what makes something an objective fact: IF it can be tried and tested and measured and weighed and demonstrated to be a fact, regardless of one's politics or religion.
How do YOU determine when something is "objective fact"?
If it's measurable and observable whoever looks at the pertinent data. You know, just "objective" by definition.
Why should anyone accept anything you say about something being an "objective fact" or "reality"?
They should accept something as objective IF it is objective, regardless of what I have to say about it. Luke LITERALLY records Jesus as saying “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free..." in the NIV translation of the Bible. That's literally, demonstrable an objective fact.
"The first chapters of Genesis demonstrate/prove that the world was created ~6,000 years ago in ~six days..." is literally a subjective opinion and, in fact, objectively wrong, given the data.
Reality is just what is objectively provable, as I use the term "reality."
Do you disagree?
If so, then why bother to assert that anyone else's "subjective opinion" is incorrect? Or that yours is "correct"?
On matters of subjective opinions, not all subjective opinions are equal. Not all subjective opinions are reasonably moral and some are reasonably evil. Sometimes it is vital to say, "NO. Slavery is ALWAYS a great and horrible evil," even if we can't objectively prove it.
Do you disagree?
No one is obliged to agree with me on clearly rational points (even if they're not objectively provable) or note that I'm correct, EVEN IF I'm saying something as moral obvious as, Slavery is a great evil, in all contexts. It is morally WRONG for one human to own another innocent human being and force them into slave labor or sexual relations.
Do you disagree?
What is the fact that you are claiming is "observable, demonstrable"? That there are words in the Bible that tell us that Jesus said that?
Yes. It is observably demonstrable that in Luke 4, Luke records Jesus saying (as written in the NIV), "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free"
Do you disagree with that reality? Do you recognize that I am, of course, speaking of an objective reality, testable and provable?
Presumably we can agree on that much.
Are you suggesting that there is nothing in the Bible that can be identified as "objective fact" with a high degree of accuracy?
I'm saying that our unproven and unprovable INTERPRETATIONS of the meaning/intent of much of the Bible is clearly not provable objectively.
DID Jesus literally say he'd come to preach good news to the poor as recorded by Luke? We can't really objectively prove it, but we CAN prove that Luke recorded it as such.
Do you disagree?
Can we prove objectively that Jesus MEANT the literal poor when he said what Luke recorded? No, we can't objectively prove it.
Do we have any textual reason to guess that Jesus did not mean the literal poor in Luke 4? Nothing significant. But still, we can't objectively prove it.
Do you disagree?
As to proving objective reality "with a high degree of accuracy..." Either something is demonstrably objectively factual or it's not. I do think we can talk about how REASONABLE something is, but that's something distinct from objectively provable.
Or, are you suggesting that we have no possible way to identify "objective fact" when it's recorded in the Bible?
ANY time the Bible refers to something that is objectively provable, then we can refer to it as an objective fact. It's objectively provable that the universe was not created in six days 6,000 years ago so we can objectively prove that the text of Genesis 1 should not be taken as objectively proven, because it's not. What that proves is that Genesis 1 is speaking either figuratively or is just wrong.
Do you disagree?
That literally everything in the Bible becomes a matter of "subjective opinion" because we can't trust those who wrote the Bible?
No. It has nothing to do with "trusting those who wrote the bible" and everything to do with what is provable and what is not. You know, literally the definition of objective.
It has everything to do with whether we can trust how some HUMANS interpret a text or a collection of texts. If some humans read the bible and conclude that it's a "proven fact" that the earth is flat and created 6,000 years ago (on a Monday), it's not in any way saying something bad about the biblical authors to say to those humans, "That's not factual, demonstrably so."
Agreed?
(And for the love of God, please do NOT quote me as saying "Do you agree?" and respond, with no reference to WHICH "do you agree?" you're referring to. That's a waste of words. I'm going out of my way to respectfully answer a bunch of questions which you SHOULD know the answer to already, given how clear I've been. Don't waste my time when I'm being gracious and respectful enough to answer your questions.)
isn't "reasonable" in itself a subjective measure?
Yes. But it's not inscrutable.
Is it reasonable to take a text, and conclude that the text means something completely opposite from what the plain meaning of the words tell us?
Not at all, not necessarily. I LOVE the text of Genesis 1 and yet I don't even begin to think it means the universe was created in six days, 6,000 years ago. There's nothing at all irrational in taking what is clearly a mythic text and treating it as a mythic text. Indeed, there's something irrational about trying to treat a clearly mythic text as a scientific text.
Do you disagree?
When you say "real evidence" do you not mean "evidence that you personally accept as subjectively reasonable"?
No. I mean that there is literally no textual evidence in the text or context to suggest it means, "Not literally poor." I would ask your question of you:
Is it reasonable to take a text, and conclude that the text means something completely opposite from what the plain meaning of the words tell us?
despite your repeated assertions that Jesus primary "gospel" was specifically aimed at "the poor", specifically the materially "poor", are you now saying that this is just your "subjective opinion"?
I've always been clear that my unproven, unprovable opinions about biblical text ARE my subjective opinions. It is objectively demonstrable that Luke records Jesus as saying that he'd come to preach good news to the poor and other words that are clearly speaking of the poor and marginalized, the down and out, the outcast. But I can't prove Jesus' intent. Did he SECRETLY mean to hint that he was using all these terms metaphorically and not at all literally? It's possible. I can't prove otherwise. But the text has nothing to suggest that.
Do you disagree?
Do you really think that Jesus was speaking of the poor, the imprisoned, the sick ONLY in a metaphorical sense? If so, why? I repeat your question back to you:
Is it reasonable to take a text, and conclude that the text means something completely opposite from what the plain meaning of the words tell us?
Are you suggesting that we categorize the topics that Jesus is recorded as speaking of, and interpret those only in light of Jesus' teaching on topic X? Or isn't it reasonable to look at the whole breadth of Jesus teaching, and draw conclusions from that?
Not sure what the intent of your first question. It IS reasonable to look at the whole breadth of Jesus' teaching as we consider the teachings of Jesus. Because, of course, it is.
For instance, there is literally NO sermon speaking of PSA in all of Jesus' sermons, but there is a great deal from Jesus and his followers about the gospel specifically to the poor and marginalized. If we identify as people who value Jesus' teachings or are even FOLLOWERS of Jesus' teaching, that should be of significance to us.
Do you disagree?
"No, but much of it is."
So, pray tell, please explain in detail how you decide which scriptural interpretation is "subjective" and which isn't?
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"That's literally, demonstrable an objective fact."
It is a subjective fact that those words are there. The problem is that you take those words, out of context, and use them to justify a theology that contradicts what Jesus and those closest to Him say and teach elsewhere. So, by your standard, all that is "objective" is that the words printed on the page exist. Everything else about those words is subjective. If that is the case, then why would anyone pay the least bit of attention to your subjective hunches about those particular words?
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes. By what standard do your personally get to decide that someone else's subjective opinion is incorrect/false, while yours is correct/True? Is that not simply you imposing your subjective moral code on others?
"Do you disagree?"
Yes. I disagree that you have any objective standard to make moral claims about the subjective beliefs of others. By your standard, "slavery is evil" is a subjective opinion not an objective fact. You act as it it is an objective fact, but by your standards, it is not.
"Do you disagree with that reality? Do you recognize that I am, of course, speaking of an objective reality, testable and provable?'
As I said in response to essentially the same question in your previous comment, yes I agree that the words appear in "print" as you say.
"DID Jesus literally say he'd come to preach good news to the poor as recorded by Luke? We can't really objectively prove it, but we CAN prove that Luke recorded it as such."
Actually we can't prove that, by your own standard. We can "prove" that someone wrote those words, but not specifically "Luke". Again, I'm simply pointing out that by the standard you've articulated that your statement is not accurate.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, see above.
"Can we prove objectively that Jesus MEANT the literal poor when he said what Luke recorded? No, we can't objectively prove it."
Despite this, you continue to act as if your subjective opinion is True,
"Do we have any textual reason to guess that Jesus did not mean the literal poor in Luke 4? Nothing significant. But still, we can't objectively prove it."
What we do have is "textural reason" to conclude that Jesus used the term "poor" to describe both the materially "poor" and the spiritually "poor". What we do have is textural reason to question whether or not Jesus meant materially "poor" every time He used the term "poor". We further have textural reason to conclude that the Gospel Jesus' preached was not primarily/exclusively/specifically directed at the materially "poor". His words and actions demonstrate otherwise. What we do have is textural reason to take into consideration the entire context of Jesus' words, and the words of those closest to Him. It seems unreasonable to conclude that those closest to Him would preach such a radically different Gospel than your subjective hunch, and yet be blessed by the Holy Spirit.
"Do you disagree?"
Instead of asking this pointless, repetitive, ridiculous question after you make some statement you subjectively assume is true, why not just realize that I will almost always disagree with your subjective hunches.
please explain in detail how you decide which scriptural interpretation is "subjective" and which isn't?
If it is demonstrably provable, objectively measurable or seen to ALL observers, regardless of opinion.
Is that not exceedingly obvious and just definitionally correct?
Genesis 1 describes a universe that was created about 6,000 years ago in six days. For anyone who'd say that this is literal, I would observe that it's NOT proven to be literal, that the OPINION that the earth was created 6,000 years ago in six days has no measurable data to support it, thus it's literally NOT objectively so. And further, there IS data demonstrating the universe is NOT 6,000 years old, that it CAN'T be, given a wide range of observable, measurable data. Thus, I can't take Genesis 1 as a literally factual telling of the beginning of the universe.
Like that for ANY claim in the Bible. Does God almighty oppose gay folk marrying? There is NO OBSERVABLE, objective data to support the claim. That is, by definition, a subjective human opinion.
Likewise, the claim that God supports gay folk marrying is not provable. It's reasonable, it's moral, it's just... but it's not objectively provable.
Look, I don't understand what you're pushing against. Do you think that you have SOME biblical ideas that are objectively proven and provable? Demonstrate one and we can go from there. For the most part (or really, entirely) OUR human mortal opinions about what God does and doesn't want are not objectively provable. We may find them reasonable, but by definition, they are not objectively proven or provable.
HOW would they be proven?
We can "prove" that someone wrote those words, but not specifically "Luke". Again, I'm simply pointing out that by the standard you've articulated that your statement is not accurate
YES. That is correct. A person who is identified as Luke wrote those words. Was he actually named Luke? What is a pseudonym used to hide his identity? Is the person identified as Luke not ONE person at all, but a collection of minds from a vast array of alien civilizations across the universe across billions of years (if you believe in such things)? We can't objectively say. Because "objective" means something.
Now, in the context of this conversation, the identity of Luke is besides the point. But yes, you are factually correct to note that this has not been objectively proven to have been written by "Luke."
Why do you kick so against the obvious reality that much of our opinions about biblical interpretation are literally subjective?
You see, once we get past the recognition that our opinions about unproven and unprovable matters are NOT objective, THEN we can move on to notions of how REASONABLE a conclusion/interpretation/understanding is.
But as long as one side is pretending to have captured a god in a bible-sized box, their understanding is going to be skewed.
Free yourself, son!
I repeat, once we have accepted the reality that our opinions about unproven and unprovable biblical interpretations are subjective and not proven, THEN we can move on to the more productive discussion of, How reasonable is a given conclusion. Case in point:
What we do have is "textural reason" to conclude that Jesus used the term "poor" to describe both the materially "poor" and the spiritually "poor". What we do have is textural reason to question whether or not Jesus meant materially "poor" every time He used the term "poor". We further have textural reason to conclude that the Gospel Jesus' preached was not primarily/exclusively/specifically directed at the materially "poor". His words and actions demonstrate otherwise. What we do have is textural reason to take into consideration the entire context of Jesus' words, and the words of those closest to Him. It seems unreasonable to conclude that those closest to Him would preach such a radically different Gospel than your subjective hunch, and yet be blessed by the Holy Spirit.
These are all fair and reasonable questions. ONCE we acknowledge that we can't objectively prove the various authors' intents, we can talk about the question of how reasonable it is to conclude - GIVEN THE RECORDED WORDS we have attributed to Jesus - what Jesus meant by 'poor' in any given text?
Does that strike you as reasonable?
Are you able to free yourself from your presumptions of perfect objective knowledge?
Isn't that what this is about for you? That you worry that nothing means anything if we don't know it objectively as a proven fact?
Let yourself free of those chains to an imaginary perfect (ish) knowledge.
"As to proving objective reality "with a high degree of accuracy..." Either something is demonstrably objectively factual or it's not."
By all means then, provide proof to a 100% certainty that the Earth is 4.5 billion years. By all means, prove to 100% certainty that Julius Caesar lived. I could go on, but those two will do.
"I do think we can talk about how REASONABLE something is, but that's something distinct from objectively provable."
Of course, "reasonable" is a subjective term, which means that adopting "reasonable" as a standard necessitates accepting that someone else is going to conclude that something you subjectively believe is "evil" is actually "reasonable".
For example, much of Islam (and Sharia law) maintains that it is "reasonable" to put homosexuals to death, kill women who dishonor their fathers, marry prepubescent girls, and have multiple wives. I suspect that you'd disagree, yet "reasonable" is subjective and partially determined by culture.
"Do you disagree with that reality? Do you recognize that I am, of course, speaking of an objective reality, testable and provable?"
Do you understand how Blogger works? Do you understand that I limit my time on my blog? Do you understand that when you write multiple comments that I don't see them when you write them, but instead see them all at the same time? Do you understand, therefore, that asking the same question multiple times, before I have a chance to answer it the first time, is idiotic? read the answer I gave above, and stop asking this question, or variations of it.
"I'm saying that our unproven and unprovable INTERPRETATIONS of the meaning/intent of much of the Bible is clearly not provable objectively.
DID Jesus literally say he'd come to preach good news to the poor as recorded by Luke? We can't really objectively prove it, but we CAN prove that Luke recorded it as such.
Do you disagree?"
So, why not just answer the question I asked with a yes. Instead of this bullshit prevarication and obfuscation? If we can't prove that Jesus said anything that the writers of the Bible claim He said, then how can anyone take the Bible seriously? How can anyone take "history"" seriously. Apply this standard to The Holocaust. Can we really objectively prove to a 100% certainty that the NAZIs really did kill 6 million Jews, and another 6 million "undesirables" in various ways?
"Yes."
So, "reasonable" is a subjective standard. Thanks for acknowledging that you are hanging your hat on a subjective standard.
"Not at all, not necessarily. I LOVE the text of Genesis 1 and yet I don't even begin to think it means the universe was created in six days, 6,000 years ago."
So you do think it's reasonable to take a text and subjectively impose your personal, subjective standard of what's "reasonable" to you on that text?
"There's nothing at all irrational in taking what is clearly a mythic text and treating it as a mythic text. Indeed, there's something irrational about trying to treat a clearly mythic text as a scientific text."
It's interesting that you, by applying your subjective standard of "reasonable" to you, have concluded that (objectively) "myth" and "science" are the only two possible genres that genesis 1 could possibly be. Either acknowledge that this is your subjective hunch, or prove to a 100% certainty that it is objectively True.
"Do you disagree?"
See above.
No. I mean that there is literally no textual evidence in the text or context to suggest it means, "Not literally poor." I would ask your question of you:"
Well, I guess you'd need to prove that Isiah was referring to exclusively the "materially" "poor" wouldn't you? Wouldn't you also have to conclude that Jesus, by quoting Isiah, was also authenticating Isiah? Isn't it possible, even reasonable, that both Isiah and Jesus were referring to all who are "poor" in any possible use of the word? Given Jesus later use of the term "poor" to describe a spiritual condition, isn't it reasonable to conclude that Jesus meant both types of "poor"? Isn't your contention that the only possible subjective interpretation to this snippet of Jesus' teachings was that Jesus' meant exclusively the materially "poor" and that there is no other possible "reasonable" subjective interpretation?
"Is it reasonable to take a text, and conclude that the text means something completely opposite from what the plain meaning of the words tell us?"
With a couple of caveats. The text must be taken in context, it would be easy to take Jesus' words out of context and act is if they meant something other than the plain meaning of the text. Jesus clearly used sarcasm, and figures of speech that must be interpreted in context. But as a general rule, I see no circumstance where it is appropriate to conclude that Jesus' words meant the complete opposite of the plain meaning of the text.
"I've always been clear that my unproven, unprovable opinions about biblical text ARE my subjective opinions. It is objectively demonstrable that Luke records Jesus as saying that he'd come to preach good news to the poor and other words that are clearly speaking of the poor and marginalized, the down and out, the outcast. But I can't prove Jesus' intent. Did he SECRETLY mean to hint that he was using all these terms metaphorically and not at all literally? It's possible. I can't prove otherwise. But the text has nothing to suggest that.
Do you disagree?"
The why act as if your "unproven, unprovable opinions" are True? The problem you seem to have is that you take this one text, out of context, and build your entire "theology" on this one out of context snippet. Which, as you acknowledge might not even mean what you claim it means.
"Do you disagree?"
See above. Although I do agree that your hunches are "unproven, unprovable opinions", based on you taking one snippet of Jesus' teachings out of context and arbitrarily demanding that the word "poor" can only mean materially "poor" to the exclusion of all other possible meanings.
"Do you really think that Jesus was speaking of the poor, the imprisoned, the sick ONLY in a metaphorical sense? If so, why? I repeat your question back to you:"
No. I think, based on the context of Jesus' entire recorded teaching, that He was speaking of both the materially and spiritually "poor", both those is a temporal prison and those imprisoned by sin, both those with physical illness and spiritual illness. Jesus used all of those terms elsewhere in an explicitly spiritual sense, knowing that context, why would I exclude other possible uses of the terms?
"Not sure what the intent of your first question. It IS reasonable to look at the whole breadth of Jesus' teaching as we consider the teachings of Jesus. Because, of course, it is."
Then why would you exclude that context, when arriving at your subjective hunch about this one snippet of Jesus' teaching. Further, wouldn't it be "reasonable" to presume that those who knew Jesus better than anyone else on earth wouldn't have drastically changed what He taught them? Wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that Jesus' explicit promise of the Holy Spirit would have pushed those who knew Him best towards teaching other the correct Gospel?
"For instance, there is literally NO sermon speaking of PSA in all of Jesus' sermons, but there is a great deal from Jesus and his followers about the gospel specifically to the poor and marginalized. If we identify as people who value Jesus' teachings or are even FOLLOWERS of Jesus' teaching, that should be of significance to us."
Well, since these conclusions (no matter how much your present them as if they were 100% True) are simply your subjective hunches, I see no reason to bother dealing with them. Obviously your subjective bias toward assuming that Jesus could exclusively, only, possibly mean the materially "poor", while consistent with your political and social agenda, is "reasonable" to you. But the "reasonable"ness of your hunches is at least partly based on your prejudices, biases, and preconceptions,, not on the text. It's based on you excluding the other meanings Jesus uses when He uses the word "poor". It's not the text demanding your exclusive, subjective, hunches. It's you imposing your subjective hunches on the text, and limiting Jesus' words to fit your subjective hunches.
"Do you disagree?"
See above, you idiot.
As an example, I'm going to use a text from the life of Jesus to make my point.
It is recorded that, when Jesus came to the family of Lazarus, that "Jesus wept.".
I see than and I can only draw one conclusion. That Jesus shed physical tears, and possibly sobbed, in response to the situation. I see no other possible option. "Jesus" clearly is referring to Jesus of Nazareth, the one who referred to Himself as the "Son of Man", the "Son of God", the "Alpha and Omega". It seems absurd to conclude that the Jesus mentioned here was just some random guy also named Jesus. "Wept" is a simple, specific word that really only means one thing. So it would be absurd to conclude that "wept" actually meant laughed, or rejoiced, or screamed.
The problem comes, I think, when we encounter words that Jesus uses in different contexts to communicate different concepts. To assume that Jesus always, only, exclusively meant materially "poor" when He used the word "poor" makes no sense. To place limits on Jesus' words based on our opinions is wrong, although it's natural to some degree.
"I repeat, once we have accepted the reality that our opinions about unproven and unprovable biblical interpretations are subjective and not proven, THEN we can move on to the more productive discussion of, How reasonable is a given conclusion."
Just because you repeat something and assert it as "reality" doesn't mean that your subjective hunch is true. It's just you acting as if you repeating what you subjectively believe is "reality", somehow makes it objectively True.
"These are all fair and reasonable questions. ONCE we acknowledge that we can't objectively prove the various authors' intents, we can talk about the question of how reasonable it is to conclude - GIVEN THE RECORDED WORDS we have attributed to Jesus - what Jesus meant by 'poor' in any given text?
Thank you so much for pronouncing my questions "fair an reasonable" under your subjective standard. If they are "fair and reasonable questions" why won't your answer them instead of asking more questions? We can conclude Jesus' meaning through context, among other things. Although I guess you could twist "poor in spirit" to mean "materially poor".
"Does that strike you as reasonable?"
No, it strikes me as you asserting your subjective hunches as if they are objective fact.
"Are you able to free yourself from your presumptions of perfect objective knowledge?"
Since I've never claimed to have "perfect objective knowledge", I'm afraid I can't free myself from something I don't have. Especially something that you made up and attributed to me.
"Isn't that what this is about for you? That you worry that nothing means anything if we don't know it objectively as a proven fact?"
No.
"Let yourself free of those chains to an imaginary perfect (ish) knowledge."
Again, I can't free myself from your made up, imaginary, bullshit claims.
However, I see what you are doing here. You have moved into the phase of the conversation where you substitute your made up bullshit straw men, in place of reality. It's easier to do that, than to answer questions and explain your own subjective hunches.
"YES. That is correct. A person who is identified as Luke wrote those words."
Thank you oh so much for affirming my correctness on your subjective scale of what you find reasonable. It means so much to me.
"Was he actually named Luke? What is a pseudonym used to hide his identity? Is the person identified as Luke not ONE person at all, but a collection of minds from a vast array of alien civilizations across the universe across billions of years (if you believe in such things)? We can't objectively say. Because "objective" means something."
This bit of irrelevancy is quite pointless, except as it moves the discussion further away from the topic of your claims (now demonstrably false) about people who allegedly "worship" the Bible.
"Why do you kick so against the obvious reality that much of our opinions about biblical interpretation are literally subjective?"
1. Because you haven't proven this claim to be objectively True.
2. Because it's your subjective hunch, based on your subjective standard of what you subjectively find "reasonable".
3. Because I conclude that YHWH has more power and influence than you give Him credit for.
"You see, once we get past the recognition that our opinions about unproven and unprovable matters are NOT objective, THEN we can move on to notions of how REASONABLE a conclusion/interpretation/understanding is."
Again, repeating your subjective hunches as if repetition confers them as objective Truth. Of course, as you acknowledged, "reasonable" is subjective and therefore what little value a subjective hunch may have derives from it's source. Given your previous behavior, I discount any of your subjective hunches as having much value. But I appreciate you acknowledging that your "worshiping the Bible" canard is actually a false claim.
"But as long as one side is pretending to have captured a god in a bible-sized box, their understanding is going to be skewed."
Interesting. I've certainly never made this claim or anything remotely like it, yet you present it as if it is objectively True. Again, excellent attempt to shift the discussion away from you and your claims, and toward the straw men that you set up.
"Free yourself, son!"
I was once a slave to sin, now I am a slave to YHWH. Whatever freedom I have is only through the grace of YHWH. Unlike you, I don't have the power to free myself.
"If it is demonstrably provable, objectively measurable or seen to ALL observers, regardless of opinion."
Excellent use of detail there. Your meaningless claim is without the slightest bit of explanation of your process, method, or criteria, But fortunately, it's devoid of detail as well.
"Is that not exceedingly obvious and just definitionally correct?"
If you say so.
"Genesis 1 describes a universe that was created about 6,000 years ago in six days."
Where in Genesis is the explicit claim of "6000 years ago"? Are you not aware that there are at least two different schools of thought on the length of the "days", both of which are consistent with the text.
"For anyone who'd say that this is literal, I would observe that it's NOT proven to be literal, that the OPINION that the earth was created 6,000 years ago in six days has no measurable data to support it, thus it's literally NOT objectively so."
Well if you say so. You say this, yet don't provide this "data". You offer no counter option, you simply announce what is true and what is not based on your subjective reason. It ignores that fact that the current, best, scientific conclusion is that all of creation began at a specific, singular moment at which point time began. I could be wrong, but that sounds consistent with the notion that YHWH created the universe ex nihlo at a singular moment. I know you think that your "6000 years" straw man is somehow effective in this discussion. I am not committed to either theory about the "days". I absolutely believe that YHWH has the power to create everything that was created, and that how He chose to do so, or how much time He took are secondary. So, if you want to waste your time with one more straw man, feel free, it's just a waste of your time.
"And further, there IS data demonstrating the universe is NOT 6,000 years old, that it CAN'T be, given a wide range of observable, measurable data. Thus, I can't take Genesis 1 as a literally factual telling of the beginning of the universe."
As I pointed out, the best current science actually supports a singular creation event, as described in Genesis. What happened after that, as I said, is open to some degree of debate. I'll bet that you can't provide the specific science that demonstrates with 100% accuracy how old the earth is.
Further, as you pointed out earlier, "reality" is independent of your hunches about it. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that YHWH did as He said was attributed to Him and created everything ex nihlo. You seem to be excluding that possibility. While I would never tell you you can't exclude something a priori, I think it's strange that you're the one arguing that YHWH is too limited to have created everything in whatever manner He chose.
"Like that for ANY claim in the Bible. Does God almighty oppose gay folk marrying? There is NO OBSERVABLE, objective data to support the claim. That is, by definition, a subjective human opinion."
You're right, (and thank you for being so predictable and making everything about gay sex stuff) there is absolutely zero written in the Bible or in creation that would lead anyone to conclude that homosexuality is an aberration. Absolutely zero, nothing, zip, nada, I bow to your objective wisdom.
"Likewise, the claim that God supports gay folk marrying is not provable. It's reasonable, it's moral, it's just... but it's not objectively provable."
It's your subjective hunch, so stop acting like it's anything else.
"Look, I don't understand what you're pushing against. Do you think that you have SOME biblical ideas that are objectively proven and provable? Demonstrate one and we can go from there. For the most part (or really, entirely) OUR human mortal opinions about what God does and doesn't want are not objectively provable. We may find them reasonable, but by definition, they are not objectively proven or provable."
If you re read my post, and read for understanding this time, you'll discern that my post was about the claim made by you and others that there are people who "worship the Bible". Now, you've already acknowledged that the claim is false, and that you made up some strange, convoluted, "logic" that you apply to others. You've already acknowledged that your claim is a straw man, but instead of simply acknowledging that and moving on, you've chosen to go on a wild goose chase after some other straw men. I'm pushing back on your false claim that people "worship the Bible" (I'm not denying that there isn't some fringe folks out there that might, just that your claims about it are false). Nothing more, nothing less. I've just chosen to indulge your attempts to peddle your subjective hunches about what your subjective reason told you about scripture. None of which are provable.
"HOW would they be proven?"
Without knowing what your standard of proof is, I couldn't answer that. How do you prove your Truth claims?
You don't, you make them then you hide behind your "it's just opinion" bullshit.
1. Because you haven't proven this claim to be objectively True.
2. Because it's your subjective hunch, based on your subjective standard of what you subjectively find "reasonable".
3. Because I conclude that YHWH has more power and influence than you give Him credit for.
We're back to your vague sort-of hint of maybe a suggestion that perhaps you think maybe that your subjective opinions about some vague and unasserted list of biblical ideas and theories are perhaps objective. Make yourself clear.
I'm stating that there is NO KNOWN DATA which I have ever seen OR which you have ever presented ever in the universe of all things that shows some people have objective proof of unproven ideas from the Bible. There is NO OBJECTIVE data to support the notion that we can objectively know that God opposes gay folk getting married. There is NO OBJECTIVE data that objectively shows that God agrees with PSA or an "inerrant Bible" or other theories based upon conclusions people have reached based upon their understanding of biblical text.
Do you agree with that OR do you think there is some arcane secret source of objective data somewhere? IF you have that data, now would be the time to present it.
Failing that, then we are left ONLY with the reality of our opinions on biblical topics as it relates to what GOD WANTS is subjective opinions and interpretations, not objective fact. IF you want to make the case for objective proof, the onus is on you.
And that's where it ends, every time.
Dan:
"Like that for ANY claim in the Bible. Does God almighty oppose gay folk marrying? There is NO OBSERVABLE, objective data to support the claim. That is, by definition, a subjective human opinion."
Craig:
You're right, (and thank you for being so predictable and making everything about gay sex stuff) there is absolutely zero written in the Bible or in creation that would lead anyone to conclude that homosexuality is an aberration.
That's NOT what I said. I didn't say there weren't some few verses that SOME HUMANS take to mean that God would be opposed to gay folks marrying. What I said, quite clearly and specifically, is:
Does God almighty oppose gay folk marrying? There is NO OBSERVABLE, objective data to support the claim. That is, by definition, a subjective human opinion.
Do you have OBJECTIVE PROOF that God is opposed to gay folk marrying? ANYTHING?
No. You don't. No one does. You have your personal biblical interpretations of what YOU THINK God thinks. That's not the same thing as objective proof.
Understand? Seriously. I'm asking if you understand because I want to know DO YOU UNDERSTAND the reality that your objective proof for this claim does NOT exist in all of reality. There's a reason to ask these questions. I'm presenting observable reality (NO ONE EVER HAS OBJECTIVELY PROVEN GOD IS OPPOSED TO GAY FOLK MARRYING). IF you have data to demonstrate that I'm factually mistaken, present it. You don't.
Once again, here's where the conversation inevitably ends, when you don't present what you can't present because the data to objectively prove your biases doesn't exist in the real world.
"That's NOT what I said. I didn't say there weren't some few verses that SOME HUMANS take to mean that God would be opposed to gay folks marrying. What I said, quite clearly and specifically, is:"
No, that's the end result of what you said. The only references to homosexuality in the Bible are negative. There are multiple passages that talk about the ideals and structure of marriage. The reality is that you cannot provide one specific passage in scripture, or any other texts of Judaism or the early church that supports your subjective hunch. That you can read into some vague text some imaginary support for "gay marriage" is just you imposing your beliefs on the text.
"Does God almighty oppose gay folk marrying? There is NO OBSERVABLE, objective data to support the claim. That is, by definition, a subjective human opinion."
Just because you say so, doesn't make this statement True. One of YHWH's commands was to "be fruitful and multiply", clearly gay people are incapable of doing so. There are more texts specifically condemning homosexuality, than there are that can be twisted to support "gay marriage".
But I applaud he effort, you have managed to take a comment thread attached to a post about your false claims about "worshiping the bible", and turn it into a rehash about your subjective hunches about "gay marriage". well done. Everything you say in your bolded comment/question applies to your claim that "God loves gay marriage.". You literally have less to support your subjective hunch that the support that exists that condemns homosexuality. But really, excellent job of making this about "gay marriage" instead of your false claim.
"Do you have OBJECTIVE PROOF that God is opposed to gay folk marrying? ANYTHING?
"No. You don't. No one does. You have your personal biblical interpretations of what YOU THINK God thinks. That's not the same thing as objective proof."
1. As you've defined "objective proof", it's obvious that nothing could meet your standard of "objective proof" on this issue.
2. You have less than no "objective proof" that "God loves/blesses gay marriage".
"Once again, here's where the conversation inevitably ends, when you don't present what you can't present because the data to objectively prove your biases doesn't exist in the real world."
This is absolutely hilarious. You take a post about your false claims regarding "worshiping the Bible", blithely acknowledge that your claim is false, then drag the comment thread into the topic that obsesses you (gay marriage) and offer no proof of your claims about "gay marriage". then somehow, you decide it's my fault because I won't indulge your subjective bullshit and attempts to divert the thread towards something other than you false claim.
"We're back to your vague sort-of hint of maybe a suggestion that perhaps you think maybe that your subjective opinions about some vague and unasserted list of biblical ideas and theories are perhaps objective. Make yourself clear."
1. No, we're back to you demanding that others provide proof that you won't provide yourself.
2. We're back to you painting my pointing out the problems with your claims, as "vague, hints" or whatever the same old bullshit your always trot out is.
3. The reality is that your claims are unproven, proofless, and self refuting, yet you keep pretending that they are "reality".
4. Hold yourself to the same standards you hold other to.
5. My disputing of your bullshit, doesn't require mt to provide you with a detailed rebuttal. Demonstrating the problems with your bullshit is sufficient.
"I'm stating that there is NO KNOWN DATA which I have ever seen OR which you have ever presented ever in the universe of all things that shows some people have objective proof of unproven ideas from the Bible. There is NO OBJECTIVE data to support the notion that we can objectively know that God opposes gay folk getting married. There is NO OBJECTIVE data that objectively shows that God agrees with PSA or an "inerrant Bible" or other theories based upon conclusions people have reached based upon their understanding of biblical text."
I'll try this one more time. I- D-O-N-'T C-A-R-E W-H-A-T Y-O-U A-R-E "S-T-A-T-I-N-G". It's all just your subjective bullshit, and the fact that you are "stating" it carries zero weight. By the same token, repeating your statements doesn't make them True. The fact that your entire paragraph applies at least equally to your claims, seems to have missed you entirely.
"Do you agree with that OR do you think there is some arcane secret source of objective data somewhere? IF you have that data, now would be the time to present it."
No. I do not agree with your bullshit subjective hunches.
"Failing that, then we are left ONLY with the reality of our opinions on biblical topics as it relates to what GOD WANTS is subjective opinions and interpretations, not objective fact. IF you want to make the case for objective proof, the onus is on you."
Then it's clear that your subjective opinions have no value beyond your little, limited, imperfect, sinful, brain and should be ignored and ridiculed.
"And that's where it ends, every time."
Yes, it usually ends with you changing the subject away from the topic of the post, me indulging your bullshit, until you come up against something that you can't get past. Then you start blaming me for the fact that you expect your subjective bullshit hunches to be accepted as "reality" because you are repeatedly "stating" them. Then you run away and hide at your blog where you only allow certain comments to be posted.
I eagerly await you misrepresenting this conversation at your blog where I do not have the freedom to comment without fear of deletion. Unlike the freedom I grant you here.
Craig:
you'll discern that my post was about the claim made by you and others that there are people who "worship the Bible".
Actually, having read and re-read your post, I discern that your post asked me a series of questions about subjective and objective opinions. I'm patiently, respectfully and in a good amount of detail answering YOUR questions that you asked ME. Your "worship the Bible" post is somewhere else.
FYI.
Regarding your repeated questions about Julius Caesar and "the evidence Caesar existed: Caesar wrote works on the Gallic Wars and Civil Wars in which he participated. Caesar was extensively documented by historians during his time. Monuments and coins bearing Caesar's name are ubiquitous."
There is sufficient data to demonstrate that Caesar existed.
Likewise, I think there's sufficient data to demonstrate that Jesus existed.
On the other hand, there is NO objectively proven data that Caesar became a god after his death or that the miracles attributed to him actually happened. Same for Jesus.
I believe as an objective fact about Caesar and Jesus what can be objectively proven. Other matters about Jesus that aren't objectively proven, I don't suggest they must be taken as objective facts because, in fact, they're not if they can't be objectively proven.
"Marshal, apart from any real evidence, says that Jesus did not mean the literally material poor in that passage."
As I reminded Dan where he said this at his blog, this is an intentional lie. I provided "real evidence" for my position and he deleted. I then offered to provide the evidence again if he would guarantee he wouldn't delete it again, he did not respond to make that guarantee. But then, that's one of the true reasons he deletes comments...so he can deny what's been provided to satisfy his demands.
"Actually, having read and re-read your post, I discern that your post asked me a series of questions about subjective and objective opinions." I'm patiently, respectfully and in a good amount of detail answering YOUR questions that you asked ME. Your "worship the Bible" post is somewhere else."
Yes, I asked you some questions based on your false claim that there are people who "worship the Bible". Nowhere in those questions did your favorite topic changer of "gay marriage" appear.
FYI.
"Regarding your repeated questions about Julius Caesar and "the evidence Caesar existed: Caesar wrote works on the Gallic Wars and Civil Wars in which he participated. Caesar was extensively documented by historians during his time. Monuments and coins bearing Caesar's name are ubiquitous." There is sufficient data to demonstrate that Caesar existed."
That's quite the claim. Surely you are aware that the manuscript evidence for The Bible is orders or magnitude more than that for the existence of Julius Caesar. Further, your "answer" dodges the question. I asked for "objective proof", you didn't provide that.
"Likewise, I think there's sufficient data to demonstrate that Jesus existed."
Well, it is all about you and what you think happened.
"On the other hand, there is NO objectively proven data that Caesar became a god after his death or that the miracles attributed to him actually happened. Same for Jesus."
Well, the Romans claimed that Caesars were gods before their deaths and were to be worshiped as such. Scripture tells us that Jesus was always God, He didn't magically become God after death.
"I believe as an objective fact about Caesar and Jesus what can be objectively proven. Other matters about Jesus that aren't objectively proven, I don't suggest they must be taken as objective facts because, in fact, they're not if they can't be objectively proven."
You believe that something can be done, yet you don't/won't/can't do what you claim can be done. Interesting.
2. You have less than no "objective proof" that "God loves/blesses gay marriage"
I have no objective proof and YOU have no objective proof. That's a given.
BUT, once we move past that, then we can start using our God-given reasoning to sort out what is and isn't most rational.
IF it's the case that there's a perfectly loving, perfectly just God... a God who wants the best for us... a God who is opposed to oppression
THEN it's reasonable that folks could enjoy the benefits of marriage, whether they're black, white, gay, straight, lesbian or otherwise.
It's a reasoned case starting from the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God.
What would be the reasoned case against gay folks marrying?
Something like:
1. In my opinion, gay sex is not healthy or "moral"
2. Therefore, a perfectly loving God would not want gay folks to be harmed/unhealthy
BUT that is predicated upon an unproven hunch, that gay sex is not healthy or moral.
You see? That is, of course, a very abbreviated explanation but this is the point of getting past the delusion that you have some objective proof about God's opinion gay folk getting married (or other things you may imagine you have objective proof on).
Let that delusion go. Be free! THEN, let's move on to a more reasoned and supportable (if not objectively provable) discussion of theology and moral nuances.
The only references to homosexuality in the Bible are negative.
The only references to slavery in the Bible are positive. The only references to polygamy in the Bible are positive. I don't care about old value systems of earlier peoples. The fact is: God has not staked out a position on gay folks getting married, not in the Bible or anywhere else. The FEW verses that do seem to talk about some sort of homosexuality are usually clearly or possibly referencing harmful things like prostitution or rape or gang rape, not something as beautiful as what a freely chosen marriage could be.
That SOME people want to lift ancient moral values from ancient people is not proof of anything objective.
You believe that something can be done, yet you don't/won't/can't do what you claim can be done. Interesting.
What are you talking about?
"I have no objective proof and YOU have no objective proof. That's a given."
Yet you present your subjective hunch as if it objective fact, "God blesses gay marriage." was your exact quote. Yet you clearly have no objective proof of this claim.
"BUT, once we move past that, then we can start using our God-given reasoning to sort out what is and isn't most rational."
Please, by all that is holy, let's move on from your obsession with inserting "gay marriage" where it has no place. By all means, lets allow Dan to act as if his subjective, biased, imperfect reason should be the standard to judge by.
IF it's the case that there's a perfectly loving, perfectly just God... a God who wants the best for us... a God who is opposed to oppression
"THEN it's reasonable that folks could enjoy the benefits of marriage, whether they're black, white, gay, straight, lesbian or otherwise."
You literally said you were moving on, then it's right back to "gay marriage". In your subjective, biased, prejudices, imperfect, sinful, hunch you subjective conclude all of those things. Yet, it's only your subjective hunch, absolutely nothing more. Why would I simply agree with your subjective hunch when you have no objective proof. Further, you've moved the goal posts from a scriptural basis to support "gay marriage", to your personal subjective hunches.
"It's a reasoned case starting from the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God."
It's subjective reasoning from your subjective hunches about what you think a "perfectly just God" should do (based on your biases, prejudices, political leanings, and guesses). I was unaware the you had the authority to decide and prescribe what actions a "perfectly just God" was required to take. Further, using your metric, the notion of a "perfectly just God" is simply your subjective hunch, based on your subjective reading of scripture.
"What would be the reasoned case against gay folks marrying?"
From a secular, liberal, progressive, perspective, nothing.
From a Naturalistic/Materialistic/Darwinian perspective the argument would be that homosexuals do not further the survival of the species and are an evolutionary dead end.
From a scriptural perspective (what scripture actually says), Marriage was intended to be one man and one woman, nowhere in scripture is "gay marriage mentioned", everywhere homosexuality is mentioned it's treated negatively, "
marriage" doesn't magically sanctify homosexuality.
From an amoral, political perspective, it doesn't matter just keep your sex life in your bedroom.
From a public health perspective, there is evidence of higher instances of all sorts of serious health concerns for homosexual men.
"BUT that is predicated upon an unproven hunch, that gay sex is not healthy or moral."
As opposed to your unproven hunch that gay sex is healthy and moral? Years ago I posted the view of experts on the damage and health risks of anal sex, and we've regularly seen data that show a higher instance of multiple diseases in the population of gay men. But that's just subjective, right? Peer reviewed studies, and experts, just subjective opinion. What about the divorce rate of "gay marriages", what about the number of "gay marriages" that are consensually non-monogamous. Are you really saying that non-monogamy is healthy and moral?
"You see? That is, of course, a very abbreviated explanation but this is the point of getting past the delusion that you have some objective proof about God's opinion gay folk getting married (or other things you may imagine you have objective proof on)."
It's a shitty, prejudiced, attempt to twist arguments that might be made, while it ignores your complete and total lack of objective proof for your claims. Of course, you "argument" for "gay marriage" never once mentioned God, just Dan and his Reason.
"Let that delusion go. Be free! THEN, let's move on to a more reasoned and supportable (if not objectively provable) discussion of theology and moral nuances."
Nah, I have no desire to be imprisoned by or subject to your subjective hunches about what is moral or what YHWH "blesses". You can live in your subjective fantasy land guided by your subjective feelings and bowing to your actual god, Reason. But I see no reason to adopt your unproven, subjective hunches.
"The only references to slavery in the Bible are positive."
Prove this claim. I don't recall a single instance where scripture refers to slavery in a positive light. Obviously, in the cases where Israel was enslaved, YHWH had a purpose and an ending planned, and prophets to help Israel through their slavery by remembering YHWH.
"The only references to polygamy in the Bible are positive."
You blithely make these claims as if you don't need to prove them. See above, YHWH allowed polygamy, but never endorsed it. Virtually every example of polygamy ended badly to my recollection. YHWH did regulate polygamy and slavery to make them less onerous, but for His reasons allowed them. But I'm sure you know better than YHWH.
"I don't care about old value systems of earlier peoples. The fact is: God has not staked out a position on gay folks getting married, not in the Bible or anywhere else. The FEW verses that do seem to talk about some sort of homosexuality are usually clearly or possibly referencing harmful things like prostitution or rape or gang rape, not something as beautiful as what a freely chosen marriage could be."
When you say that something is a "fact" then shouldn't you prove that "fact" before anyone accepts it? Your bad eisegesis is not proof. The texts you cite do not use the words (which existed) for any of those things, but your keep up the subjective, reasoned, eisegesis as long as it supports your subjective hunches. Noting that you can't prove any of those claims is probably pointless.
"That SOME people want to lift ancient moral values from ancient people is not proof of anything objective."
If you say so.
"What are you talking about?"
""I believe as an objective fact about Caesar and Jesus what can be objectively proven."
The fact that you believe that something can theoretically be proven to be objective fact, is not actually providing the proof of your belief. You regularly demand that I prove all sorts of things (you even demand that I prove bullshit that you made up and pretended like it came from me), yet you can't/won't don't prove something you believe can be proven. The double standard strikes again.
Allow me to indulge a bit on one or two inanities we must constantly endure:
"It's objectively provable that the universe was not created in six days 6,000 years ago so we can objectively prove that the text of Genesis 1 should not be taken as objectively proven, because it's not"
It hasn't yet been so proven that the universe was not created in six days or that it's only 6,000 years old. There are quite a few people who are expert in their specific fields which cannot resolve observable facts with a billion year conclusion. Things don't add up. The Cambrian explosion is just one example of this. I recently watched a documentary with several scientific experts who insist on a young earth hypothesis due to looking at the same data used to promote an old universe alternative. It's quite compelling and based on things that are known and how they argue for a young earth. Basically...and this very much aligns with notions which had always come to my mind in these debates...they suggest that things happened at a very much accelerated pace than the billions of years many prefer to believe. One area of this is the Grand Canyon, which many believe was the result of thousands of years of erosion. I won't belabor this point any further, though I'll try to find the documentary to post if anyone wishes to check it out, but it's clear that Dan isn't concerned with what the Bible says as much as what he's told to believe by his select group of scientific "experts".
"Myth". Genesis is not myth. It is a recording of events. Those like Dan insist they're "myth" because it's a very basic report of those events, rather than one detailed enough to satisfy the "sophisticates" like Dan who refuse to believe God's power is beyond imagining.
"SSM". One thing I will say at the outset is that Dan and I are 180 degrees apart on this issue itself, but both see it as an obvious example of how we regard Scripture and understanding it's teachings. The difference is that where "reason" is concerned, it is false to suggest that good "reasoning" can be found in his support for this clear heresy. God prohibits the behavior that is the basis for any homosexual union, be it a life-long committed union like an actual marriage or some shorter option. There's nothing in Scripture which so much as hints as marriage being other than one man/one woman and so what we see here is not an example of reason, but a clear and obvious suspension of it in order to suppose there's any possibility that God would bless an abomination. Thus, what Dan regards as "reasoning" when coming to such beliefs as he holds, he's really doing no more than rejecting the only conclusion to which Scripture can lead an honest person in favor of what he prefers Scripture should say. Thus, the issue of homosexuality is proof that Dan doesn't "reason" at all if by use of that term he means weighing the teachings of Scripture to discover Truth.
"You see, once we get past the recognition that our opinions about unproven and unprovable matters are NOT objective, THEN we can move on to notions of how REASONABLE a conclusion/interpretation/understanding is."
I can't see where it's ever been necessary to waste time on what is provable or not. This is like Congressional Dems pretending the GOP is responsible for fixing a problem because they reject a Dem proposal or pork-laden bill which might address it in some way. Dan throws up (almost literally) all these irrelevant arguments about subjective/objective proofs when he could have cut to the chase and provided a comprehensive argument for his heresies and the Scripture he believes can be used for support. Conversely, he can argue for why OUR list of passages and verses fail to support our positions, but instead whines on about "subjective opinion" without providing substance to consider.
One more thing: God doesn't oppose "gay" people marrying, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
I allow Dan to indulge in all sorts of things that he doesn't permit, so why wouldn't I indulge you.
Since when has Dan ever offered substance. As this proves, all he has is the subjective, bullshit, hunches, he gets when he lets his subjective Reason take over. Given that Reason is his answer to every question of authority, it doesn't seem out of place to wonder if Reason isn't Dan's god, or at least an idol.
I do appreciate how welcoming Dan is to hate, vitriol, and lies at his cesspool. I'm actually glad he won't let me soil myself by commenting there.
Craig...
I do appreciate how welcoming Dan is to hate, vitriol, and lies at his cesspool.
Also Craig...
Instead of this bullshit prevarication and obfuscation?...
I can't free myself from your made up, imaginary, bullshit claims...
You have moved into the phase of the conversation where you substitute your made up bullshit straw men, in place of reality...
We're back to you painting my pointing out the problems with your claims, as "vague, hints" or whatever the same old bullshit your always trot out is...
My disputing of your bullshit, doesn't require mt to provide you with a detailed rebuttal. Demonstrating the problems with your bullshit is sufficient...
As this proves, all he has is the subjective, bullshit, hunches...
etc, etc, etc.
Hate, vitriol and lies. Indeed.
As a point of fact, merely repeating ACCUSING me of lies and "bullshit" is not the same as you supporting these clearly false and irrational claims.
It is not bullshit NOR a lie to note that no one has ever - you included - proven their claims about God objectively. It's called humility and wisdom to note when one can't objectively prove something, as you can't prove. Instead of quietly agreeing, "Yes, I can't prove these ideas objectively," you delve into name calling and abusive false charges.
Be better, Craig.
Or here, do this: PROVE your "lies and bullshit" claim.
For instance, here, I said:
"I'm saying that our unproven and unprovable INTERPRETATIONS of the meaning/intent of much of the Bible is clearly not provable objectively.
DID Jesus literally say he'd come to preach good news to the poor as recorded by Luke? We can't really objectively prove it, but we CAN prove that Luke recorded it as such.
And you responded with the harsh and abusive:
So, why not just answer the question I asked with a yes. Instead of this bullshit prevarication and obfuscation?
What SPECIFICALLY is "bullshit prevarication and obfuscation" in noting that we/I can't objectively prove what Jesus was thinking when he was quoted as saying what Luke said he said? What is false or mistaken about that? Do you think we CAN objectively prove that Luke rightly recorded Jesus' words? How?
And of course, I'm not saying that Luke didn't record Jesus' words accurately, just that we have no way of objectively proving it.
Why the over-the-top bitter tone and venom in your comments when I'm taking all this time to answer so many of your questions and doing so in a respectful, polite manner?
The fact that you believe that something can theoretically be proven to be objective fact, is not actually providing the proof of your belief. You regularly demand that I prove all sorts of things (you even demand that I prove bullshit that you made up and pretended like it came from me), yet you can't/won't don't prove something you believe can be proven.
Because the existence of Julius Caesar is not in question. You believe he existed. I believe he existed. Scholars recognize he existed. Why would I "prove" something that needs no proof?
On the other hand, IF you were claiming that Julius Caesar flew to heaven and became a god, that IS something that would need proof.
Dan throws up (almost literally) all these irrelevant arguments about subjective/objective proofs when he could have cut to the chase and provided a comprehensive argument for his heresies and the Scripture he believes can be used for support.
My argument, one of them, is that the Bible is not a magic rule book. I don't need - YOU don't need - to provide a scripture to say, for instance, that slavery is a great evil. That women should have equal rights. That the Bible is not a magic rule (or rulings) book. We can use reason.
For instance, you vaguely accuse me of the very serious, "heresy" charge, but you provide NOTHING in terms of support for it.
I believe in Jesus, the son of God. I believe he lived on earth, died and rose from the dead. I believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus. I believe in forgiveness and love and that Jesus came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized, as he said. I believe that Jesus' parable about the sheep and the goats and the MANY comments/teachings from him, the prophets, his mother, Mary, James, Paul, etc about wealth and poverty and how God is concerned for the literal oppressed and marginalized indicate that God is indeed concerned for the literal oppressed, poor and marginalized.
WHERE is the heresy?
I disagree with your human traditions about LGBTQ folks and I disagree with those humans who would make life harder for LGBTQ folks, who would stop them from getting married if they could.
Does that make me a heretic?
I disagree with the human traditions around PSA and "inerrancy." Does that make me a heretic?
What theological hoops must I jump through - what opinions of yours must I affirm before I'm no longer heretical?
NONE of which is dealing with the questions you've asked of me or my respectful, reasoned and so-far unsuccessfully disputed opinions about subjective and objective opinions.
But I'm the one fixated on hate, vitriol and lies? And apparently heresy?
Prove this claim [that slavery and polygamy are considered in a positive light in the Bible]. I don't recall a single instance where scripture refers to slavery in a positive light.
Well, on slavery, there's the reality that God gives rules about how best to enslave people and sell your daughters off into forced marriage arrangements. That certainly sounds like at the least a soft affirmation that at some level, slavery and forced marriages are acceptable to God.
Myself, I don't think a perfectly good, perfectly just God considers evil acceptable to God.
Then there's the fact that more than once (if one is a biblical literalist), God commanded Israel to enslave people, to kidnap women to be used in forced marriages. Do you think God commands people to do BAD things? Or only to promote GOOD things?
Myself, I think the latter.
Same for polygamy. Taken literally, God GAVE King David his many wives. God at the very least ALLOWED polygamy and allowed it to go by without ever once condemning it. Not one time. It was just culturally accepted and even the "heroes of the faith" had multiple wives.
If you prefer though, I could note that the Bible doesn't actively condemn polygamy, forced marriages or slavery instead of is "positive" about them (although, I think a fair reading of the texts involved would lean that way).
The point being: I don't take guidelines for moral behavior on ancient cultural norms that would not be tolerated today in an age that recognizes human rights. Why would I?
HINT: It's NOT because "the bible tells me so," because no where does the bible say these ancient rules and rulings are universally applicable or even Good.
you present your subjective hunch as if it objective fact, "God blesses gay marriage." was your exact quote. Yet you clearly have no objective proof of this claim.
And again, unlike you, I have been abundantly clear and unequivocal that I, you, no one can objectively prove our moral opinions as established fact.
But the point about moving PAST this vapid and vain hope of perfect objective knowledge to rational moral reasoning is that we can make a reasoned case and have some hope for agreement.
IF we can agree that God is perfectly just and perfectly loving,
THEN we can agree that God wouldn't act in an unjust or unloving manner.
NOT because the Bible tells me so, but because it's rationally supported given the presumption.
IF we can agree that human rights are valid and to be protected,
THEN we can strive to find common ground around human rights and an end of unjust oppression. Not because the Bible (or Koran or space monkeys) tell me so, but because it's rationally supported given the presumption.
So, as always, I'm not saying I can objectively prove that LGBTQ folk having the freedom to marry the person of their choice is what God wants, but I can says it's a morally rational option IF we affirm human rights and IF we reject the notion of religions presuming to tell us who can bed who.
And before you go that route: I've regularly tried over the years to do searches - "objective proof for atonement"
"penal substitutionary atonement is an established fact"
"objective proof of inerrancy"
etc, etc, etc... ALL the searches. And not only have I never found EVEN ONE SOURCE that proves any of your human theories objectively, I've never found any even TRYING to do so.
So, it's not like it's a widely known and accepted fact that I've just missed somehow. IF it exists, then it must be a hidden secret, for some reason.
And anytime someone is confessing faith in a hidden secret and arcane knowledge, well, that's generally a red flag, not a positive thing.
Dan:
"It's a reasoned case starting from the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God."
Craig:
It's subjective reasoning from your subjective hunches about what you think a "perfectly just God" should do...
Yes, yes, yes. It's ESTABLISHED that my subjective opinions about what God thinks ARE my subjective opinions and YOUR subjective opinions are likewise, your subjective opinions. That's a given. I'm not sure why you dwell on it so much EXCEPT because you vaguely want to sort of suggest that you sort of kind of maybe have a perhaps objective source that you're unable/unwilling to share.
Craig, continuing:
(based on your biases, prejudices, political leanings, and guesses). I was unaware the you had the authority to decide and prescribe what actions a "perfectly just God" was required to take.
1. I don't have any authority over God, any more than you do.
2. And it has very little to do with my biases, prejudices, etc... remember: I believed like YOU do once upon a time and reason and the Bible took me away from those positions, but my previous biases and prejudices were very similar to yours.
3. Noting that human rights are human rights and that LGBTQ people shouldn't be oppressed/denied rights, likewise, has very little to do with me (you flatter me!) and just what is commonly recognized these days.
Just like long ago, most people didn't think anything was wrong with slavery or racism towards black folks... we know better now, collectively.
Of course, there are some religious extremists - Muslim, Christian, Jewish and others - who still cling to old prejudices against LGBTQ folk, they are rapidly passing.
I'd say "reason" isn't Dan's forte. I see no real evidence of anything most would consider reason. Then again, I guess one can use reason in an attempt to defend falsehoods, and by that measure, Dan's a reasoning rock star!
Impressive, Dan tries one of his usual tricks to get out of a conversation that isn't going the way he'd like, and assumes me that "this is where it ends", than feels compelled to add another 12-13 comments.
Maybe someone has self control issues.
"Hate, vitriol and lies. Indeed."
Yes, but it's your cesspool, if you want to allow that sort of crap go right ahead.
"As a point of fact, merely repeating ACCUSING me of lies and "bullshit" is not the same as you supporting these clearly false and irrational claims."
1. Starting out with a straw man, very strong opening move.
2. I didn't "accuse you" of anything. I merely pointed out that you welcome lies, hatred, and vitriol at your blog.
3. Until you identify a claim I've made and demonstrate that that claim is objectively false, your above claim actually is objectively false.
"I'm saying that our unproven and unprovable INTERPRETATIONS of the meaning/intent of much of the Bible is clearly not provable objectively."
Which is an unproven claim.
"DID Jesus literally say he'd come to preach good news to the poor as recorded by Luke? We can't really objectively prove it, but we CAN prove that Luke recorded it as such."
By all means simply repeat the same crap you wrote 15 comments ago, and that I dealt with. That'll do your argument some good. Strangely enough, you continue to insist that this snippet that you acknowledge cannot be proven to be accurate is the most important aspect of the gospel. It's strange that you'd make such a significant claim about something you can't even prove was said.
"So, why not just answer the question I asked with a yes. Instead of this bullshit prevarication and obfuscation?"
As you often point out, sometimes harshness is appropriate. You certainly use it often enough. Yet, I simply asked you a question, a bit harshly worded out of frustration, but a question nonetheless. Did you answer the question asked?
"What SPECIFICALLY is "bullshit prevarication and obfuscation" in noting that we/I can't objectively prove what Jesus was thinking when he was quoted as saying what Luke said he said? What is false or mistaken about that? Do you think we CAN objectively prove that Luke rightly recorded Jesus' words? How?"
It's the fact that you don't give direct, specific, answers to questions but instead simply repeat your same old tropes as if repetition makes them valuable or helpful.
"And of course, I'm not saying that Luke didn't record Jesus' words accurately, just that we have no way of objectively proving it."
Because if you repeat something often enough it takes on magical powers or something.
"Why the over-the-top bitter tone and venom in your comments when I'm taking all this time to answer so many of your questions and doing so in a respectful, polite manner?"
I'm merely following the example you and your pet troll demonstrate. Although, it's more frustration with your lack of simple direct answers, and simply repeating yourself as if repetition or you "saying" something makes it automatically True.
"Because the existence of Julius Caesar is not in question. You believe he existed. I believe he existed. Scholars recognize he existed. Why would I "prove" something that needs no proof?
On the other hand, IF you were claiming that Julius Caesar flew to heaven and became a god, that IS something that would need proof."
So, why not just admit that you can't prove the existence of Julius Caesar, nor that he actually authored the writings attributed to him, and move on? Why must you keep trying to insist that you can simply assume the existence of Julius Caesar?
"Well, on slavery, there's the reality that God gives rules about how best to enslave people and sell your daughters off into forced marriage arrangements. That certainly sounds like at the least a soft affirmation that at some level, slavery and forced marriages are acceptable to God."
Or is it that YHWH is acknowledging that slavery is a reality in that period of history and that He is proposing a form of slavery that is more humane than that of surrounding nations. That YHWH understands that Israel at that point wasn't ready or prepared to fulfill His commandments (as we see regularly) and so He chose not to burden them with commandments they couldn't/wouldn't fulfill at that point? I'm going to point out that you've moved the goal posts by substituting "forced marriages" for "polygamy", so I see no reason to deal with that.
"Myself, I don't think a perfectly good, perfectly just God considers evil acceptable to God."
The key word in that sentence is "Myself". If you were the sole arbiter of what YHWH should do, or what was acceptable for Him to do, you might have a point. But you are not. You are a created being without YHWH's breadth of knowledge, wisdom, and other attributes. Therefore I see no reason to accept your speculative hunches, based solely within some authority to seem to believe you have to pass judgement on He who created you.
"Then there's the fact that more than once (if one is a biblical literalist), God commanded Israel to enslave people, to kidnap women to be used in forced marriages. Do you think God commands people to do BAD things? Or only to promote GOOD things?"
I think that YHWH commands people to do things that He knows are the best for them, and that bring glory and honor ti Him. I see no reason why I should place my feelings over His commands.
"Myself, I think the latter."
Well, you're not God. So why should your unproven, subjective, hunch, based solely on your presumption of the power of your Reason be blindly accepted. I don't feel equipped to tell a sovereign God that what I "think" is more correct than what He commands.
"Same for polygamy. Taken literally, God GAVE King David his many wives. God at the very least ALLOWED polygamy and allowed it to go by without ever once condemning it. Not one time. It was just culturally accepted and even the "heroes of the faith" had multiple wives."
Allowing, and showing the negative consequences is NOT the same is commanding or commending it. YHWH also "allowed" Israel to sacrifice their children to Molech, worship Baals, choose bad kings, and all sorts of things that He told them not to do. Maybe we have a God who allows us to choose do do things that He frowns on, because He can and does take what is meant for evil and use it for good.
"If you prefer though, I could note that the Bible doesn't actively condemn polygamy, forced marriages or slavery instead of is "positive" about them (although, I think a fair reading of the texts involved would lean that way)."
I'd prefer that you not place your hunches in the position of being anything but your subjective hunches. Although, I do appreciate the (namby pamby) way you acknowledge that your original claim was fales, without actually explicitly doing so.
"The point being: I don't take guidelines for moral behavior on ancient cultural norms that would not be tolerated today in an age that recognizes human rights. Why would I?"
I don't respond to straw men as if they were real arguments, why would I?
"HINT: It's NOT because "the bible tells me so," because no where does the bible say these ancient rules and rulings are universally applicable or even Good."
HINT: Where have I ever said that everything depicted in the OT is "universally applicable or even good"? Or is this just one more straw man.
"And again, unlike you, I have been abundantly clear and unequivocal that I, you, no one can objectively prove our moral opinions as established fact."
1. Where have I claimed this? If you are going to make these kind of claims of fact, you should prove them.
2. Yet you apply your unproven, subjective, hunches about morality to others regularly as if they were fact, why?
"But the point about moving PAST this vapid and vain hope of perfect objective knowledge to rational moral reasoning is that we can make a reasoned case and have some hope for agreement."
If you can't point to something that is True, why should I agree with your subjective hunches, just for the sake of "agreement"? Why is your Reason such that it should be trusted?
"IF we can agree that God is perfectly just and perfectly loving,
THEN we can agree that God wouldn't act in an unjust or unloving manner.
NOT because the Bible tells me so, but because it's rationally supported given the presumption."
We can "agree" on all sorts of things. But if you can't prove that your hunches about what "perfectly loving" is, then why would I agree with your unproven, subjective, hunches? Why is agreement over subjective, unproven, hunches, something you value so highly? Why not seek truth, over subjective, unproven hunches and agree around that?
"IF we can agree that human rights are valid and to be protected,
THEN we can strive to find common ground around human rights and an end of unjust oppression. Not because the Bible (or Koran or space monkeys) tell me so, but because it's rationally supported given the presumption."
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Off topic bullshit filibustering. Because the Quran doesn't actually advocate for "human rights" that are equal for everyone.
"So, as always, I'm not saying I can objectively prove that LGBTQ folk having the freedom to marry the person of their choice is what God wants, but I can says it's a morally rational option IF we affirm human rights and IF we reject the notion of religions presuming to tell us who can bed who."
I know, because you repeat this subjective hunch of yours ad nauseum as if your subjective hunch carries some sort of magical authority. No religion is stopping you from bedding another dude, multiple women, 72 virgins, a "trans" dude, goats, chickens or a platypus. Go ahead and bed whomever you want.
"Yes, yes, yes. It's ESTABLISHED that my subjective opinions about what God thinks ARE my subjective opinions and YOUR subjective opinions are likewise, your subjective opinions. That's a given. I'm not sure why you dwell on it so much EXCEPT because you vaguely want to sort of suggest that you sort of kind of maybe have a perhaps objective source that you're unable/unwilling to share."
And as your subjective hunches they have absolutely zero value beyond your limited, fallible, sinful, brain. I "dwell" on it because you keep acting as if these subjective hunches of yours should be treated as if they are objective, and applied to others. It's your hubris of assuming that your Reason has led you to some knowledge that others must accede to and agree with where you lose me. It's your obsession with repeating yourself as if repetition confers authority somehow.
(based on your biases, prejudices, political leanings, and guesses). I was unaware the you had the authority to decide and prescribe what actions a "perfectly just God" was required to take.
"1. I don't have any authority over God, any more than you do."
It's good that you acknowledge that, although your constant passing judgement of YHWH's actions seems to indicate otherwise.
"2. And it has very little to do with my biases, prejudices, etc... remember: I believed like YOU do once upon a time and reason and the Bible took me away from those positions, but my previous biases and prejudices were very similar to yours."
Blah, blah, blah, blah. As if you are unaffected by your new biases, prejudices, etc. Yet you continue to make assumptions about me that can only come from your biases, prejudices, etc.
"3. Noting that human rights are human rights and that LGBTQ people shouldn't be oppressed/denied rights, likewise, has very little to do with me (you flatter me!) and just what is commonly recognized these days."
If you say so.
"Just like long ago, most people didn't think anything was wrong with slavery or racism towards black folks... we know better now, collectively."
If you say so.
"Of course, there are some religious extremists - Muslim, Christian, Jewish and others - who still cling to old prejudices against LGBTQ folk, they are rapidly passing."
If by "rapidly passing" you mean rapidly killing kafirs, and infidels as a way to spread the benevolent love of Allah, you might be closer to the Truth.
Yet none of this repetitious bullshit adds anything to this conversation or is remotely on topic. Maybe, instead of repeating bullshit, you should have run away when you promised to.
"I disagree with your human traditions about LGBTQ folks and I disagree with those humans who would make life harder for LGBTQ folks, who would stop them from getting married if they could.
Does that make me a heretic?"
Yes. Yes it does. It does because you have nothing but your pro-homosexual desires to support such a claim. You've got absolutely nothing from within Scripture you can honestly use for that purpose, because no such Scriptural support exists. To dare suggest any Scriptural basis for your wild-ass claim that God would bless a SSM is an abject and intentional lie. I know this to be true by your unrelenting failure to provide an actual Scripture-based argument in support of your heresy.
And of course, referring to the truth about the sinfulness of homosexuality is considered "old prejudices" related to the savagery of muslims you'd otherwise defend. That's heresy. Homosexual behavior is an abomination, and like every other immoral behavior, actual Christians do indeed hold to prejudices against them and those who promote them as "good" or no longer immoral.
But that's only one point which affirms the charge that you're a heretic. You preceded this quote with your usual listing of Christian beliefs presented as some kind of proof that you're a Christian, but it means nothing if your words and behaviors do not align with any of it...if it doesn't reflect a true conviction in those beliefs. One can express a total love and devotion to Christ while being an active criminal. Is that person a true Christian? If that person tries to abuse Scripture to support his criminal activity as you most certainly do to pretend SSM is something God would ever bless, would that not mean heresy in your small mind? Of course you'd say, "no" because you prefer to pretend your moral corruption is Biblically defended.
Then you whine about Craig's "tone". This is hilarious. I recently spend time going through four years of Craig's blog posts and in the process read tons of comments. The number of times you dropped F-bombs and spewed other profanities, false accusations and other examples of foul behavior has never been forgotten, except in terms of the quantity of such episodes. To this day you continue to puke out charges of racism and whine about "respect" and "adult discourse" in order to delete comments you're unable to honestly confront.
What isn't lost on us is the constant excuses for not admitting being wrong. "objective" "subjective" "personal opinion" "can't prove"...all these things are just defenses against supporting Dan's fake Christian positions on any number of subjects. He is free to believe whatever foul heresy gives him a tingle up his thigh so long as he has this ammo at his disposal.
Here's how this thread has gone.
Craig: Dan, here are some questions that arise from something you said at your blog.
Dan: Why yes it is all subjective, based on my Reason.
Craig: Well, why should anyone else accept your subjective hunches based on your subjective Reason?
Dan: Well, "I was saying...". "Let's Reason and agree."
Craig: What?
Dan: Well this is where it always ends.
Craig: You mean "ends" as in Dan is going to make another 12-15 comments, repeating himself?
Dan: "Gay Marriage", Gay sex, "Slavery", "Polygamy", "forced marriage".
The very fact that Dan thinks that him "disagree"ing with people carries some intrinsic value or authority is stunningly un self aware. The amount of hubris in that statement is amazing.
"Then you whine about Craig's "tone". This is hilarious. I recently spend time going through four years of Craig's blog posts and in the process read tons of comments. The number of times you dropped F-bombs and spewed other profanities, false accusations and other examples of foul behavior has never been forgotten, except in terms of the quantity of such episodes. To this day you continue to puke out charges of racism and whine about "respect" and "adult discourse" in order to delete comments you're unable to honestly confront."
Thanks for pointing this out. Dan's reliance of profanity, vitriol, and abusive language (which he justifies by saying "Jesus did it"), and his obliviousness to his own behavior is one thing. the fact that he encourages it at his blog, along with his habit of deleting comments than misrepresenting what they said, makes his faux outrage even more ridiculous.
You're right, of course. Dan has a history of confidently asserting something or another ("God blesses gay marriage." for example) then hiding behind the excuse of "Well, it's really just my opinion. You should assume by now that everything I say is just my opinion, and treat it accordingly.". Then when we treat it accordingly, ridicule it, he gets all snippy about it and tries to hide behind his Reason.
Post a Comment