"Rational adults don't make stupidly false claims or unsupported claims"
Given that the author of this claim prides themselves on how spectacularly rational they are, yet also makes "stupidly false claims", I can only conclude that the above claim is also "stupidly false".
59 comments:
...and yet, as always, you won't point to any single false claim I've (allegedly) made and you don't because you can't because I literally haven't. Keeping in mind that when I say, Tell me if I'm mistaken... that is a claim of what it seems you believe and it's the on you to clarify.
I just went to check and, yes, my memory was correct... you accused me of "all these lies" and made vague, unsupported accusations of making false claims about you, but don't cite ANY lies I actually wrote.
My best guess is you're speaking of where I said, "y'all are saying - correct me if I'm wrong..." where I'm clearly, literally not lying but am saying what I think you are saying.
I am an adult, I don't have time to intentionally lie in these conversations. I'm trying to address the problems I see with your positions/theories. Making an intentionally false claim only cuddles the conversation and slows it down.
I don't have time for such nonsense.
In this case let's start with the fact that you regularly make unsupported claims, and I literally just pointed out multiple false claims you've made at Art's.
So that you choose to ignore it when I point out your false claims, that you continue to make false claims after they've been pointed out, and that often make unsupported claims, and that looks like 3 strikes.
To be fair, when I point out the fact that you make unsupported claims, I'm simply pointing out that you rarely offer any direct, specific, support outside of yourself. In other words, you simply repeating your claim or announcing "I said..." isn't support. Support involves referring to someone who's not you or your vaunted Reason.
Lie number 1. "What I'm talking about IS when people conflate a scriptural passage that they select and say, "THUS, we know that this is the will of God!" wherein they literally conflate THEIR opinion of how that Scripture is interpreted WITH God's Word."
Lie number 2. Where Craig says, "Let God speak for God's self," what he inevitably means (and here, you fellas can feel free to clarify if I'm mistaken) is that in the passages where there is a direct quote from God or Jesus or a human biblical author which they personally approve of in their human tradition - for instance, "there is NO ONE good, no not one..." or "Man shall not lie with man, if they do, kill them..." - then in THOSE cases, you think quoting the verses are just letting God speak for God's self (or Moses speak for God's self, in the Leviticus case).
Lie number 3. BUT, in cases where the direct quote conflicts with your human traditions and opinions - for instance, "I have come to preach good news to the poor..." or "Blessed are you who are poor... Woe to you who are rich..." - In THOSE cases, you think some interpretation, reinterpretation and clarifying of "God's Words" is needed. You can't just interpret those words at face value. You can't let "God speak
When you presume to speak for me, and then proceed to make some bullshit up that I've never said, pretend as if I've actually said your made up shit (never any quotes of me saying your made up shit), and ignore my repeated attempts to correct you, you've moved past making "mistakes" into intentionally lying.
When you say "Y'all are saying" you are making it clear that you believe that you are accurately communicating what we've actually said. That you choose this tactic, instead of quoting me, makes it clear that you're just trying to cover your ass while you make up bullshit.
By all means, stop the nonsense. Stop the unsupported claims, stop making lies up and pretending that your lies represent what I've said, stop the condescending and graceless bullshit. I'd love for you to stop the nonsense.
Craig falsely claimed...
"and I literally just pointed out multiple false claims you've made at Art's."
And yet, you didn't. I just went and re-read. IF you seriously think I made an unsupported claim or said something false about your position... CITE it. Quote my words.
For instance, when you falsely claimed that I haven't made my "biblical case" for why I believe that God would support gay folks marrying. I literally restated my case, again.
That you disagree with my interpretations doesn't mean I haven't explained my reasoning. Biblical and rational.
In short, again...
1. God is described by various Biblical authors as being loving, of loving humanity, of wanting the best for us.
2. People entering into marriage arrangements ARE experiencing great, loving, helpful life-affirming lives. It's good for at least many of us, gay or straight.
3. Therefore, IF God truly is loving and just, then why wouldn't God support marriages, gay or straight?
That IS a case based upon Biblical rationales.
Craig falsely claimed...
"and I literally just pointed out multiple false claims you've made at Art's."
And yet, you didn't. I just went and re-read. IF you seriously think I made an unsupported claim or said something false about your position... CITE it. Quote my words.
For instance, when you falsely claimed that I haven't made my "biblical case" for why I believe that God would support gay folks marrying. I literally restated my case, again.
That you disagree with my interpretations doesn't mean I haven't explained my reasoning. Biblical and rational.
In short, again...
1. God is described by various Biblical authors as being loving, of loving humanity, of wanting the best for us.
2. People entering into marriage arrangements ARE experiencing great, loving, helpful life-affirming lives. It's good for at least many of us, gay or straight.
3. Therefore, IF God truly is loving and just, then why wouldn't God support marriages, gay or straight?
That IS a case based upon Biblical rationales.
Lie number 4. Even in the Leviticus example I cited, you'll suggest (this requires some interpretation and extrapolation on your part) that God (Moses) truly meant that "men should not lie with men" SHOULD be taken as God being opposed to any and all "gay behavior," including gay guys marrying,
Lie number 5. but in the latter half of the verse (if they do, kill them!), you DON'T think God is issuing a universal rule.
Lie number 6. The key difference is that I acknowledge my opinion is my opinion whereas you all like to pretend that you can speak for God on this matter.
Lies, false witness, straw men, bullshit, made up shit, whatever you want to call the preceding, none of them accurately represents anything I've said, and all of them are "unsupported claims".
Perhaps, the problem is more abut your unwillingness to hold yourself to the standards you demand of others.
I regularly point out your false claims, by responding to them and pointing them out in the comments immediately following your claims, I usually quote you and respond, although not always.
I literally quoted 6 examples from the last 20 comments at Art's.
That you've offered some "explanation" grounded entirely in your hunches and vaunted Reason and supported by nothing outside of yourself.
The problem is that 2 and 3 are assumptions based on you vaunted Reason, preconceptions, prejudices, and biases. It's a case based on your assumptions based on some vague, cherry picked, proof texts, taken out of context and made to fit your hunches. As you cannot offer one bit of specific, direct, Biblical evidence to support your leaps of logic, it's an unsupported claim to say that your case is "Biblical".
For some reason Dan thinks that posting the same comment twice is some sort of validation of his hunches, or something.
Dan, I'll make a suggestion to you, as it may help.
From now on, why don't you stop with paraphrasing what you think I mean, and stop guessing about what we mean. Start by actually finding/copying/pasting the exact quote you are referring to, (preferably with a link for context) and responding to our exact words. Stop playing your little semantic games where you make some shit up, act as if it represents what I've said, then tacking on some little CYA bit at the end. Show some integrity, deal with my actual words, and stop the games.
Apologize for your actions, and move forward being better and more specific. It's really not that hard, I have faith that you can do it.
Craig finally was clear about his concerns. He offered as a "lie" from me...
Lie number 1. "What I'm talking about IS when people conflate a scriptural passage that they select and say, "THUS, we know that this is the will of God!" wherein they literally conflate THEIR opinion of how that Scripture is interpreted WITH God's Word."
So, perhaps you're not understanding what I'm saying.
A. WHEN a human looks at Leviticus 19 ("men shall not lie with men")
B. AND when that human reasons ("that rule given to the Israel people at a specific time and place must be a condemnation of all homosexual activity")
C. THEN that human has reasoned out a position for himself that the text does not say. Indeed, the text literally is NOT speaking universally but is literally specifically speaking of a rule given specifically to Israel.
With me so far? Where is the "lie" in any of that? It's literally an observation based upon the facts of what people are theorizing.
The problems of this personal human opinion are...
D. It is literally a personal human opinion. It's not a fact, at all. God has NOT told that human that God is opposed to any instance of homosexual activity. It's literally observably something that human reasoned out for himself.
E. It's not the ONLY way to consider such a text.
i. We could rightly note, for instance, that it was a rule given specifically to Israel. Indeed, you all APPEAR (don't want to "lie") to agree that the "If they do, Kill them!" part WAS time and place-specific, right?
ii. We could also hold the opinion that the OT is full of all kinds of rules, some of which are overtly evil, as we understand morality today (selling your children, raping women, forcing rape victims to marry their rapist, killing babies, etc, etc) and thus, that there is a line in the Bible with a rule given to a specific people does not mean it is a morally correct rule in all times and places - or maybe not anywhere.
With me so far? I've stated no lies. I've made observations based upon the data and those observations have been simply factual. If any of them are NOT factual, by all means, show me which one and explain how.
F. And thus, when people USE THEIR REASON to read into that a passage, they are literally forming an opinion that they can't prove (at least in this case). It's a subjective human interpretation, NOT an objectively proven fact.
G. And, finally, when they take that subjective human opinion and state, "Thus, this rule against all gay behavior is something that GOD insists upon. GOD disapproves of gay guys marrying..." When they do that, they are just factually, literally, objectively conflating their human opinion with God's Word, claiming, as Marshal literally does, that he can't be mistaken on that point and it IS God's Word that gay guys shouldn't marry. That is literally conflating opinion with proven fact.
Where is the lie?
How am I mistaken?
This is good that you gave some specific examples. It provides an opportunity for learning and understanding. Educate me where I've failed to understand. Or, conversely, admit that none of this is a lie. Maybe even humbly apologize.
I certainly will should you prove that I've lied someway (although, again, at best, I've made a mistake... I just literally haven't knowingly made a false claim, because, why would I?)
The "Rules" given literally and specifically to ancient Israel include:
Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period (this regularly happens today... is it universally morally wrong??)
Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight (this regularly happens today... is it universally morally wrong??)
Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. (Dang. That covers a LOT of territory. Must this be taken literally and woodenly... I mean, driving cars endangers our neighbors' lives regularly. Polluting endangers our neighbors' lives! Universal rule or no?)
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. (Very common. Shall we stone those farmers and gardeners who flagrantly disrespect God by ignoring this literal rule?)
Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. (Universal rule? Are you immoral in this regards, Craig?)
When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. (Again, dang. Bad news for the GOP if this is a universal rule from God. They must really hate God!)
Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. (Universal?)
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable... (is this a universal condemnation of all homosexual acts, including in marriage relationships?)
...They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (The second half of the last command. Also universal?)
You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. (Do you do this, sinner man?)
Now, in a world with conservatives/traditionalists who hold to human traditions that Lev 20:13 is (at least partially) why we can "know" that God opposed two gay guys marrying, and yet, not ALL the Levitical rules are considered universally moral or reasonable... here are some reasonable questions to ask:
Are all these universal moral rules?
Presumably, you'd say No.
Which ones are?
How do you know? Based on whose authority?
Is it the case that you know objectively which rules are and aren't universal, or is it merely your opinion, one that you find reasonable, but are glad to acknowledge you can't prove in any objective manner?
Craig:
From now on, why don't you stop with paraphrasing what you think I mean, and stop guessing about what we mean.
Because that's not productive and that's not how adult conversations happen. I THINK you are saying (based on nearly 20 years of conversations with you) that you think God is opposed to any kind of gay or lesbian expression.
Am I wrong?
That's an adept way of clarifying that position. What's wrong with asking it that way? Especially in instances where you have been vague or unclear (which seems to me to be quite regular with you).
Further, based on all these conversations, I THINK you think that you "know" as a fact - even as an objective fact - that God is opposed to gay folk marrying. But am I understanding you correctly? I can find out by asking you and that's a simple, clear and direct way of finding out. So, why don't you tell me?
What's wrong with handling it that way?
And, as far as that goes, why don't you quite paraphrasing what you think I mean because in my case, you get it wrong - sometimes completely backwards wrong - what must be like a wide majority of the time?
Along those lines, you just said on Marshal's blog:
So, when you claim that "God blesses gay marriage." in a definitive way, you are not saying (in effect) "THUS we know that this is the will of God." when it's really just your made up hunch unsupported by scripture.
Because what I'm talking about (something that you in your hubris seem unconcerned about, because what Dan is "talking about" is the only thing that matters) is quoting scripture and acknowledging that it means what it says.
Yet "Your opinions" are somehow exempt from this bullshit you impose on others.
1. I have NEVER said that my opinions are exempt from the ideals I propose for you. The distinction more likely is: YOU ALL make fact claims wherein Marshal says clearly and you SOUND like you think you know as an objective fact that God is opposed to gay folk marrying.
IF you're making that as an objective fact claim (even when you clearly objectively can NOT objectively prove it as a fact), then the onus is on you to either prove it objectively OR have the grace and humility to admit you can't prove it objectively.
How is that unreasonable?
On the other hand, when I state my opinion that it's internally rational and consistent that IF one believes in a loving, just God who wants the best for humanity (as I do) then of course, it's reasonable that God would celebrate two people enjoying the bliss of marriage - gay or straight.
It's an opinion that I'm stating, but it's a rational opinion, given that premise. But just as with your opinion, it's not one we can objectively prove.
And so, the difference is the difference between making an objective fact claim and stating what one considers a reasonable - if not provable in an objective manner - opinion.
The person who makes a fact claim is beholden to proving it if they can or admitting if they can't.
Do you admit that you can't objectively prove that God opposes the joy of gay folks marrying?
How can I know unless I ask directly and you answer directly?
2. And, as noted, I have supported my opinion with Scripture. Even if you disagree with the reasoning, do you understand how and where I supported it with Scripture?
Craig:
Apologize for your actions, and move forward being better and more specific.
WHAT actions? Again, unless you say clearly whatever in the name of all that is holy and reasonable what it is you're alluding to, HOW can I know what you're talking about?
If I have misunderstood your positions, ALL you have to do is say, "Dan, when you say that I know as an objective fact that God opposes gay guys marrying, that is NOT my position..." and I'll know where my error was. But vague comments about some unspecified "actions" tell me nothing.
act as if it represents what I've said, then tacking on some little CYA bit at the end. Show some integrity, deal with my actual words
For instance, here. CYA? What does that mean? WHEN have I "tacked on" some "little CYA bit..."??? (Googling, I see that you probably mean "cover your ass..." but even so, what does THAT mean in the context of this conversation.
What "shit" have I "made up..."?
You really need to try to be more clear if you want to be understood, AND be willing to understand if you're NOT clear and don't answer questions directly, that people are not going to understand you perfectly well AND if we don't understand you, then it's reasonable for us to ask clarifying questions as in, "It SEEMS you're saying X... but you tell me."
Craig, in the original post, made wholly unsupported claims, saying:
Given that the author of this claim prides themselves on how spectacularly rational they are, yet also makes "stupidly false claims"
1. I have never said anything to suggest that I believe that I, myself, am "spectacularly rational," nor can I think of any words I've used that would make anyone think that I thought I was somehow uniquely rational, much less "spectacularly" so.
2. I DO strive to make rational conclusions based on the known data, to the best of my ability. I DO think this is how we should strive to be and think as adult citizens. Do you disagree? I suspect that you'd have to agree, but you tell me.
3. Believing in adults making decisions based upon reasoning (and moral reasoning, to be clear) does not say that I think I'm spectacularly rational. It's just, well, rational, isn't it?
4. You have yet to prove I've made any false claims, much less a "stupidly" false claim. That's certainly nothing you've proven yet, either. But I've already addressed that.
While I'm patiently waiting for you to have a chance to catch up, I'll go ahead and address your notion of me having lied (and yet, you've not proven it). You cited this claim from me as a lie, but you haven't said HOW it's a lie:
Lie number 2. Where Craig says, "Let God speak for God's self," what he inevitably means (and here, you fellas can feel free to clarify if I'm mistaken) is that in the passages where there is a direct quote from God or Jesus or a human biblical author which they personally approve of in their human tradition - for instance, "there is NO ONE good, no not one..." or "Man shall not lie with man, if they do, kill them..." - then in THOSE cases, you think quoting the verses are just letting God speak for God's self (or Moses speak for God's self, in the Leviticus case).
1. First of all, I said, "FEEL FREE TO CLARIFY." In the English language and modern communication, that indicates an humble admission that maybe I'm misunderstanding and you can clarify. Therefore, it's not stated as a proven claim, but rather, as "this is what it sounds like you're saying... tell me if I'm mistaken."
2. And what AM I saying that it seems like you are saying?
is that in the passages where there is a direct quote from God or Jesus or a human biblical author which they personally approve of in their human tradition - for instance, "there is NO ONE good, no not one..."
How is that a mistaken claim?
A. You DO tend to think that the passage cited (no one good) is an indication that God thinks no one is good. Am I mistaken on your theory on that point?
B. That theory IS part of your human evangelical tradition, is it not? Your tradition teaches the innate "fallen" nature of humanity and think that no human IS good. Am I mistaken on your theory on that point?
C. So, I'm having a hard time seeing what is the "lie..." in question (much less a "stupidly false claim...")? You CAN see how I'd tend to think that humans in the conservative evangelical tradition would gather that y'all think there are no good humans, right? You CAN see how I've come to believe YOU believe that, right?
D. At a guess (and truly, I CAN'T know unless you clarify and tell me), I'm guessing you think it's a "lie" where I say
"...where there is a direct quote from God or Jesus or a human biblical author
which they personally approve of in their human tradition
- for instance, "there is NO ONE good, no not one..."
Is it the case that you think that phrasing is unfair somehow? That you don't believe there are no humans who are good because it's what you all believe in that human tradition?
That is my best guess as to what you could even vaguely consider a "lie," and GUESSING is what I have to do because you are not saying what the Lie is. Is it the case you'd prefer I'd said, "They believe that there are NO good humans NOT because it's what their human tradition teaches, but it's what makes most biblical sense to them in that human tradition? If that's it, fair enough, I could have been more precise in my language. IF that's it and I was not precise enough in my language, then I apologize for that. It certainly was no deliberate lie. It's me trying to communicate a lot of ideas in a short amount of words.
Let me know if that's it and I can directly apologize. If that's NOT it, then you're going to have to clarify WHERE the Lie lies. I can't know unless you say.
Craig's theoretical "lie 3..." which he has yet to support...
Lie number 3. BUT, in cases where the direct quote conflicts with your human traditions and opinions - for instance, "I have come to preach good news to the poor..." or "Blessed are you who are poor... Woe to you who are rich..." - In THOSE cases, you think some interpretation, reinterpretation and clarifying of "God's Words" is needed. You can't just interpret those words at face value. You can't let "God speak
1. It IS your human opinion that Jesus was not speaking exclusively, specifically of the poor and marginalized when he announced his ministry, is it not? And you DO tend to agree with Marshal that the Lukan "Blessed are you who are poor" is best interpreted through the Matthean, "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." and that it's not necessarily speaking directly of/to the poor, am I right?
2. Or otherwise, there ARE passages that you think are best understood as more metaphorical in your own personal human opinion, in line with the human traditions you adhere to, am I mistaken? When Jesus commands us to not store up treasures on earth, you don't think that is a command to not have a savings account (literally storing up treasures here on earth), right?
There are passages which you think are best understood metaphorically, I believe you believe (and rightly so). That's all that comment is saying. So, where is the lie in that?
Really, excellent job of obfuscating and trying to take the discussion off topic. There are ample resources where you can find answers to your questions form people much more well educated than I.
That you have some questions that you believe to be subjectively "reasonable" is great for you. Do your own research, find the answers.
None of this is on the topic of the post, therefore I see no reason to indulge you in this off topic nonsense.
Really, in your subjective little world you really think that paraphrasing (inaccurately) based on your subjective hunches, guessing about what people mean, and arguing against those straw men is how "adult conversations happen".
Yes, you're wrong. That you're more interested in validating your straw man version of my position than in actually quoting me and asking direct questions indicates that you have little interest in anything but indulging your fantasies.
Again, I'll try to be clear. Stick with actual quotes from me and ask direct questions if those are unclear. Much like I regularly do with you. I do occasionally express generalizations about what you appear to believe, when I do I make it clear that I am NOT attributing my generalization to you. That you get offended and defensive over being asked to prove that your claims about what I believe are True by providing quotes, is hilarious.
1. You are correct, you've never said that. Yet you regularly demand that other provide levels of "proof" that you rarely (if ever) provide for your claims. Actions speak louder than words.
It's not unreasonable, if/when I make and "objective fact claim" I have no problem providing evidence. The problem is that you rarely if ever do what you demand of others. While phrasing your "opinions" as if they were objective claims of fact.
The problem is that you rarely state your claims as an opinion. When you say "God blesses gay marriage.", that is not stated as an opinion. This is why I rarely respond to your statements where you are clear that it's your opinion. Since it's merely your opinion, based on your subjective reasoning, I have no reason to waste much time on those statements. They have no value and contribute nothing to a conversation. So I usually ignore them, unless I point out their lack of value.
Thank you for making my point. When you start providing the same levels of proof of your fact claims as you demand from others, then I might take you more seriously.
2. You have not supported your hunch with anythnig that directly and specifically references the topic. You've strung together some eisegesis of some random, cherry picked, out of context, proof texts, and simply assumed that they "support" your hunch.
Craig evaded reasonable questions, saying:
Do your own research, find the answers.
That's just it, son. I've looked. For 40 years I've looked. There ARE no rational, biblically sound answers to these questions. There quite literally is NO authoritative rubric or guide for telling us which rules are universal and which are not. There is NO authoritative person or group of people who objectively know or have ANY objective rubric for sorting these questions out.
That's just exactly the problem, my man. IF it existed and I haven't found it (it's possible, I'm one finite human), then ALL you have to do is point to the rubric. That would be a huge, universally impacting bit of groundbreaking bit of news in the worlds of ethics, morality and biblical studies. IF it's out there and somehow eluded me, then MAYBE it hasn't eluded you.
The fact that you don't even TRY to address it is indeed evidence that this Holy Rubric does not exist in the real world. It's just another grail search that has no end point.
Tell me this, then, and seriously: IF there were a rubric to authoritatively KNOW which rules are objectively universal and which are not, don't you think that would be information that is freely available and widespread?
Why the arcane secrecy about something as important as morality? I can tell you:
1. Because it doesn't exist.
2. And it doesn't exist because the Bible is not a rulings book where we can go to get authoritative, objectively proven moral rules and guidelines. It never makes that claim of itself (indeed, it makes NO claims of itself, just being a book of books, and all, and not a reasoning entity, itself) because that's not what it is.
Look, it's fine to admit, "You know, the plain reality is that we have no authoritative rubric or person or scale on which to objectively measure morality... but I think we can draw some reasonable moral conclusions..." or something like that. Just admit the reality that the authoritative rubric or source of objective knowledge doesn't exist out there in the world in a publicly available sort of way. It's reality, why not admit it?
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the be more specific canard. Especially amusing given your complete lack of specificity in regards to what I've actually said as opposed to what you invented and claimed I've said. Again with the double standard.
I don't know how much more clear I can be than quoting your actual words and explaining that your made up hunches about what you think I might mean are wrong. This is on you at this point.
Your" actions" are the lies you repeat, and your hypocrisy in holding yourself to a different standard than you demand of others. I've been clear on this for years.
I've posted your quotes, which you've made up. I point out your made up shit contemporaneously when you comment. I'm not going to waste any more time digging up the bullshit lies you've told, when I've already pointed them out.
When you repeat lies, after being corrected, it's no longer a mistake. It's a choice.
1. You constantly refer to yourself as "rational" and refer to your "rational' facilities and "Reason" as the primary source of your hunches. Strangely enough, this is one of those things that your do regularly (snarky mocking of others) and even justify, but get all bent out of shape when others mirror yoru behavior.
2. Yup, you do place all of your faith (when making decisions and drawing conclusions) in you, and your "rational" facilities and your "Reason". It's all about you, which is why none of us takes your conclusions seriously nor expects you to actually prove any of your claims. Because you're clear that your ultimate authority is you.
3. See #2.
4. Well, strangely enough, you haven't proven that Art or I have made any (objectively) "stupidly false claims" either. You you continue to bitch about it.
I believe I copy/pasted 6 claims that you've made recently. All you have to do is prove those claims to be objectively True, and I'll gladly apologize. You haven't even acknowledge them or addressed them, let alone proven them True.
Again, thanks for demonstrating your commitment to one standard for others that you don't demand of yourself.
Craig:
The problem is that you rarely state your claims as an opinion. When you say "God blesses gay marriage.", that is not stated as an opinion. This is why I rarely respond to your statements where you are clear that it's your opinion.
Here is what I'm consistently, clearly saying (although, given that I've repeated it so many times, I do sometimes abbreviate it, but it's always THIS message):
HOWEVER, I'm additionally saying,
GIVEN the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God,
THEN that sort of God would of course approve of people finding comfort and delight in a marriage relationship, gay or straight.
That is, I'm proposing a logical theory:
IF God is loving and wants the best for us,
THEN God would support loving, healthy marriages.
Now, if you disagree with the construct of the theory, you can address that. But it's clearly an opinion, a theory stated as such. Given that I've been repeatedly clear and honest that neither YOU nor I can prove objectively our opinions about what God thinks, then offering reasoned theories is ALL we CAN do. It's all you all do, as well.
The difference is I'm consistently clear that it is a human theory, whereas Marshal (at least) presents it as an object fact that Marshall's theory of God and LGBTQ IS what God thinks.
And that's the difference.
I don't know what you're failing to understand. Claims of objective facts need to be supported by objective data. Theories about unproven, unprovable matters need to be defended with the reasoning behind the theory, but there may be no facts that CAN be proven objectively.
If this is you being patient...
1. That you made a false claim "Where Craig says, "Let God speak for God's self," what he inevitably means" isn't canceled out by your attempt to mitigate the actual claim you made. When you said "what he inevitably means", you are cleraly making a claim of fact which you cannot prove.
So, here's your chance. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you objectively know what I "inevitably mean".
2. You may think that is what you are saying, but the actual words you use do not support your excuse at all. I think that this is your problem. You say definitively "God supports gay marriage.", when you really mean something like "In my personal opinion, I think that God probably supports "gay marriage" in some sense of the term, but I can't be sure.". So, maybe if you are more precise in your claims and more clear about what is your opinion, you'd save everyone a lot of time and effort. FYI, your blanket "Everything I say is my opinion, no matter how definitively I say it" (or whatever) is just a lazy way to avoid saying what you mean and meaning what you say, as you demonstrate above.
This, "Let God speak for God's self," what he inevitably means" is the false claim. This "which they personally approve of in their human tradition" is also a false claim.
Repeating a claim that has been pointed out as false, isn't a "mistake".
A. I do think that the most likely explanation of that (out of context) snippet is that the plain meaning of the text is the actual meaning of the text. I have no reason to conclude that "There is no one good but YHWH" can magically mean that there really are millions of people who are "good" in the manner YHWH is "good". There is nothing in scripture that demands that the statement as made be nullified. Certainly your subjective, personal, anecdotal, small sample size, incomplete, observations don't meet any standard to nullify the plain meaning of the text.
B. The teaching of a fallen, sinful human race in need of a savior is not limited to "my" anything. It's a core teaching of scripture that runs from Alpha to Omega. If by "my human tradition" you mean literally every single significant branch of Christianity (at least those branches that are orthodox) then sure. But your insinuation that the sinful nature of humanity is something invented is simply one more (potentially) false claim. That you distort and mischaracterize what I actually believe on the subject is another matter entirely.
C. Obviously. Fortunately I pointed two of them out in an earlier bullet point.
d. "At a guess" and there's your problem. You make idiotic guesses and turn those assumptions into straw men and argue against those straw men.
I think that the "phrasing" (as pointed out earlier) is "unfair" in the sense that it is a falsehood that you have attributed to me. I do think that it's "unfair" to choose to lie about people, as well as being a sin and against a commandment of YHWH. Feel free to brush this off as a "mistake" or a "minor" sin if you want to.
What a bizarre notion. That you are somehow forced to guess and make shit up instead of simply asking. You had the option to ask for specifics, wait patiently (as I'm only one man with a limited amount of time to invest in answering your questions), and let me answer your simple direct question.
Instead you chose to guess about what I meant, turn those guesses into straw men, then waste time constructing arguments against the straw men based on your guesses.
That you're impatient and arrogant isn't my problem.
Craig:
You constantly refer to yourself as "rational" and refer to your "rational' facilities and "Reason" as the primary source of your hunches.
A. As a point of fact, I AM rational. YOU are rational. That's one of the gifts of humanity is that we humans are reasoning, rational human beings. We are able to look at data and claims and weigh that data/those claims rationally and evaluate them as reasoning adults.
Where am I mistaken in that? Is recognizing that I'm a reasoning adult - and appealing to YOU all as reasoning adults - somehow indicative that I think I am "spectacularly rational..."? IF so, how do you form this theory?
B. And our reasoning IS how we sort out various claims and phenomena. Along with our observations - our sight, hearing, etc - these are how humans are able to form opinions.
We can find an ancient text, for instance, and if it's in a language we can read, we can try to make sense of that ancient text USING our reasoning. That's again a trait common to humanity.
* Using our reasoning, we can find a text that refers to the "four corners of the earth."
* Using our reasoning and observational skills, we can see that the planet, Earth, is NOT square.
* Using our reasoning and textual clues, we can recognize that writers and storytellers throughout history have used metaphors and figurative language.
* GIVEN all of that, using our reasoning, we can reach the conclusion: The author was almost certainly not suggesting the earth was square. He was probably speaking metaphorically. OR, if he thought the earth was square, he was simply mistaken.
We all use our reasoning to make sense of texts and textual clues and physical clues on this globular planet.
Where am I mistaken?
Are you suggesting you do NOT use your reasoning to try to sort out (in this case) textual clues and determine greater meanings in biblical texts? Indeed, is your reasoning NOT your primary source for forming your personal hunches on biblical texts?
If not, what is? Your taste? Your blind trust in what other humans have speculated?
You see, because I believe you to be a reasoning and rational adult (like me), I am sure you are using your reasoning to form these opinions that you express with your written words. It's not, therefore, some unique quality that I have to use my reasoning.
AND THUS, using our reasoning, since I haven't SAID that I have a singular spectacular ability to reason and since I clearly treat you all, along with myself, as reasoning adults (truly, I wouldn't bother commenting if I didn't think you were reasonable. Think about it!), then we can reasonably deduce that this claim of yours is a mistaken one. False, if you will. Not that you necessarily intended to make a false claim, but more likely, you got caught up in the heat of discussions. But again, you tell me.
Do you see that you have no reason for the false accusation that I think I am "spectacularly rational..."?
No, Craig chose not to indulge your obsession with off topic bullshit and waste time answering questions to which answers are readily available. Craig, unlike Dan, understand that this is my blog and that I am not bound to chase Dan's rabbits down their holes or accede to his every demand.
That's quite a claim "There are no rational and biblically sound answers...", I eagerly await the proof of this claim (at your blog, not here).
What's interesting is your use of the term "rational" as a qualifier to "biblical". That you demand that the "biblical" answer be subject to your subjective hunches about what is "rational" leads me to suspect that there are plenty of "biblical" answers that don't meet your subjective "rational" standard.
"The fact that you don't even TRY to address it"
This is simply a lie. Maybe it's a lie of omission, but it's a lie nonetheless. That I did not choose to address your off topic foray in to a subject I've addressed many times and a subject which is addressed frequently in other forums, doesn't mean that I haven't addressed it or haven't "tried" to address it elsewhere.
"is indeed evidence that this Holy Rubric does not exist in the real world."
That I chose not to address your off topic bullshit is evidence of one thing and one thing only. It's evidence that I'm not going to indulge you in your off topic bullshit. Nothing more. If you want to make these fanciful, bullshit claims, you do you. Just be prepared to prove them.
"It's just another grail search that has no end point."
Well, if Dan says so then it must be True. All of the actual, educated, theologians and scholars should just stop their work because Dan knows with 100% certainty that there is "no end point". Just one more unproven claim.
Holy crap you are on the high horse of your arrogance today.
Given that I've addressed "morality" with you for tens of thousands of word over an extended period of time, and you throw out this bullshit because I won't bow to your demands in a post where "morality" is not the topic. How about you just shut the hell up.
1. Again this claim that you know this with 100% certainty is quite the display of hubris.
2. If you can't provide a quote from me where I claim that the Bible is a "rulings book", stop using the term.
I get it, you have nothing but lies, obfuscation, and going off topic, I'm not going too indulge your childish desire for control here. Do this shit at your blog where I'm not welcome.
1. To start, it is YOUR "human opinion" that Jesus was speaking primarily/only/exclusively/whatever to the "poor and marginalized" (strangely enough we don't find "marginalized" in the text at all). As you have not proven that your "human opinion" is 100% objectively True, that leaves plenty of room for a more expansive or less restrictive view. I'm not suggesting that those not "poor and marginalized" be excluded from your "gospel", I'm suggesting that The Gospel is much more expansive and inclusive than you seem to.
Yes, to ignore or minimize the Matthew passage seems foolish. To choose to focus on a more limited/restrictive eisegesis rather than a less limited/restrictive exegesis seems problematic. The difference is that my conclusion doesn't suggest that your conclusion is objectively wrong, merely that its exclusive/limiting and at odds with the rest of scripture.
2. Again, as you cherry pick passages because they line up with your human opinions, it seems strange that you would find that good when you do it and bad when others do it. As for me, I try very hard to align my "human opinions" with scripture and not the other way around. If there is a conflict between my "human opinion" and scripture I will adjust my "human opinion" to conform with scripture. In you (additional) off topic example, and based on scripture as a whole, it seems to be a mistake to take that simplistic approach to that cherry picked snippet. If one looks at the context (the farmer arrogantly and pridefully taking credit for his success) it seems more likely that the problem was his attitude, not his actions.
The lie in all of that is that you are treating what you "believe" that I "believe" as if your belief/guess/hunch is factual and are turning your belief into a straw man and arguing against the straw man, rather than anything I've actually said.
For the record, there are OBVIOUSLY passages in scripture that are metaphoric. Just as there are passages of law, poetry, prophecy, wisdom, history, and other genres. When it comes to metaphor, it's important to note that there is a purpose to the metaphor. Metaphor is used to communicate Truth in a way that is more accessible to the hearer/reader. To simply say that something is "metaphor" as if the intent or meaning is of no consequence because it's metaphor is idiotic.
Both metaphor and parables in scripture (prophecy as well in some cases) are used to communicate some Truth using a fictional story.
Thank you for making my point, I always appreciate it when you do that.
Yes, you've taken your "theory" and "abbreviate" it in a way that substantially alters the meaning of your "theory".
"God blesses gay marriage" is a direct specific claim about God's actual behavior.
"HOWEVER, I'm additionally saying,
GIVEN the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God,
THEN that sort of God would of course approve of people finding comfort and delight in a marriage relationship, gay or straight."
The above is simply your hunch based on cherry picking some out of context snippets of scripture and stringing them together to fit your narrative. It's full of equivocation and weasel words. Mostly the first claim grounds the conclusion in "God", the second grounds the conclusion in Dan. And that is an infinite difference. Saying "God does X" as opposed to "I think that maybe God might agree with my hunch and could possibly act this way." are to entirely different things. The sad thing is that you might not even understand what you've done.
Yes, the SECOND (edited/curated) version of your claim IS stated as a hunch. The problem is that you had to do that because you know that the first version "God blesses gay marriage" is a huge overstatement and you trying to speak for YHWH.
Yes, claims of objective facts do need to be supported by objective data. The problem is that you having a "theory" or a "guess" isn't objective data. You making limited observations of a small sample of people isn't objective data. You not providing objective data to prove your objective claims while demanding that others do so, is the problem.
The fact that you've unilaterally decided to exclude some scripture as objective data in this context is another thing entirely.
Now, I've got stuff to do that is infinitely more important than satisfying your impatient demands. So, chill out.
I missed this. I'll simply note that Dan chose to jump to conclusions about what the lies were, made those conclusions into straw men, bravely confronted and vanquished the straw men, all while arguing with himself.
I don't even need to bother, Dan's going to make shit up if I don't and argue against that.
Blah, blah, blah, look how "rational" and "reasonable" I am.
The problem with all of this self serving, puffery is that it's all subjective. Dan believes, based on his beliefs and not much else, that he's "rational" and "reasonable" therefore he concludes that he and all of his opinions are magically "rational" and "reasonable", and can be treated as somehow an objective measure of "reasonable" and "rational".
Again, I understand that your snark detector is selective, but listen to yourself go on and on about you and your Reason and your Rationality and you and you and you. Talk about a narcissist.
Craig:
To start, it is YOUR "human opinion" that Jesus was speaking primarily/only/exclusively/whatever to the "poor and marginalized" (strangely enough we don't find "marginalized" in the text at all). As you have not proven that your "human opinion" is 100% objectively True, that leaves plenty of room for a more expansive or less restrictive view.
1. To start, Jesus literally said that he'd come to preach good news to the poor, healing for the sick, liberty for the captive... THOSE are the literal groups that Jesus literally referred to as Jesus' reason to come to Earth. I'm "letting Jesus speak for himself..." in your words. IN THE TEXT, Jesus literally cited THOSE people as the people he'd come to preach good news to.
1a. Side note: "marginalized," ie... as repeatedly pointed out, the sick and imprisoned, the foreigners and orphans, ALL of these groups are literally marginalized and were especially so in Jesus' day. I've made it quite clear what I mean by Marginalized is literally what is spoken of in the text.
2. Again, I've been 100% clear that we can not declare objectively, authoritatively what Jesus' intent was. But in THIS case - in the context of the Jesus who repeatedly spoke of the rich and the poor as literal groups he was dealing with, in the context of literally, actually dealing with the rich and poor - we have no textual reason whatsoever to presume that Jesus was speaking of the metaphorically poor... or, "but in addition, it's also OTHER people..." There's nothing in the specific or greater texts to make it suggest he's speaking metaphorically.
3. So, in absence of objective proof of Jesus' intent, we COULD suppose he intended it more expansively... maybe he also meant the rich and the oppressors when he said the poor and marginalized... MAYBE he meant puppy rapers and child eaters... but the text does not support that and certainly doesn't demand it.
In other words, even though neither you nor I can objectively prove God's or Jesus' intent, we can make REASONABLE assumptions (there it is again, us using our reason - as we must... God didn't give it to us to piss upon and that's what I'm doing there.
Where am I mistaken?
And while we're at this: Since I do not KNOW your position but since you push back on it when I speak of Jesus' repeated mention of the rich and the poor, do you think that Jesus meant, in Luke 4, that Jesus intended to suggest, "I've come to preach good news to the poor SPIRITUALLY, the sick and imprisoned METAPHORICALLY..." and not specifically the poor and marginalized? Do you think he meant just what he said, but that it ALSO had greater implications... not JUST the poor, but also, those who are humble and those who are imprisoned and sickened BY SIN... that this was Jesus' actual intentions?
If so, how did you reason that out?
Craig...
As you have not proven that your "human opinion" is 100% objectively True, that leaves plenty of room for a more expansive or less restrictive view.
As you have not proven that your human opinion (which it literally is, of course) that God opposes gay folks getting married or that in Leviticus 20, that the command had a more universal intention that any and all homosexual and lesbian actions are opposed by God, does that also leave plenty of room for a more expansive, more morally rational and just and less presumptuous and restrictive view?
Does the absence of proof in dealing with a human opinion leave room for other views?
Or is that only true when the conservatives have an opinion other than a literal reading?
Craig:
For the record, there are OBVIOUSLY passages in scripture that are metaphoric.
Obviously. That's not in dispute. CLEARLY, the early books of Genesis are written in a more mythic, literal "world building" style. Clearly, Revelations is written in a rather loopy, WTF kind of vision is this! style. Clearly the prophets speaking consistently against the rich and powerful and in favor of the poor and oppressed is written in a prophetic style, etc.
Which is why the question of the Holy Rubric or some system of saying "What's metaphor and what's not? What, if anything, is a universal rule and what is not? HOW do we know? Who has the authority to decide, using their human reasoning?" is so important.
Failing having an authoritative rubric, are we not ALL using our God-given (but flawed and imperfect) reasoning to form opinions and theories that are ultimately often not provable?
As you said in your own words:
As you have not proven that your "human opinion" is 100% objectively True, that leaves plenty of room for a more expansive or less restrictive view.
Without an authoritative source, does that not leave plenty of room for differing opinions (which may sometimes be of greater and lesser validity)?
I'd love to know your answer.
Help me understand:
Do you, Craig, personally know objectively what is and isn't moral on all topics? (I presume your answer is a resounding NO, but you tell me).
Do you, Craig, personally know objectively whether or not God is opposed to gay folks marrying?
That God is opposed to folks being transgender?
That God supports the use of atomic bombs and other large scale destruction and slaughter of hundreds (hundreds of thousands??) of innocent people, sometimes? ...That indeed, sometimes that widescale slaughter is a MORAL option?
What do you know about morality as an objective fact and how do you know it objectively? Especially in the absence of any Holy Rubric?
Craig dodges answering rational, respectful questions and instead, says in his most adult voice...
Blah, blah, blah, look how "rational" and "reasonable" I am.
Dan believes, based on his beliefs and not much else, that he's "rational" and "reasonable" therefore he concludes that he and all of his opinions are magically "rational" and "reasonable", and can be treated as somehow an objective measure of "reasonable" and "rational".
I believe that humans are rational. Period. Nearly all humans (there are some relatively few with psychological or medical conditions which may severely limit their reasoning capacity) are able to use their reason to make decisions based upon the data they have available to them.
I base that upon the available data and research and that it's a fairly foregone conclusion. I'll note additionally that the Bible speaks of humans having that of God in them, that humans are morally reasoning creatures (do you need me to point them out to you or are you familiar with them?). I don't believe that humans are morally reasoning creatures because there's a line in the Bible, I believe it based upon the evidence. But it's ALSO spoken of in the Bible and affirmed by reality.
You're not seriously suggesting that humans are NOT endowed with the gift of reason?
Do you suspect that YOU don't have reasoning capacity??
I can't know unless you tell me directly. But this seems like a strange attack on well-established reality. Indeed, I'd say objective reality.
I had said, quite sincerely:
While I'm patiently waiting for you to have a chance to catch up, I'll go ahead and address your notion of me having lied
And then I answered some of the questions you raised, to give you a chance to catch up without adding any pressure to you. There were/are still more questions you asked, but I didn't want to overwhelm you with too many answers, NOR did I want to not answer and give you a reason to say, "But you're not answering..." There was literally nothing of impatience or rushing in it. Just me, telling you to take your time and me saying I'm patiently waiting. Literally.
Craig responded...
If this is you being patient...
That you're impatient and arrogant isn't my problem.
? I TELL you directly just what I meant, saying clearly that I'm "patiently waiting" and YOU took that to mean that... I was being IMpatient? (and arrogant, to boot)??
??
If you can't read clear and direct words clearly and directly and interpret them to mean just what they mean, maybe you shouldn't have confidence in your reading comprehension with ancient texts? Just saying.
Deeply strange.
Craig:
That you made a false claim
"Where Craig says, "Let God speak for God's self," what he inevitably means"
...isn't canceled out by your attempt to mitigate the actual claim you made. When you said "what he inevitably means", you are cleraly making a claim of fact which you cannot prove.
A reminder of what I actually said, in context:
That you made a false claim
"Where Craig says, "Let God speak for God's self,"
what he inevitably means..."
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
My full context does literally mitigate away from what you read into it. What I actually said was "HERE is what it sounds like you're saying... Correct me if I'm wrong." That's how words and shit work, my friend.
That is NOT a claim of objective fact. You can tell by the way I clearly said "CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG." Correct me if I'm wrong is a direct and clear admission that I COULD BE MISTAKEN. That's literally what it means. If I know a fact, I would not say, "Correct me if I'm mistaken."
If the police officer approaches me in my own car and asks me, "Is that your car!?" I would not say, "Yes, but correct me if I'm mistaken." I'm NOT mistaken about being in my own car. There's no reason for me to say that if it's a given fact.
Seriously, Craig, if you can't understand simple modern words expressed to you in your own language in a modern setting, WHY do you think you're understanding ancient texts in a reliable manner?
Another 5-6 comments with nothing new, no proof of claims, and self serving bullshit.
So, I answer Craig's questions directly, clearly and in a fact-based manner. I ask Craig multiple questions to get him to clarify specifically WHERE I'm mistaken, WHERE I'm wrong... and Craig just ignores the reasonable questions and retreats into more false claims.
Come on, Craig, be better than this. Use your God-given reason and let us reason together. MAKE your case, if you have one. But empty claims of "lies" and attacks/slander that are likewise, unsupported and on the face of it, irrational, and other nonsense is beneath your great capacity of a reasoning Child of God.
OR, do you think that you and all of humanity is capable of reason?
It's a rational question, Craig, and serves as a great starting point. If you have this rather wild theory that humans are NOT reasoning agents, well, that explains a lot and means we need to start at a different starting point.
I've done so, and you've ignore that fact. I'm not in the mood for your petulant, childish, self serving, defensive, obfuscatory, bullshit right now.
Not at all true, since "Biblical rationales" clearly indicate that homosexual behavior is abomination. Period. In the same chapter of Lev 18, God provides "forms" of normal sex which are prohibited, but never labels normal sex as "abomination", "detestable" or "perversion" as he does with homosexual sex or bestiality (the latter of which I mention because like homosexuality, it departs so far from God's intention for human sexuality). No. God doesn't label normal sex that way, but goes through a list of "forms" of normal sex which he prohibits. But for homosexual behavior, He simply says, "Don't do it." There's no list involving homo sex with family members, in-laws, offspring...nothing to suggest any possibly scenario or context in which it would NOT be detestable. Yet, Dan insists that if a couple of perverts are nice to each other, commit themselves to each other for life, that somehow that means their detestable sexual behavior isn't detestable? That's the argument Dan thinks suggests "adult reasoning". It's absurd on its face and Dan is making shit up to legitimize that which can't be legitimized. Then he dares suggest he's basing his laughable defense of perversion on "Biblical rationales"!
Dan provides all this irrelevant stuff as if it absolves him the Christian honesty of admitting there is no context in which homosexuality is not abomination. The start and finish of Lev 18 provides the universality of the prohibitions. NT references to the immorality of the behavior, and that those who indulge will not inherit the Kingdom of God confirm that it is indeed a universal prohibition.
"I THINK you are saying (based on nearly 20 years of conversations with you) that you think God is opposed to any kind of gay or lesbian expression."
This is lie, because after 20 years of conversation it should be clear that we affirm God's prohibition against homosexual behavior in any context. It's not a matter of "thinking" that's God's position, but acknowledging the truth that is most certainly is God's position. If God did not, Dan could provide evidence to that effect which would be overwhelming. I would not continue to affirm that which can be proven false, but I don't affirm what is false in the first place as regards this issue. Dan has nothing upon which to stand in defending abomination. And he'll continue to lie about whether or not we've provided enough compelling evidence against his vile and God-hating position.
"YOU ALL make fact claims wherein Marshal says clearly and you SOUND like you think you know as an objective fact that God is opposed to gay folk marrying."
That's only because all of Scripture compels that conclusion and there exists nothing in Scripture which does not.
You want to think that "a loving God" would bless abomination? How is that loving when more likely He would love to see perverts repent and live in obedience to His Will rather than their own? This "loving God" angle in order to legitimize perversion is perverse itself...an intentional lie. God does NOT operate that way.
"HOWEVER, I'm additionally saying,
GIVEN the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God,
THEN that sort of God would of course approve of people finding comfort and delight in a marriage relationship, gay or straight."
Based on what beyond your own personal desire that it be so? As Christ Himself confirmed, God created us male and female so that we'd come together as one flesh. He said nothing like that about being created so that two of the same sex would come together and debase themselves. This is the reality. God said it, Christ confirmed and affirmed it, and YOU try to pretend that God would regard perversion equally with those who act according to His design. You are such a pervert!
Well said, excellent point about YHWH prescribing limits of heterosexual sex, but simply labeling homosexual sex as an abomination (along with bestiality).
Also, the point that somehow homosexual sex is "sanctified" because two Gs go to a wedding chapel in Vegas is absurd.
That does raise an interesting, though tangentially relevant question.
If marriage is a covenant relationship between a man, a woman, and YHWH, then does YHWH regard those "covenant" marriages differently than a civil marriage? What bout a marriage in CO where you can literally have a shrub preside over a marriage ceremony?
God is not to be mocked. People like Dan do it all the time.
No, I'm not "dodging" anything. I'm engaging in snark/sarcasm based on your stock responses. You repeat the same vacuous crap and act like it's something profound.
Again, I get it. You elevate being "rational" to some exalted level even though it is a subjective measure and not consistent.
No, I'm not. I am suggesting that our flawed, imperfect, fallen, sinful, "rational" abilities are not the final arbiter of Truth or of what YHWH has communicated. It's a subjective measurement which is heavily weighted (in your case) toward the things you value. It's hardly something that can be applied across the board.
Consider for a moment, that there are millions of Muslims who believe that it is completely and utterly rational to kill anyone who leaves Islam, and that it is perfectly rational to encase women in head to toe coverings.
No, I do have a reasoning capability, I just don't exalt my reasoning capability beyond it's appropriate place. I certainly don't place a bit of confidence in your reasoning ability.
Of course you don't know, but that doesn't stop you from acting as if you do.
Dan's insistence on a "rubric" requires one which satisfies him. None exist. That is, even if he describes in detail what a "rubric" should look like or provide, he would still come up with some subjective, personally-pleasing crap to dismiss it. If he does it with Scripture, he'd do it with anything, even that which he invents himself, if the result is more evidence he is wrong.
The very fact that you felt it necessary to proclaim that you were "waiting patiently" strongly indicates that you were not doing so.
That you made a specific claim of fact which you then followed with "correct me if I'm wrong" doesn't mean that you didn't make a claim of fact. You just added the CYA "Correct me..." for just these circumstances.
A normal person would have asked a question, and waited for a response. You chose to make a claim, then try to mitigate that reality.
It's a worthy effort, but it seems like a simple acknowledgement of your poor choice and an apology would be more productive than you continuing to justify your choice.
1. The problem is that in focusing on ONE thing that Jesus said, you ignore the rest of what Jesus said about His reason for being here.
1a. I understand you've chosen your word as superior to the actual words Jesus used.
2. Really? What a bizarre notion. It's not as if Jesus was limited to one purpose, and it's not as if we don't have multiple other examples of Jesus stating His purpose that aren't your hunch.
3. Well, if you limit your study of Jesus purpose to your one pet proof text, you might be correct. Unfortunately, we have plenty of context and the words of Jesus, His closest followers, angels, YHWH, and the prophets, instead of just one proof text.
You're mistaken by limiting the texts you choose to use to build your philosophy to only one proof text, that may or may not say what your eisegesis indicates.
No, I do not think that. If you don't know what I do think it's because you either choose not to pay attention or have the memory of a goldfish.
I "reason it out" by looking at the entire scope of scripture as it refers to YHWH's redemptive plan and Jesus' purpose. I follow the text, and choose not to impose limits based on my personal hunches.
TO BE CLEAR, this is simply Dan doing Dan stuff and drowning this thread in off topic repetition of his personal, individual, human hunches. I've chose to show him a bit of grace and to respond to some of the repetitious foolishness. But my showing of grace to him, and indulging his off topic flights of fancy has limits.
"As you have not proven that your human opinion (which it literally is, of course) that God opposes gay folks getting married or that in Leviticus 20, that the command had a more universal intention that any and all homosexual and lesbian actions are opposed by God, does that also leave plenty of room for a more expansive, more morally rational and just and less presumptuous and restrictive view?"
Based on the totality of scripture, as it relates to the topics of marriage, sexual expression, homosexuality, and related topics, I see no way to twist scripture around to your position that "God blesses gay marriage". Accepting the plain meaning of the text, is the opposite of presumptuous. Choosing to eisegete that text and conclude that the text actually mean the total opposite of the plain meaning is incredibly presumptuous.
"Does the absence of proof in dealing with a human opinion leave room for other views?"
There is infinite room for other views. Yet there is not room for infinite or multiple views that inherently conflict to all be correct. You can have whatever bizarre views you want, just stop presuming that your views are correct and that other's views are incorrect.
"Or is that only true when the conservatives have an opinion other than a literal reading?"
As this makes no sense, I'll not waste my time with it.
My grace is running low and I see no reason to waste time with this third comment full of the same old garbage and off topic nonsense.
Art, like so many things Dan insists on, his insistence on a "rubric" is one more example of him excluding things by establishing his own restrictions. In this case, it is highly unlikely that he would accept a "rubric" straight from scripture without smothering us in an endless game of "Did YHWH really...". It doesn't matter what could be offered, he'd find reasons not to accept it, to modify it to his satisfaction, or to insist that it was wrong.
It's like feeding wild animals, if you give him some of what he demands his demands will get increasingly vehement. While it's probably too late, this is where I'm drawing a line in indulging his off topic bullshit.
Craig opined...
Based on the totality of scripture, as it relates to the topics of marriage, sexual expression, homosexuality, and related topics, I see no way to twist scripture around to your position that "God blesses gay marriage".
I get that this is your opinion. I get that you, personally, see no way to, as you phrase it, "twist Scripture" to a degree that you could understand God blessing marriages (gay or straight). That is undoubtedly a factual claim to make that this is your opinion (am I understanding you correctly?)
BUT, it's just as true that I, personally, can see no way to twist either Scripture OR our God-given moral reasoning to the point that we should treat these rules found given to specific people a long time ago, as "God's Word" or to twist it to mean that God would not of course bless loving, healthy, giving, respectful, delightful marriages (gay or straight).
Neither you nor I can see how it's possible to reach the conclusion that the other reaches.
And yet, it IS possible, isn't it?
Given that, dear Craig, what next?
Do we say that one is factually correct and objectively so and the other is objectively wrong? If so, based upon what? Our confidence in our own personal opinions?
Do you think that is reasonable, Godly or biblical?
Do you think these are fair questions? They strike me as essential questions if we're serious about morality and biblical study and the body of Christ.
No, you're not. I am simply pointing out the reality that 100% of the scriptural references to marriage in scripture refer to M/F. I'm simply pointing out that 100% of scriptural references to homosexuality in scripture are negative. I'm simply pointing out that there are 0 references in scripture to "gay marriage" or that refer to homosexuality in a positive or neutral light. That's just reality.
That you can string together some random biblical concepts and twist those into "God blesses gay marriage" is impressive in it's creativity and eisegesis, but that doesn't magically make you correct.
Good for you. Whoopie!!! Your content, apparently, to twist scripture in other ways. The problem is that for you to hold that opinion, you either set aside/re define/eisegete multiple other scriptures to "support" your hunch.
Sure it's possible. People do stupid stuff daily, people regularly twist scripture in hopes of justifying their political/social/moral predilections.
First, unless you're going to apologize for the years of vitriol, ad hom attacks, lies, and condescension, stop with the "dear" bullshit.
Second, since it's highly likely that you're going to continue to repeat yourself ad nauseum, claim that your hunch has "biblical support", spew crap at anyone who disagrees with you, come up with increasingly creative excuses to ignore the plain meaning of the scriptural text, and encourage others to sin, I have no idea. Honestly, I don't really care that much.
Despite how you've treated me at your blog, and you continuing to allow your butt buddy to blatantly lie about me, I choose to allow you to comment here virtually unfettered. I choose to allow your off topic flights of fancy (where you delete anything "off topic") and your vitriol. I show you grace by doing so, and you choose otherwise. I'll stand by what I said about allowing virtually every comment you submit to be posted, when I accidentally delete one, I promptly apologize and ask that you resubmit, and telling you why I might rarely delete or edit one of your comments. Yet you persist in your behavior.
What's next, I simply don't care that much.
Whatever, no matter what I say, you'll make shit up about it or misrepresent my words, even flat out lie about what I've said, so why should I care?
Of course they strike you as paragons of Reason, Rationality, and Morality, simply because you asked them. Unlike you I don't put much value on your hunches, and certainly wouldn't take any of your hunches seriously based solely on your Reason.
Dan, it seems as if your narcissism drives you to demand that others agree with you despite your lack of direct, specific, scriptural support. That you are obsessed with beating others over the head by repeating the same old bullshit over and over, without actually offering proof outside of yourself. Further, you seem to think that we have some need to argue against you (hence you assuming that things are about you when they are not) and that we must accede to your every demand.
I am perfectly content to allow you to wallow in your self referential, narcissistic, enabling of sin in others confident that you will answer to YHWH at some point. Pearls/swine, dust/shoes, whatever biblical metaphor you'd like.
Post a Comment