https://theopolisinstitute.com/leithart_post/what-jeffrey-epstein-got-right/
"Jeffrey Epstein called our bluff.
Writing in the New York Times,
James B. Stewart reports Epstein’s opinion that “criminalizing sex with
teenage girls was a cultural aberration and that at times in history it
was perfectly acceptable.”
What’s wrong with
what Epstein reportedly said?
To begin with, he was
too generous. What we now condemn as statutory rape didn’t just occur “at times
in history.” The unpleasant truth is that, historically speaking, using
children, even relatively young children, as objects for men’s sexual
satisfaction has been the rule, not the exception. What we call “child abuse”
is a recent category. It is not at all part of the way ancient peoples thought
or acted.
Slaves were regarded
as legitimate objects of sexual satisfaction (lust). No ancient culture
included laws about how old a slave had to be before the master could take
advantage of him or her. That’s still the case in modern Muslim countries that
allow slavery. Sexual relationships with children of virtually any age haven’t
been thought of as “abuse” or “perverted.” It was just what some men —
actually, very, very many men — did. "
"It wasn’t limited to
slaves or even prisoners of war. Poor families from almost every land and
during every age sold their children into prostitution. In their eyes, it was
the only way to get by. No one thought of the men who frequented such young
women as perverts or abusers. They were customers — often powerful and rich men
to be feared, but also, as in the ancient city of Corinth, sailors looking for
a good time. No one cared or asked the age of the young women they paid for. It
was a transaction. Morality wasn’t an issue.
The ancient cradles
of civilization — Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China — did not have laws about
“child abuse” or “sexual abuse of minors” because the whole concept was simply
not part of who they were or what they believed. Prostitution was tolerated and
prevalent. And from the most ancient times in virtually every civilization,
many prostitutes were what Jeffrey Epstein would have considered just the right
age — maybe even a little “old.” "
"So, what happened to
change all of this? Why is modern Western culture sensitive to this matter?
What made our modern/postmodern world different? This is the question. But no
one is asking it. Why not? Because the answer is too embarrassing to admit."
Y'all can check the link for the rest, but it's worth a read.
It's also an indictment of those who argue that morality is subjective. That morality is defined by the prevailing culture and not be anything external and objective.
If someone truly holds to that culturally defined morality, then it's simply impossible to call those cultures wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
76 comments:
The author's conclusion... "The evolution of beliefs and laws about the proper age for marriage is too complex to even touch, but suffice it to say that this was and is the result of Christian influence and Christian influence alone."
...is a reductively ridiculous answer.
The reality is that, throughout Christianity's history, until the rise of progressive/liberal/social justice Christianity, women were second class citizens, the property or "responsibility" of the men in the household. The author is correct that many other religions (writ large) were wrong on this, as well... maybe even worse, in some cases.
But it wasn't "christianity" in isolation that made the progress that we've seen. It's specifically progressive ideals (whether in Christianity or other religions or in skeptics/atheist circles.)
Traditional Christianity has not very much to do with women's liberation, sadly. This would include their sexual liberty.
http://www.heretication.info/_womensrights.html
Now, it is true that traditional Christianity has always been about being faithful and loving, so, to the degree that this meant Christian men being faithful to their wives and family, this has been a good thing. But that belief in marital fidelity wasn't isolated to just Christian sects.
In the US, it was Quaker activists, Susan B Anthony, Lucretia Mott and other progressive types of women (and their male allies) who advocated for women's rights (including the right not to be sexually preyed upon). It was the Quakers who were largely responsible for a good deal of progressive values like opposition to slavery and women's rights, by the way.
Also, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who was a skeptic, was one of the great leaders of women's rights. Along with other atheists and skeptics.
https://nationalwomenshistoryalliance.org/resources/womens-rights-movement/history-of-the-womens-rights-movement/
My point is that to suggest that "Christian influence alone" is responsible for improved status of women's liberty and sexual safety is a reckless and just mistaken claim. The sort that comes from conservatives all the time, sadly.
t's also an indictment of those who argue that morality is subjective. That morality is defined by the prevailing culture and not be anything external and objective.
You mean, like YOUR morality? It is defined by whatever conservatives want to say that morality is. Sure, you all may cite the Bible, but then you proceed to give YOUR hunch about what the text means and it's just another way of saying that you all are the arbiters of morality... PLUS you have the danger of you all making the claim that you are objectively factually right about morality.
Is that fair?
Or, put it this way:
1. Do you think that YOU know objectively the "right" moral positions on many ideas about sexuality?
2. Which ones, specifically?
3. How do you know you are objectively factually right? Because you cite a verse in the Bible? But other people who disagree with your hunches can also cite verses in the Bible for their positions.
Thus, you routinely undermine your own claims of "knowing" "objectively" what God thinks is and isn't moral. Every time you assure us that we are mistaken in what we think is right, even if we base it in part on the Bible's teachings, then you are making the claim that we DON'T know our position is right because we are humans who have misunderstood the Bible... but then, on what basis would you suggest that you and people who agree with you ARE the humans who HAVE understood morality and the bible correctly?
Your say so?
You don't have an objective source for morality. Let me say it again: YOU DO NOT HAVE an objective source for morality.
That you THINK you do in your mind is more about your own collective delusion and megalomania than it is about facts or morality.
Indeed, I'd argue that the fundamentalist/conservative belief in their own righteous understanding of morality is a HUGE part of why women have been oppressed for millennia.
I find it interesting that out of all that, what you find to nit pick is that Christianity didn’t move away from the previous cultural norms fast enough. Then in your rush to take credit, you simply ignore history. I’m sure you’re unaware of how countercultural Christians in the Roman Empire were for exactly this behavior. But of course you’re right, it’s all about 20th century progressives.
Lord y’all are self centered.
I do have to notice that you have absolutely zero direct criticism of Islam where this sort of norm is still common, instead choosing to criticize your own.
Not unexpected, but disappointing. I understand that your notion of what’s an appropriate for women is influenced by your 21st century liberal preconceptions and your assumption that those preconceptions are correct.
The reality is that as with many things, the catalyst for the change was singular and it was the spread of Christianity.
I'm criticizing a stupidly false claim from I presume a fellow Christian. Of COURSE, Islam has had problems throughout history up to today. Of course, Mormonism, Judaism... even the Amish have all had problems, up to today.
But making a stupidly false claim (Christian influence alone) is exactly part of the danger that is posed by fundamentalists of all stripes, including those who have traditionally oppressed women.
Much like your own stupidly false claim "the catalyst was singular and it was the spread of Christianity..."
Arrogant, much? Presumptuous, much?
Tell that to all the women conservative Christianity has oppressed throughout history, jackass.
Reality is always more complicated than fundamentalists would have you believe. One of the reasons to beware of fundamentalist types.
Also, "y’all are self centered."
The point I was making was NOT that it was modern liberal Christians who alone advanced the cause of women's rights. Sorry if that was not clear. My point was that there were multiple factors involved and to say that it was "christianity alone" is to ignore much of history and reality.
I'm neither arrogant, nor presumptuous. If you can't acknowledge that the advent and spread of Christianity was the catalyst for a number of societal changes, then you're either being willfully blind or stupid.
The point is that up until the advent of Christianity, there was no social construct that was going to morph into a system that valued and protected women and children in the way Christianity did.
Can you seriously say you expect me to answer your questions given the number of questions you've recently dodged. The fact that you even ask is laughable.
The problem you have is that anyone who holds to s subjective morality, or that morality is defined by cultural approval can criticize any of the cultures mentioned, nor can they criticize Epstein's comment. Because by that definition those actions were moral.
Your attempt to change the subject is pathetic. The problem isn't my personal view on what's moral. The problem is that anyone who claims that morality is defined by individual societies or that morality is subjective has no standing to suggest that the practice of Muslims forcing women into sex slavery or childhood marriage is wrong. The best that can be said is that it's wrong in X culture.
It can't be both. Either some things are universally immoral or morality is subjective and driven by cultural norms.
To be clear. It's possible to claim that you can have things that are objectively, universally morally wrong and argue that morality is subjective and driven by individual societal norms, there just isn't any grounding to resolve the inherent contradiction.
"had problems"
Lets list some of those problems.
Sex slavery
FGM
Slavery slavery
Anti Semitism
Child marriages
Multiple marriages
Conversion by the sword
Honor killings
Mutilation for petty crimes
Death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality
I'd say that those things are just problems, that continue to today.
I'm not trashing all Muslims here. I realize that many moderate Muslims do not support these things, yet they are still common in Muslim majority countries and occasionally practiced in the west. My point is that these things that most would consider horrible, are passed off as "problems".
"The “revolution” was a slow process and the changes it brought varied from place to place. Often, the revolution was only in the thinking of the Christian elite, like Augustine, whereas other sorts of elite — kings and men in power in the middle ages, for example — gave lip service to the ideas of the revolution but in practice followed the good old ways — satisfaction of sexual lust with little discrimination about time, place, or means. The history of Europe includes too many examples to even begin to offer a short list."
"But there was a real, even if gradual, change in thinking and social life. Men in Europe were educated by the Christian church of every denomination to understand sex as a gift of God intended for married man and woman. Within that sacred bond, it was — or should be — holy, good, and beautiful; outside of that sacred bond, it was forbidden."
"It is only in biblical monogamy that one can find a standard that protects women and children from predators. It is only if law requires and social custom adheres to Christian monogamy can one have a society that upholds the dignity of men and women created as God’s image and likeness."
"We've jettisoned this heritage. Now everything goes. And in that setting, Epstein isn't an aberration. He's a symptom."
"Epstein was right. Our semi-Christian sexual standards are a historical aberration. He called our bluff, and forces us to make a choice: Either we embrace Christian standards, or we create a world of Epsteins, a world where Jeffrey Epstein looks a little less monstrous – because we’ll all have become monsters."
This is what happens when you don't read the whole thing.
He's clearly not suggesting perfection. What He is suggesting is that the uniquely Christian ideal of monogamous, lifetime marriage, is the ideal best suited to protect women and children.
To argue that the ideal is flawed because the execution is flawed, is to argue the no ideal can be judged outside of its execution.
Which raises problems for the alleged liberal ideals of; tolerance, and non violence.
So, is slavery - the owning of one human being by another human being - universally morally wrong? Can you affirm something as simple as that?
The problem with conservative fundamentalist types is you all like to pretend that YOU have an objectively factual "source" for morality but what you're actually referring to is just your opinions. Your inability to answer the slavery question just points this out.
If you answer Yes, slavery is universally morally wrong. Period. THEN you are faced with saying that God commanded a moral wrong.
But if you answer No, it's not universally wrong... there are some instances where it's a morally acceptable option... then we recognize the moral bankruptcy of your claims to "know" "objectively" matters of morality.
And in either case, you are appealing to your opinions about what is moral, NOT some objectively demonstrable source.
If you can't acknowledge that the advent and spread of Christianity was the catalyst for a number of societal changes, then you're either being willfully blind or stupid.
I CAN and DO acknowledge that Christianity has been one of the factors in helping humanity progress. I'd argue that the notion of Human Liberties on which free republics/democracies are founded came thanks largely to Christians. Opposition to slavery, support for women's rights, support for good labor practices, various peacemaking initiatives... these all came thanks, in part, to Christians.
IN PART.
I don't have to make up a stupidly false claim like "It came from Christian influence ALONE" to defend Christianity's part in making human rights progress in the world.
That is what I'm objecting to... he presumes too much if he says that Christianity ALONE is the force behind improvements for women. Christians, at their best, were PART of improvements for women. Christianity, at its worse, were part of the oppression of women. Just as a point of fact. Christians were not alone in making the world a better place for women and it is incredibly arrogant to make such a claim, especially given so much opposition from certain segments of Christianity to women's rights over the years.
Can you seriously say you expect me to answer your questions given the number of questions you've recently dodged. The fact that you even ask is laughable.
No, I don't seriously expect you to answer questions. Dodging questions is what you do. Perhaps it helps you sleep at night not having to answer the questions that point to the gaping holes in your arguments and the way that your ignoring these holes has traditionally helped oppress women and other oppressed, marginalized groups.
So, ignore away. I'm asking the questions because reasonable people who might read here can SEE that you are dodging questions and the holes they point to.
I expect you to not answer questions. It's your norm.
the uniquely Christian ideal of monogamous, lifetime marriage, is the ideal best suited to protect women and children.
Unless that woman is transgender or lesbian or doesn't want to be married. And Christianity has a tradition in years past where the woman's opinion in the matter was not so consequential, so there's that problem that doesn't protect women or children. And for most of Christian history, until the last few hundred years, women were "kept in their place" by Christian's opposed to human rights, so that part of Christian history didn't help protect women and children.
Also, monogamy is not uniquely Christian, or even essentially Christian (polygamy is well-defended in the Bible, for the literalists out there).
This is what happens when you don't read the whole thing.
I'm clearly not saying that the author is clearly not suggesting perfection. You can tell that I'm not saying that by the way I LITERALLY NEVER SAID that.
That IS what happens when you don't read to understand.
Once again, if you’re not going to answer questions don’t expect me to answer yours.
Two things.
1. At one point I decided that if I answered every question you asked, I naively thought you would respond in kind. Then I thought it was simply a way to illustrate the vast difference in how I operate as opposed to how you operate. I’ve realized that you aren’t going to answer questions no matter what I do, so as a direct result of your choices and behavior I’m just done. You can spin it however it helps you feel superior, but I’d be willing to bet I can find more than 40 questions you’ve ignored in the last month or so. It’d be a waste if my time to do so (not the first time I’ve done it), but it’s a possibility.
2. We’re clearly talking about 2 different things. The author and I are talking about what’s foundational. We’re talking about the basis for morality, while you’re trying to argue specifics without a basis. More accurately you’re trying to argue that certain behaviors are “universally” objectively immoral, while arguing that morality is subjective. You can’t argue for something being universally immoral without a foundational ideal that supports a universal moral standard.
Once again, if you’re not going to answer questions don’t expect me to answer yours.
Once again, I don't expect you to answer questions. It's not your M.O.
We’re talking about the basis for morality, while you’re trying to argue specifics without a basis.
You HAVE NO basis for morality. What you have are YOUR OPINIONS. Your OPINION is that "the Bible is the final authority on matters of morality..." BUT THE BIBLE makes no such claims. It is only your opinion. YOUR OPINION is that behaviors 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all "immoral" because YOU INTERPRET some passages and YOU think that this is a reasonable conclusion. Other people think such conclusions are fucked up - and sometimes evil - as hell. You can STILL fall back on, "but the Bible says..." But you are ONLY offering YOUR opinion about YOUR interpretation of passages YOU choose and which YOU choose to say, in YOUR opinion that THOSE are the passages and interpretations that matter.
But what of it? We don't care what YOUR opinion is on those points. Contrary to what you stupidly suggest, we have good reasons for holding our positions, reasons that we can explain that are based upon the common notion of human rights. You may not agree with us, if you so choose, nonetheless, our opinion is just as solid - moreso, we believe - than YOUR hunches about YOUR interpretations about passages YOU choose and YOU choose to say those are the passages that matter.
The thing that we realize is that it's not all about you and your hunches. If you can't support your hunches from a reasonable, human rights point of view and only rely upon appeals to your hunches about your interpretations about your passages... well, it's just a sign that you've lost the discussion because you've abandoned reason and have opted instead for delusional arrogant appeals to yourselves as gods.
So, no, we're not talking about two things. We (those on my side) recognize that you are appealing to delusions of grandeur and made up rules of your own creation, not something that is "foundational" or "a basis for morality." You are appealing to a basis for psychiatric help, not morality.
And what I'm saying is that this guy made a stupidly false claim - one you echo - and BECAUSE people recognize the danger and wrong in making false claims, we have reason to dismiss these delusions on grounds of reason. NEITHER OF US can "prove" that our positions are objective or universal, but we recognize that while you are deluded.
You can not prove your hunches about your opinions being "objective" nor are you even able to attempt to do so, because the attempt itself would be so disjointed and irrational and rely upon such appeals to your own perfection that you would be forced to recognize that you have not a leg to stand upon.
And yes, we CAN appeal to something being universally immoral without "objective proof" of it. YOU believe it yourself. We can know this because YOU ARE DOING THAT all the time.
Delusions of grandeur. Look it up. Spend at least as much time in a healthy psychology study as you do in your little conservative echo chambers.
There is no question that Christianity...indeed the Judeo-Christian tradition...was the main driver of women's rights in the Western world. That's because the Judeo-Christian tradition stood apart from the rest of the world in how women were treated. Dan's objection to this notion requires his usual perversions to make his case. As an example:
Dan likes to refer to raped women being "forced" to marry their attacker in OT teaching. He sees this as proof that women were oppressed. But in that time, a rapist forced to marry the woman/girl he defiled was for HER benefit. He was made to be responsible for the woman/girl and to provide for her. Without this edict, the raped would simply be dismissed as damaged goods and would have to fend for herself as if she did something wrong by being a victim. So from the earliest, we can see myriad examples of that which Dan and other non-believers view as "anti-women" actually being very much an improvement over what they faced prior.
The same is true in more modern times, as the early Christian church, under Paul's teachings, were reminded that women and men were equals, even if their roles were sex specific. Those roles didn't indicate inequality, except to foolish progressives looking back through the lens of their modern progressive idiocy.
Dan also takes this jaded view of those like Aquinas and Luther, the latter being attacked basically for his ignorance of biology that science of his time could not possibly know. Detractors ignore this, as well as those aspects of his philosophy that praises women, and does so as equals as well. We can see similar revisionism with regard to Luther where much of the allegations of his misogyny come from a tome written 20 years after his death that are more than anything, simple hearsay of conversations over meals, without regard to how much beer was consumed, whether or not the conversations were serious, humorous or whatever, and most of it conflicting to a great extent with writings that were more directly authored by him.
Dan also likes to pretend that abuses by those who called themselves Christians are the same as Christian teaching. But he's looking at the same kind of corruptions for personal gain as those of his own which he puts forth as simply "another take" unique from ours. Thus, as Craig notes, for Dan to take that stance, it becomes impossible for him to criticize others for having a different opinion if we must concede to his demand that we regard our positions as "hunches".
So as to the piece upon which this post is based, morality is either subjective or it is not. Epstein's behavior matches human nature and the view that age is an essential consideration for sexual partners is not a universal, or even traditional fact. Dan would have us believe that sex with minors is ALWAYS wrong and always was...or should have been. But he's basing that, and other beliefs, on the Judeo-Christian influence of the culture in which he was raised...a culture that itself is generations old and pervasive in the Western world and has been since Christ walked the earth. This is true even among those who admit their atheism openly rather than posturing as Christian. Even these people are the result of hundreds of years of Christian influence.
Christian influence alone. All else flows from that influence.
Dan,
You seem to be confused. I literally just answered your three questions twice and you pretend that I haven't. You ignore entire posts dedicated to just answering your questions. You pretend that your actions have no consequences.
Let me be clear. The reason I have chosen to stop answering your questions is 100% due to the indisputable fact that you refuse to answer the questions you've been asked. That's it. Stop bitching and whining and just behave the same way that you demand others behave.
the rest of you comment is incredibly impressive obfuscation. You've completely misstated my position, and then argued against your misrepresentation.
What you haven't done is dealt with the problems with your position.
You clearly want to have some things be "universally", objectively moral. You just don;t want to give up clinging to your hunch that morality is subjective and defined by societal norms.
Simply asserting that there is no basis for "universal" , objective morality means absolutely nothing.
Art,
I agree that any objective person has to acknowledge that the spread of Christianity revolutionized the role and status of women and children in world history. No other religious or social system prior to the spread of Christianity came close to valuing women and children as much. Certainly Islam, Buddhism, even Mormonism don't place as high a value on women as Christianity does.
This isn't to say that that Christians have done a perfect job of living out the ideals of Christianity in regards to women and children. To say so would be foolish. Just as foolish as denying that the spread of Christianity was the beginning of the end for various practices that were the norm before Christianity.
Dan's problem is that he's applying his 21st century extremely progressive litmus tests to the entirety of Christian history. He's arguing that Christianity must measure up to his standard before he approves. It's a silly, biased approach yet it's all he has. He has to believe that a small subset of 21st century progressives have figured out the answers that have eluded everyone else for thousands of years. They've got it right and everyone else is wrong.
I guess they think that if you swear at, berate, and criticize people enough they'll be persuaded to agree with them.
Regarding your continued dodging on the question of slavery and your continued misrepresentation of my view end of the biblical View, just make it clear...
I'm not saying that the slavery of a hundred years ago was exactly equivalent to the slavery found in biblical stories.
I am also saying unequivocally that the slavery sometimes found in biblical stories was one person owning another person against their will, and forcing them either into labor or forced sex/rape situations. I am saying that sort of slavery, the owning of another person against their will and forcing them to do labor for another human being is wrong. Is evil. Always.
Can you affirm that forced slavery such as what is found in the Bible is always wrong?
Here's the thing, y'all like to pretend that you have an objective source for Morality but you cannot even denounce rape or slavery. There is something sick and perverse about your morality and people have begun to recognize it. We are not the immoral ones in this equation.
Dan,
I have to hand it to you, you’ve done very well. You’ve managed to move the topic further and further away from that which you don’t want to talk about. Well done.
FYI, I’ve been quite specific in my views on slavery, for you to say that I’ve dodged it is just simply a false claim. However, I could take lessons from you on how to dodge things I can’t deal with.
So rather than a firm the reasonable and moral position the slavery is always wrong. Period.... instead of doing that, you've written two paragraphs dodging the question. Any reasonable and moral person can say yes, unequivocally, slavery is always wrong. The owning of a another human being as property is a moral wrong. Because of your approach to the Bible, you can't or won't say that. We can all see what you're not saying.
I’ve already said plenty, pointing that out isn’t a dodge it’s just reality.
You've said that biblical slavery was different than modern day slavery. That isn't what I asked.
The Bible allows for the OWNING OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AS PROPERTY. I'm not talking about modern slavery. I'm talking about THAT. Can you condemn the owning of another human being, one who is forced into labor or sex, as wrong?
With every answer you dodge, your soul turns just a bit darker and the stain on the church and your family grows a bit more.
Will your loved ones one day look at this page (and similar ones) and ask, "Why couldn't you just denounce the owning of a human as property as something that is always evil??! You DO agree that owning humans is an affront on human liberty and decency, don't you?!"...? Is that not a concern you have?
What part of I’m done answering your questions until you show the common courtesy of answering the questions you’ve dodged for the past few weeks do you not understand?
The OT law forbade "man stealing", otherwise known as kidnapping, and thus to own another human being as property was outlawed already. The following is an excellent analysis of slavery and Old Testament law and how it really wasn't "allowed" per se:
https://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2014/01/slavery-and-the-old-testament-law/
And again, Dan refers to forced sex as if it actually happened as implied. He does all this prevaricating in order to make his sad and self-serving case for immorality and the rejection of Scripture as the record of the source of morality.
I think there is a distinction between “You must do this.” and “If you do this.”.
Of course it makes sense to deny that God is the source of objective morality. Of course it’s self serving. Just like it’s self serving to want to backdoor objective moral standards while denying the existence of objective moral standards. You just call them “universal” (when they aren’t), and ignore any evidence to the contrary. It’s impossible to argue that morality is defined by individual societies or groups and to argue that a behavior is “universally” morally wrong.
And as always, I'm not saying God is not the source of objective morality. I'm saying that you do not speak for God about what is and isn't objective morality. Do you understand the difference? Cuz the difference is cataclysmic and significant as hell.
So, once again, I am not saying that God is not the source of objective morality. I am not saying that. The thing that I am not saying is that God is Not the source of objective morality.
Do you now understand that?
I'm saying there's a difference between that - that God is the source for objective morality - and that you understand God's views on morality perfectly. Or that you understand God's views on some points of morality perfectly or that you are the authoritative source for what God's views on morality are.
And Marshal, quite clearly, God commanded people to own other people in the Old Testament. They were property owned by humans.
THAT sort of slavery is talked about in the Bible and commanded by God in the Bible. Do you understand that that sort of slavery was allowed and was commanded?
It's a simple question. You can answer it.
Then the follow-up question is, can you clearly affirm that the owning of another human being as property as was allowed and even commanded in the Bible is wrong?
"...It’s impossible to argue that morality is defined by individual societies or groups and to argue that a behavior is “universally” morally wrong."
1. I have not said that morality is defined by individual societies.
2. Instead, I recognize that people like you may find morality to include certain rules and other people will and do disagree with your hunches about those rules. Just as an objective reality that's what happens. Do you recognize that reality?
3. Beyond that, I note the reality that you cannot demonstrate authoritatively and objectively that your hunches about certain rules are objectively correct. They are your unprovable opinion and many people find your opinions on some of these rules to be laughable at best and evil at worst. Do you recognize that reality? I asked, knowing that you do not oh, and that you're not likely to answer the question, nonetheless, it is the pertinent question.
Dan,
You've been quite clear in the past that you view morality as "subjective", are you now suggesting that you view morality as "objective"?
As to this: "So, once again, I am not saying that God is not the source of objective morality. I am not saying that. The thing that I am not saying is that God is Not the source of objective morality.", it makes no logical sense.
The problem you have is that you've taken what I've said, added your own prejudices to it, skipped a few steps, then decided to represent your fanciful construct as my views.
To be clear. All I have ever argued is, 1) Objective morality exists, 2) The only grounding for objective morality is in YHWH, 3) The best place to gain information about YHWH is through the Bible.
Until there is some agreement on those three things, it's absolutely pointless to move on to what you've concocted.
Now, if you want to dial back on the BS, address the foundational issues, and then move forward from there, that's great. If you want to keep insisting that morality is subjective, that morality is grounded in a utilitarian construct, that morality is driven by the norms of individual societies, or that anyone has ever claimed to be able to know the entirety of anything "perfectly", that's great as well. It's just that you're going to be expected to be able to prove your claims with actual objective evidence, and without resorting to "Some people who I believe to be experts agree with me, therefore my position is valid.
It's up to you.
I know you addressed the last to Art, but I'll point out the indisputable fact that your pronouncement and challenge would be infinitely more effective if you could demonstrate your claims with evidence, rather than just making assertions.
I have been quite clear in the past, but apparently you have not understood. I've been clear that there is such a thing as objective morality. I've also been clear that we have no single source that authoritatively tells us what is and isn't objectively moral.
Do you understand the difference? Now?
So, to your points...
) Objective morality exists, 2) The only grounding for objective morality is in YHWH, 3) The best place to gain information about YHWH is through the Bible.
1. We agree.
2. This is an unprovable opinion and I don't know that I would agree with the way you praise this. I would say that an omnipotent perfect God would certainly no perfectly what is and isn't moral.
And I would add in response to your second thesis, God has not told us this. Do you recognize that reality?
3. This is a subjective opinion. It's not provable. It is not biblical. God has not told you this. It is your human opinion, shared by some other humans but not authoritatively or demonstrably correct.
Do you recognize that reality?
While you might not have said that specifically, most sociologists do define morality exactly that way.
"a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."
"In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores from a society that provides these codes of conduct in which it applies and is accepted by an individual."
"Morals are the prevailing standards of behavior that enable people to live cooperatively in groups. Moral refers to what societies sanction as right and acceptable. ... Morality often requires that people sacrifice their own short-term interests for the benefit of society."
So, now that we've demonstrated that fact, I'll point out that I've never said that "you" define it that way. I've specifically said that "If someone defines morality...". So if you don't define morality that way, then I wasn't addressing you and it's your hubris that has led you astray.
Again, you are assigning positions to me that I haven't taken. why would I argue in favor or or support a position that I haven't taken?
Oh, I've always understood. I just don't think you like it when I point out the implications of your position.
So despite your earlier defining morality as "subjective" you now believe that objective morality exists, that's great.
Your number 2 raises more questions than it answers. I phrased it the way I did to intentionally, specifically indicate that I was referring to one specific God. The way you phrased your version seems like you are questioning the "omnipotent, perfect" nature of God. Or allowing yourself an out if the discussion goes in a way that you don't like.
re; "God has not told us this." You just made a claim of fact. Please prove that this claim is true?
3. If not the Bible, where? If you are going to make these claims, then you need to prove them.
Your other 2. I've never claimed that I had unlimited perfect knowledge of every single jot and tittle of objective morality. So, perhaps if you realized that reality and actually dealt with my actual position, things would go more smoothly. Of course, you've now jumped multiple steps down ahead and are introducing secondary or tertiary levels before dealing with the primary.
Your other 3. Again, I've never claimed that I could do this. It's like you asking me to produce a unicorn, I've never claimed I could so why would you demand that I do something I've not claimed I could do. You are correct though. I'm not going to answer your question for two reasons. 1) If you aren't going to answer questions, I'm going to mirror your behavior. 2) It's a question that's not founded in the reality of anything I've actually said. Taking the question seriously enough to answer it accords it a level of respect that the question doesn't deserve.
As far as you imputing motives to my not answering your questions, I've told you clearly and repeatedly why I'm not. Any other reason you impute is simply false.
Speaking of questions you won't answer, I'll ask this simply in the hopes of nudging what's left of your conscience in the right direction.
If you are going to claim that you delete comments because they contain false claims, why do you harbor so many comments that contain false claims?
Re, "I've never claimed that I have unlimited perfect knowledge of every single jot and Tittle objective morality..."
Likewise, I never claimed that you claimed that. But this is the problem you people have...
On which moral ideas, behaviors DO you have perfect knowledge and can't be mistaken about?
Do you have a list of items or sins that you know perfectly and objectively without possibility of mistake? If so, where is that list?
If not, then do you have even one notion or sin behavior that you know perfectly and objectively and what is that?
On what do you base the notion that you have perfect knowledge on some behaviors? What is the support for that claim. Because you find the line about it in the Bible and you think you know perfectly and objectively what it means? Authoritatively? Says who? On whose authority is it the case that you know it perfectly?
You see, the problem with your appeal to perfectly objective knowledge on some points he said is ultimately an appeal to your own authority and on what basis does your authority outweigh way my authority?
Regarding your suggestion about false claims on my blog... I've been allowing feodor to post comments that you all collectively don't allow. For the most part I don't pay that close attention to them when they're off topic of my post. If I see anything that is obviously a false claim I delete it. But since I don't know what y'all's conversation is about, often times, I don't know if that he's making a false claim. Perhaps if you just let him comment on your blog then that wouldn't be an issue and you can take it up with him.
From where I stand, he makes very few false claims. Especially is compared with the innumerable false claims Yuan your tribe make.
"And Marshal, quite clearly, God commanded people to own other people in the Old Testament."
Perhaps you could find, borrow or buy a Bible and provide for me that actual chapter and verse wherein God commanded people to own other people.
Actually, after typing the above, I decided to seek out for myself any command that might match your understanding and study it. I found Deuteronomy 20:11, and also this commentary:
http://mainsailministries.org/index.php/q-a-a-god-bible-theology-culture/220-is-forced-labor-a-good-translation-of-the-slavery-mentioned-in-deuteronomy-20-10.html
This provides some context that still shows us that "owning" in the OT by God's Chosen is still not what you need it to be for your argument here. It compares well with my previous link in that it suggests a "slavery" that isn't all that bad, all things considered. Given the Law and how it guided behavior, it is hard to imagine, with exceptions, that harsh treatment was common. With this verse, it's conversely rather easy to imagine that those taken captive were allowed to live relatively normal lives while still being subject to some level of servitude not necessarily oppressive. In other words, if that's slavery, where can I sign up? This is not to say that no Israelites were abusive to their slaves. But that would be more likely a contradiction to the Law and God's intentions behind it...not the rule or an accurate manifestation of what God had in mind for those circumstances.
With all this said, it is not too crazy to say that this command was not immoral in any way, especially given what brought about the "enslavement"...war, and war AFTER a peace offering from the Israelites was rejected.
1. Dan, you keep trying to make leaps beyond what’s been established. I know why you are doing it, but it doesn’t help at all.
2. Thank you for admitting that you don’t really care about Feo’s false claims.
3. I’m always open to see you provide objective evidence to prove me wrong. Maybe you can point out where that’s happened.
4. Speaking of false claims, where have I appealed to any degree of “perfect” knowledge?
Craig, your responses above make no sense. Try again.
Just a minute to speak to the ugly notion of "the Bible ALLOWED slavery, but didn't command it..."
Does that matter?
Imagine this sentence, "In Nation X, they ALLOWED child-rape to happen, but there were rules about what made for a good rape and when it could and couldn't happen, so really, they were pretty progressive..." Would we be impressed by Nation X or would we call them despicable and grotesquely evil? A nation that allows evil to happen and doesn't condemn it as evil, but merely has rules about making it LESS evil (while clearly, remaining evil), is an evil nation. A ruler who merely "allows" it to happen and gives guidelines on how to make it a GOOD child-rape is an evil ruler. ("If you are going to rape a child, you may not break her legs when you rape her. If you do, shame on you, that was naughty..." Ugh! Vile, vile, vile...)
God ALLOWED slavery to happen... that means God allowed evil and even enshrined it into law...? Is that your suggestion about your god?
Here's one of the texts about enslavement...
When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. (Deut 21)
God ALLOWS you to abduct a woman after slaughtering her family and IF you want to forcibly wed her, then you can do so, but you must "give" her a "full month" to mourn how you slaughtered her family, THEN you can bed her down? And she can leave "wherever she wishes..." BUT ONLY if the rapist is "not pleased..."? Otherwise, she's forced into being her rapists' and family's killer's bedmistress?
Is THAT your position? Because, that's what's being described here.
Cont'd...
Or here are some of the "progressive" rules about treatment of slaves (rules that make it clear that a person is being OWNED by another human being...)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21
You CAN'T kill a slave, but you can beat "it," so long as the slave recovers in two days, since the slave "is his own property..."
Do you agree that it is immoral to own a person as property? Period. Full stop.
Or, here is God "permitting" the purchase of human beings as property slaves for life...
“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life Leviticus 25
Do you agree that it is immoral to purchase a human being as property? To bequeath such "property" to your children?
Finally, from Deuteronomy 20, we have God giving clear commands about how to go to war and capture slaves...
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.
If the (male) leaders of a city refuse to make a peace settlement, God COMMANDS that Israel kill all the men and take the women and children as "booty." As "plunder." As slaves. Human beings owned by other human beings as property.
Do you think it's saying something else?
Can you agree that it is evil, abhorrent, depraved for one human being to own another human being?
"On which moral ideas, behaviors DO you have perfect knowledge and can't be mistaken about?"
--Homosexual behavior
--Murder
--Adultery
A quick three off the top of my head. Totally not mistaken. They are all distinctly forbidden without caveat.
Dan,
The problem is that you’ve been vehemently asserting that God commanded slavery and rape. Now you’re trying to hide the fact that you’re wrong by pointing out God regulating things.
Do you understand that there is a difference between regulating and commanding?
The other road you’re going down inadvertently is the road where the only alternative to God allowing something is for God to intervene and stop something. You’re headed toward removing all free choice from humans.
Art,
I agree that you’ve pointed out three that are clearly stated. I would suggest that even with those we don’t have perfect knowledge of all the ramifications. What I would say is that we have enough knowledge to rationally conclude that those things are behaviors we should not engage in.
It’s like telling a child not to touch the hot stove, they don’t perfectly understand everything about why they shouldn’t, but hopefully they understand enough (and trust their parents love enough) to obey.
He pointed out three behaviors where you hold the opinion that they are clearly stated, according to you. Other people don't agree.
Why does your opinions matter more than others? Why are these texts the determining text of all of human wisdom? Why is your opinion of these texts the determining point over and against all of human wisdom?
These are the questions that you refuse to answer and which points to the error in your logic. YOU do not get to decide for everyone else.
But you think you do.
You are arguing for cultural determination of what is moral... you just want it to be YOUR culture and not anyone else's.
I answer your questions. You take a turn.
We have knowledge that is perfect enough...the knowledge that those behaviors are forbidden without caveat. That's about as perfect as it can get on the subject and about as perfect as it needs to be. What more would there be if the question is "is it forbidden"? The answer is "yes", and thus our knowledge is perfect on the subject. The question posed didn't speak of ramifications at all, so my answer (my short list) is one that can't be rebutted.
But it gets dicey with those questions that follow, particularly:
"On what do you base the notion that you have perfect knowledge on some behaviors? What is the support for that claim. Because you find the line about it in the Bible and you think you know perfectly and objectively what it means? Authoritatively? Says who? On whose authority is it the case that you know it perfectly?"
These questions are designed to suggest that can't know anything, but does so dishonestly. Taken one at a time...
--I base it on God's words as found in Scripture, and the fact that He said, "Thou shalt not..." with regard to each of them. No where following in Scripture is there any case in which He rescinded or altered His command on the behaviors. Thus, my knowledge that those three are sins and forbidden is perfect.
--"What is the support for that claim." Asking the same question in a different way doesn't change the answer.
--"Because you find the line about it in the Bible and you think you know perfectly and objectively what it means?" I know what each word describing each of the three behaviors mean, and I know what "Thou shalt not..." means. Thus, I know perfectly and objectively that those behaviors are sinful and forbidden. And by the way, what's this "Because you find a line..." nonsense, as if one stumbles upon something one is seeking (knowledge of God's will) in the very place one would expect it to be found?
--"Authoritatively? Says who?" God. It's right there in black and white.
--"On whose authority is it the case that you know it perfectly?" Now Dan dives into the deepest depths of absolute absurdity. On whose authority does one know perfectly one's own name? Address? Family members? Whose authority does one need? Incredible? This last question begs that Dan's opponents admit they can't know anything so that Dan can know what he wants in the way he wants to know it...never mind the Truth. It's not an honest question in the least.
It's not any "appeal to one's own authority". It's a simple matter of what God says as related to us in Scripture by someone who Dan apparently believes is an untrustworthy or inarticulate source. Again, it's absurd...or would be if it wasn't so deceitful.
Dan,
I’ll answer your questions when you catch up on the vast number of questions you’ve ignored.
I’ll give you a free one. I’ve never insisted that my “opinion” on anything should control anyone.
Given the reality that the three concepts Art mentioned run through the Bible and are consistently treated in the same way, I’d suggest that the onus is on you to demonstrate that the texts mean something other than what they clearly say. I’m simply agreeing with the plain meaning of the text as it’s been interpreted for thousands of years. For those who disagree, feel free to offer proof.
No, I’m not arguing for culture to determine morality. You need me to be so you don’t have to critically examine your prejudices.
The obvious other question is, “Why would other people who’s opinions disagree with the plain meaning of the text, have their opinions matter more than others?”.
Shouldn’t those hunches be put to scrutiny and proof of their superiority be provided.
Of course we’re now in the part of the discussion where Dan doesn’t accept the Bible ad having any authority or evidentiary value. Now, he can’t prove this position, it’s just assumed and is the krypotonite to all other positions.
Why would other people who’s opinions disagree with the plain meaning of the text, have their opinions matter more than others?”.
Shouldn’t those hunches be put to scrutiny and proof of their superiority be provided.
Yes, that is exactly the point and a great question. Here's the thing: Both questions HAVE been raised and scrutinized and the traditional church has come out looking like the irrational and immoral villain for maintaining the anti-human rights position against the LGBTQ community.
You all have lost the argument with the public, writ large and with each dying elderly person, you lose the argument more and more. It's not like the question has not been discussed and we both haven't made our cases. It's been done. Y'all lost.
Of course we’re now in the part of the discussion where Dan doesn’t accept the Bible ad having any authority or evidentiary value.
You have not proven that the Bible has "final authority" or "primary authority." Until you do and that's the claim you want to make, then the onus is on YOU to support it. Further, we're not even talking about "the Bible" having authority. We're talking about the traditional conservative position/opinions about what the Bible means... about THAT having the final authority. You haven't proven it, why should we accept it? Because you say so? The Bible doesn't say so, God has not told us this, many people (Christian and otherwise) disagree with the hunches of modern evangelicals/conservatives on this... why should we all bow to your hunches?
As you falsely note about me... but is correct about you... You can’t prove this position, it’s just assumed and is the krypotonite to all other positions.
Essentially you’re just saying that “public opinion” is the deciding factor. Basically you’re back to the bandwagon logical fallacy.
As long as the bar you look to surpass is simply some arbitrary amount of public opinion, you’ve essentially given up proof in favor of popularity and given up any right to complain if public opinion swings away from your prejudices.
I like what you’ve done. You’ve announced that “my position” can’t be proven, while providing absolute zero evidence to prove your claim. Then you’ve announced that you’ve “won” while failing to prove that your position is anything but momentarily popular.
If you can prove your position, do so.
FYI, if you can’t accurately state my position, I doubt you can categorically state that it’s been disproven.
It's worse than that, Dan. You're simply asserting that "our side" has lost simply because your corruption of the clear meaning appears to be shared by a more vocal segment of society...IN THE WESTERN WORLD. And even that us questionable. What's more, what "your side" continues to lack is an actual fact-based case to support the assertion. YOU'VE certainly never provided it...feo's never provided it...none of your former allies, like Geoffrey or the homosexual, Alan have provided it. You simply have no case for why "Thou shalt not..." doesn't simply mean "Thou shalt not...end of story". No evidence from Scripture, none from outside it, simply your assurance you're right and we're wrong and eventually it will be so because enough of us on this side will die off to where you can MAKE Scripture mean what you WANT it to mean. You're the epitome and very definition of "tickling ears".
Since Dan’s evidence is opinion polls, and his circle of small city southern liberal friends, one wonders if there’s a bit of confirmation bias factored into his pronouncements. One also wonders if there isn’t some degree of Eurocentric/liberalcentric bias going on as well.
My evidence that you've lost this argument is opinion polls. Also, research that shows that, far and away, you've lost this argument with young adults, who recognize the obvious natural beauty of people committing to marriage - gay or straight - and the obvious rights of human beings to make such decisions.
Opinion polls are not my evidence that you are wrong, just that you've lost.
My evidence that you're wrong is just how messed up it is to try to use a ruling directed to people in an entirely different situations and nations 4000 years ago, then re-interpreting those rules to try to apply them today and then saying that you "can't be mistaken" and your opinion is the same as God's opinion. That is seriously fucked up, reasonably and morally and, well, just from a mental health/delusions of grandeur viewpoint.
If you can't accurately state my position, don't try to do it. And really, just don't try to do it, because you can't regularly consistently do it, history has shown.
YOUR position, on the other hand, is that it is morally wrong for men to have sex with men, even in the context of marriage. Or women with women.
Am I mistaken?
Further, you believe that GOD believes it's morally wrong... a great sin.
Am I mistaken?
Further, at least Marshall believes and I think you believe that you "know" this opinion as a "fact," and that you can't be mistaken on it... that gay or lesbian folk getting married "displeases god," and you know this as a certainty.
You tell me, am I mistaken?
Don't tell me I'm mistaken when I'm not and you are, that's just further evidence of your delusions and inability to reason like a rational adult.
re: Eurocentric bias... To be clear, I'm not saying that in nations/places dominated by Muslim, Mormon, Jewish or Christian extremists/fundamentalists... that in THOSE places the majority agrees with supporting LGBTQ rights. To be clear: There is a great deal of hostility and oppression of gays in such places/areas.
So, if you find some comfort in saying that Muslim fundamentalists agree with you, well, that's sick as hell, but go for it.
Just don't claim that you know you speak for God on that front.
Dan,
None of what you’ve offered is proof. Opinion polls, by definition, are subjective and simply saying you’ve “seen research”, means nothing.
As for your “4000 year old” argument, you’re presuming that the commands in question are not universal. Please prove this claim.
Re: your Eurocentric bias. You’ve completely misunderstood my point. But your bias would explain that.
To be fair it’s more of a “liberal Eurocentric” bias in your case.
Please prove this claim.
NO. YOU are the one pretending that a hate-god wants to stone and kill gays and send them to hell, YOU back up that shitty, godless, oppressive claim.
The ones who make fucked up, sick and perverted claims are the ones who have to prove their hate-god says what they have a hunch that he said.
When someone says that aliens told them they need to kill the blacks, or that unicorns have told them to eat babies, or that hate-god wants to stone to death men who lie with men and that means gay guys can't get married... the onus is on THEM to back up their crazy, sick claims. Not rational people to explain why the hate-god, alien and unicorn did NOT tell them that.
Do you truly not understand that?
Get help.
And I noticed that you didn't correct me on my understanding of your position, after having claimed I didn't understand it.
And that's your problem. You can't read worth shit, not read and make sense of what the other person has said.
So, there is no way in HELL that I'll ever let you oppress another LGBTQ person or woman or person of color around me, you pervert. Learn to read. Go back to school. Listen.
Repent.
Craig...
you’re presuming that the commands in question are not universal.
Of course, we ALL presume that some of the commands in the Bible are not universal. You don't set aside part of your field for the poor and for immigrants and you'd probably oppose a governmental law proposing that same law today. You don't refuse to set aside money for later in life and probably invest, contrary to Jesus' command. You don't support killing gay folk, adulterous women or disrespectful children.
We ALL presume that some of these OT laws (or laws from other ancient texts) are not universal and, indeed, most of us recognize that some of them would be quite evil/oppressive. You'd be arrested - and rightly so - if you tried killing a child who was disrespectful or an adulterer today. We recognize that such rules are morally wrong.
You just want to pretend that SOME of the laws are intended to be taken universally because they appear in the Bible and you think they should. But you can offer no reasonable support or defense for such a position. We're supposed to just accept it because you say so?
No thanks.
Dan,
Your "evidence"...polling data"...can only, at best, show that there is a growing acceptance/tolerance/enabling of sexually immoral behavior...in this case, homosexuality. To lose a debate, one needs to prove one's position is true/factual/correct, or significantly more than your opponents...in this case, that the behavior in question is moral and acceptable to God. We already know that too many find it personally so. So what you believe you are winning is simply your side getting it's way in asserting your corruption shouldn't be discouraged or rebuked as the sin and disorder it is.
Regardless of when God declared any behavior sinful/forbidden/displeasing to Him personally, anyone claiming to follow Him must demonstrate in no uncertain terms that He at some point no longer regards a behavior as sin/forbidden/displeasing to Him personally. A true believer lacking evidence...as you clearly are...must assume the status of the behavior is still in the immoral column these 4000 years later. Otherwise, you're in rebellion against God. I mean, really...how can one possibly "reinterpret" "Thou shalt not...?" It's about as unambiguous as can be.
We've been quite accurate in stating your positions. You've simply failed to reframe them in ways that make them appear different than what they are.
More coming later...
Dan,
The problem with your comment is that no one is suggestion that all of the Biblical commands are universal. Yet, acknowledging that fact doesn't mean that there are zero universal commands in the Bible.
You seem to think that you don't need to prove your claim that none of the Biblical commands are universal.
Of course, no one is actually making the "because I said so" argument.
Art,
Good point. The conflation of acceptance of a particular behavior with the morality of that behavior is a false equivalence. If one applies this notion across the board, then slavery becomes moral in societies where a majority of people approve of it in an opinion poll.
It's interesting when people put so much stock in opinion polls as a way to determine morality. It's almost like they don't realize how often opinion polls end up being wrong, or that they have to account for times when opinion polls contradict.
For example, there is a reasonable amount of polling data that suggests that Gen Z will be the most conservative generation in quite a while. I'm honestly surprised by how many members of Gen Z I see on social media who are conservative. I'm not going to make any predictions based on this, I'm just pointing out that there is a tendency to cite opinion polls when they support your prejudices, and ignore them when they don't.
Yet, acknowledging that fact doesn't mean that there are zero universal commands in the Bible.
So, support your position with, you know, actual data.
WHICH commands are universal?
ON WHAT rational basis do we need to believe that they are universal?
Is it because you find a line in the Bible that says it, therefore, it is universal (well, that, and because you think THIS ONE is one of the universal rules...)?
Where does the Bible say it's a universal rules.
Support your claims or admit you can't.
This is fascinating example of what I've been saying for weeks.
You demand that I support my claim, without acknowledging that I really haven't made a claim. What I've done is to point out that acknowledging that not all commandments in the Bible are universal doesn't automatically mean that none of the commandments are universal (more of a statement of reality than a claim).
Yet, you have made multiple claims recently of which you've supported none. You've ignored lord knows how many questions of mine and Art's recently, yet you continue to ask more.
If you aren't going to support the claims you make, or answer the questions you're asked, what basis do you have for demanding that others do what you won't do?
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/109-classification-of-bible-commands-the
https://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Past-Imperfect-Confronting-Jewish-History/The-Ten-Commandments-Universal-or-Particular-442930
https://tifwe.org/resource/moral-law-and-the-ten-commandments/
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/02/the-ten-commandments-as-gods-m.php
https://winteryknight.com/2019/08/25/how-i-retained-my-christian-faith-sobriety-and-chastity-on-a-university-campus-2/
I think this is an interesting take on the issue of "Christian" behavior.
Essentially, it bases "Christian" behavior on an internal conviction of Truth rather than on an external pressure to conform.
I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions in this discussion. The trope that Christianity is about forcing people to behave in a certain way. It's portrayed as if behavior is a prerequisite for salvation, rather than a response to salvation.
If Jesus was clear that those who don't love Him won't obey His commandments, then why would we expect any different?
Clearly some of the moral commandments (don't murder,don't steal, etc.) are about how best to live together with other people, and we expect people not to do those things. But that's not the issue. What we should be talking about is people who's goal is to be so focused on wanting to please God, that they don't consider any behavior that doesn't please God. If loving God and loving others is your primary focus, then you aren't going to make decisions about morality and behavior based on friends, neighbors, the media, society, or on opinion polls.
As long as we allow the discussion to be framed as wanting to force people into certain behaviors because "God says so", instead of showing people the God who promises to make us a "new creation" then we've failed. We've allowed the terms of the conversation to be dictated by others.
I'm guilty of this, and need to do better. Not because "the Bible says so", but because it's a poor reflection of God. Hopefully, I can do a better job.
You demand that I support my claim, without acknowledging that I really haven't made a claim.
Then make yourself fucking clear as water instead of being vague and milquetoast and pretending at playing at deep discussions.
DO YOU THINK THAT THERE ARE UNIVERSAL RULES IN THE BIBLE. Rules that should apply to everyone because they are universally moral BECAUSE there exists in the Bible a line that says "God says..."? And that we can "know" as a "fact" that they are universal because there is a line in the Bible that says "God says..."
You clearly agree that not all the rules are universal. We all agree on that much.
So, if you believe SOME of them are, tell us which ones.
If you don't, then say that and you and I will be in agreement.
If you DO believe it and that you "know" these rules are universal as a "fact," then support it.
But quit playing around like a little spoiled chimp hammering on a keyboard.
Picking up from where I left off....
"YOUR position, on the other hand, is that it is morally wrong for men to have sex with men, even in the context of marriage. Or women with women.
Am I mistaken?"
Speaking only for myself, yes...in the sense that I agree with God's position on the behavior you mention. Thus, no, you're not mistaken, but yes, you're mistaken as to whether it is truly my position instead of it being God's position and I merely abide it.
"Further, you believe that GOD believes it's morally wrong... a great sin.
Am I mistaken?"
No. One of the precious few times you're not, with one caveat. God doesn't "believe" it's wrong. He states that it IS morally wrong...such a great sin he calls it an abomination/detestable...a term reserved for really bad stuff.
"Further, at least Marshall believes and I think you believe that you "know" this opinion as a "fact," and that you can't be mistaken on it... that gay or lesbian folk getting married "displeases god," and you know this as a certainty.
You tell me, am I mistaken?"
No. Again, kudos for getting something right. What you get wrong is your rejection of this reality. What you also get wrong is why we continue to support this accurate restating of God's will...again, not "interpretation", for "Thou shalt not..." requires no special skill to understand, only a special wickedness to reject with cheap rationalizations.
Dan,
Aside from the fact that you've never given a Scripture-based argument for rejecting the universal aspect of Lev 18:22, pretending there's some caveat that exempts all those angelic homosexuals and lesbians you enable, you also ignore a very obvious and significant point regarding this behavior:
Consider two basic forms of sexual expression:
1. Men laying with women, and
2. Men laying with men as men normally would with women.
Of the two, only one is prohibited without caveat, without any explanation for when it is prohibited. That would be behavior #2, the one you rebel against God by enabling.
But behavior #1 is never prohibited except with some specific circumstance attached to it.
1. It is wrong, for example, when done with a close family member. This is never mentioned in relation to homosexuality.
2. It is wrong when practiced with a woman not the man's wife. This, or any "equivalent" is never mentioned in relation to homosexuality.
3. It is wrong when practiced with another man's wife. This, or any equivalent, is never mentioned with regards to homosexuality.
I can go on right down the line with all Levitical prohibitions related to normal male/female encounters. The bottom line is that of the two behaviors, only one is prohibited as a behavior alone, while the other is prohibited ONLY when engaged in outside of the normal, definitional marital arrangement of a husband with his wife. In order to even pretend that there is some explanation for why this distinction can be ignored by the homosexual Christian, you can't argue that God has condemned behavior #2 as a sinful practice, and not behavior #1, except in specific circumstances. To make it easier for your corrupt mind to understand, God condemned homosexual behavior as sinful, but didn't condemn heterosexual behavior as sinful. Period.
And of course, there's also the fact that the male/female marital union is so often used as a metaphor for the Christ/His Church union. Christ is described as the husband and His Church is His bride. Thus, marriage as a reflection of that union makes the husband as Christ to the bride's Church. In the homosexual union, which dude is the Church bride? In the lesbian, which is the Christ husband? Those unions do not reflect Christ, God or righteous, acceptable behaviors at all.
With all this in mind, together with the fact that throughout Scripture there is no circumstance that marriage, family or acceptable human sexuality condones homosexuality. We may lose in the polls, but mankind loses in the sight of God by embracing this abomination as you have.
Dan,
If you want answers to your questions, then you need to provide what you demand from others. I know you struggle with the concept, but if you can’t understand that simple request I can’t help you.
Prove your claims, answer questions, you’ll be amazed at how it’d work.
Art,
The reality is that Dan can’t provide one instance in the Jewish or Christian scriptures, any of the apocryphal books, the writings of the early Church leaders, or the Gnostic writings that speaks of homosexual sex in positive or neutral terms. Nor of marriage as between any but a man and a woman.
I would add, relative to Dan's demand that God MUST say, "This moral law is universal", God actually did that with regard to AT LEAST the sexual behaviors. I've pointed this out to him on more than one occasion. At both the beginning and end of Leviticus 18, God warns against behaving as the Egyptians and Canaanites did. The behaviors prohibited in the chapter are those practiced by those non-Hebrew nations. If those laws, and particularly for this discussion, homosexuality, are NOT universally prohibited, then why were these behaviors committed by foreigners among the reasons for His retribution against them? God was angered with those other nations because they engaged in these behaviors He was now denying Israel. That's proof of the universal nature of His prohibition.
Certainly Dan will reject this rock solid evidence from Scripture, dismissing it without legitimate counter argument or evidence as "just a hunch". He doesn't care what Scripture says, and without arguing how any other interpretation is even possible, he pretends there is something wrong...something ugly even...with those who defend the truth of God's will on the subject, which is so unambiguously revealed for us in Scripture. Thus, God is ugly in Dan's view unless he can provide the SCRIPTURAL evidence for his position. He hasn't yet. I've read all his posts on why he no longer abides. For him to suggest Scripture led him to his current position on homosexuality is a joke.
A couple of thoughts.
Dan’s going to be incredibly selective on what OT scripture he takes at face value. He always keeps the “myth” card available when it’s needed. Or recently it’s the “it’s only for them” card. But since he hasn’t ever explained any coherent, consistent method of determining what’s what, he can always pull those out and end the discussion.
Further, since his bias is against any sort of knowable objective moral standards, he’s going to default to “the Bible isn’t a rule book” trope.
Dan’s problem is that he wants certain limited things to be objectively immoral, but he doesn’t actually want an external objective moral standard. He try’s to get around this by avoiding substituting “universal” for objective, then explaining away the evidence that x isn’t a universal moral standard.
He’s much like atheists/materialists who want to be able to appropriate a moral standard, but have no way to ground said standard.
It’s just one way where Dan’s positions sound more like atheists than Christians.
Post a Comment