"Love the sinner, period" Just don't tell them or expect them to "go and sin no more". Affirm them in their sin, and only offer them a love which doesn't include correction or repentance.
Well, that makes perfect sense.
The idea that it isn't possible to love someone and hate their actions is simplistic and absurd.
Strangely enough, if one watches the ASPL, the alternative is to hate anyone who disagrees with you, try to silence them, and make up or grossly exaggerate their "sins".
145 comments:
""Love the sinner, period" Just don't tell them or expect them to "go and sin no more". Affirm them in their sin, and only offer them a love which doesn't include correction or repentance."
Just checking, you know that this is nothing like anything that I have said or any progressive-type churches that I am familiar with have said. We clearly are entirely comfortable with calling out harmful or oppressive actions. Sadly we have to do it quite regularly. Maybe you're talking about someone who doesn't exist in my world and that's fine. I'm just making clear that this is nothing like anything that I and my progressive friends are saying. At all.
Dan
Ok, if you say so. But acknowledging that you only call out oppression and not sin, speaks volumes.
C
And your suggestion that it's somehow weird that I call out actual oppression and harm and not normal human failures speaks volumes, too.
Dan
You will recall the example of Jesus. He had the opportunity to legally call for the execution of a woman caught in adultery, (somehow, by herself??) but what he did, quite literally, instead was to say, "Neither do I condemn you."
There's not really a place for condemning typical human failures. On the other hand he regularly spoke quite harshly against the rich, religious and powerful oppressors, even overturning their money-changing tables. Jesus is my model.
Love and comfort the merely fallen. Call out and condemn the harmful oppressors.
Do you find that model unsatisfactory?
Dan
Of course it’s weird. You completely misrepresented what I actually said.
But I’m used to that by now.
Yes I do. Of course I also recall that it’s highly unlikely that the story represents something that actually happened.
Further I recall that the interaction ended with Jesus telling her to “sin no more”.
The problem with your model is that it seems to ignore the fact that Jesus actually had the authority to condemn her, or forgive her, and you’re not Jesus. Further, pointing out Sin and encouraging repentance is not condemning its restoring. Sin is harmful and failing to call out Sin and encourage repentance is allowing the harm to continue.
I get that your version of Jesus is your model, too bad you follow your model so poorly.
Well, in Dan's upside down world, homosexuality isn't a sin so he can't call them to "sin no more."
Lots of things don’t seem to be sins in Dan's world and many others are just “minor’.
Craig, weirdly, stated...
The problem with your model is that it seems to ignore the fact that Jesus actually had the authority to condemn her, or forgive her, and you’re not Jesus.
No, I'm not Jesus. I am a follower of Jesus. A human created in the image of an almighty, perfectly loving, perfectly welcoming God... a mortal with the capacity for forgiveness and condemnation who learned from Jesus to lean towards forgiveness and welcome and grace in the case of mere mortal errors and to lean into justice and love for those who have been harmed and the oppressed - especially the poor and marginalized, as Jesus teaches us still - in the case of oppression and harm.
Do you actually find that to be a bad model?
And Glenn, one's orientation is NOT a sin, whether it's heterosexuality or homosexuality or otherwise. I'm surprised you don't know this, but that's the way it goes in the moral, righteous, right-side up world of common grace and decency, in the beloved community of God.
I find it problematic when you appear to take on authority reserved for Jesus. For example when you announce what is sin and what is not, or categorize sins, that’s YHWH/Jesus’ role, not yours.
One’s “orientation” might not be sinful in and of itself, but allowing one’s “orientation” to lead themselves into sin, is where the problem seems to lie.
Craig...
"I find it problematic when you appear to take on authority reserved for Jesus. For example when you announce what is sin and what is not, or categorize sins, that’s YHWH/Jesus’ role, not yours."
Jesus, in John 20...
"Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
IF you need a verse to do what is obvious. Even without a passage telling us, though, of course we have the power to forgive and the power to condemn as humans. Do you think that we don't? Do you think that we don't have the capacity for deciding this is a sin, this is wrong, this is harmful, and this is not?
I'm not saying, though, that humans are perfectly correct always in deciding what is missing the mark, what is sin, what is harmful, and what is wrong but we're not moral idiots either. We have capacity. Of course this is a very biblical notion in many places in the Bible. The biblical authors, beginning with Jesus, assumed that humans have the capacity for moral judgment. The main emphasis is not on not judging, but on judging aright.
And yes I get that YOU or Glenn might personally think that a gay couple getting married and loving each other, supporting each other, respecting one another, being a loving family together, is sinful but you're wrong. And You certainly can't prove otherwise.
See? Moral judgment.
Dan
Your ability to misunderstand and misrepresent things is impressive.
Of course, it goes without saying, that you can’t do what you demand of others and prove your claims. I must have missed Jesus directly breathing the Holy Spirit into you. I suspect that in context that your proof text doesn’t give blanket authority to any and everyone.
Your literalism, legalism and incapacity to read for understanding undermines your credibility, dear man.
Again, I ask you the reasonable question: Do YOU THINK in your head that we are NOT to make moral judgements? That we are NOT graced with the power to forgive?
If so, I'm so sorry for your friends and family and, you know, just people around you.
To make “moral judgments”, you need to have an objective standard (or at least a consistent standard) to evaluate against. You don’t.
Obviously we have an ability to forgive. We do not have the ability or authority to forgive Sin as Jesus did.
Your inability to get the plural correct is amusing. Your attempts to paint me in a negative light based on your prejudiced, subjective, arbitrary, and absurd misrepresentations about me are just hilarious.
Just a bit of context: In the Bible, "condemn" means to pronounce someone guilty and sentence them to punishment. When Jesus says "neither do I condemn you" he is choosing to offer grace and forgiveness, and do so lovingly, as opposed to sentencing her to punishment.
You see, as you read Jesus and take him seriously, grace and welcome is sorta his jam, his way. It is precisely the way he teaches us to live.
As Jesus himself said in John 13...
When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them.
“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet.
I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.
Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.
Of course, we are to follow Jesus' example and forgive and welcome the mere failings of humanity AND stand allied with the poor and marginalized, even if that means strongly calling out the oppressors and those who harm others, particularly the poor and marginalized.
As Jesus clearly, literally taught.
Surely this is a point reasonable followers of Jesus can agree upon?
Craig theorized, with ZERO support...
To make “moral judgments”, you need to have an objective standard (or at least a consistent standard) to evaluate against. You don’t.
Bullshit. You certainly don't do this, even though you have no "consistent standard" that I don't have.
OF COURSE, we are to make moral judgements. This is so very deeply weird. Are you actually coming out opposed to making moral judgements? But you do it all the time!
Again, I ask you, Do YOU THINK in your head that we are NOT to make moral judgements?
Obviously we have an ability to forgive. We do not have the ability or authority to forgive (capital S) Sin as Jesus did.
Cute theory. Prove it.
[rolls eyes]
Craig vaguely accused...
Your inability to get the plural correct is amusing.
I have no idea what you mean here. Feel free to elaborate.
Craig falsely accused...
Your attempts to paint me in a negative light based on your prejudiced, subjective, arbitrary, and absurd misrepresentations about me are just hilarious.
? All along, I've been assuming the best of you... that OF COURSE, you and I can agree that we are (and can) forgive others... that of course, we agree that we are to make moral judgements and denounce those who actually cause harm. I've asked you several questions giving you the opportunity to clarify that we do, in fact, agree with these very basic moral reasoning points. What I'm less clear on (and thus, asking you questions about) is whether you do distinguish between giving grace for mere human failures - that, as opposed to causing direct harm to others. You know, like Jesus did in the story of the "adulterous woman" that you appear to find not worthy of the gospels.
In that great story (which is very gospel-like, even if it's questioned as to whether it's in "the oldest" accounts of John's writings), we find the very gospel like nature of Jesus defending the oppressed against the religious zealots in an act of grace, and literally NOT condemnation.
Also, "most modern Bibles keep the passage because it reflects an authentic-seeming event from Jesus' ministry, but they often add a footnote explaining that it is absent from the oldest copies..."
That is, the story is true to moral reasoning and consistent with the gospel of Jesus (as opposed to the bad news of the legalists) and given that, don't you just love the story?
Given that those who brought the alleged adulteress didn't believe Jesus was God with the authority of God to forgive, it's unlikely they were seeking that level of condemnation. Rather, they were simply asking Him to respond according to Mosaic Law, which He really couldn't do since the Law required that both parties (both "lovers") be judged and stoned if found guilty. Therefore, He couldn't "legally" condemn her, especially since no one remained to give evidence against her.
At the same time, the entire episode is less about the woman, and all about the failed trap set by the Trabues...uh...Pharisees. If Jesus rejected the idea of condemnation, He'd be in breach of the Law. If He condemned her, He'd be in conflict with His own mission, “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:17, ESV), as well as be complicit in the miscarriage of justice by having only the woman punished and not her "lover", too. But while His words, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7, ESV) confounded them, the woman was still at their mercy. Jesus has no legal standing to order anyone's execution.
Dan routinely ignores all of that to focus on "Neither do I condemn you" as if that's an explicit expression of forgiveness. It's not, necessarily, but does comport with His aforementioned mission. After this, there's no indication of whether or not the woman broke it off with her lover or had any remorse or was actually repentant. One condemns one's self by engaging in sinful behavior.
But let's say His final words was an expression of forgiveness. The message is still "Sin no more". Because He let her off the hook has no bearing on the seriousness of her rebellious act (assuming she actually indulged in an adulterous affair). It's abjectly ludicrous to suppose Jesus was only concerned with the most criminal of illegal immigrants and not also with all other who crossed illegally, too. He came to save ALL sinners, not just Dan's "rich, religious and powerful oppressors".
"I am a follower of Jesus."
No you're not. You're an enabler of evil who postures as a follower of Jesus. You continue to minimize the seriousness of sin and what an affront it is to God. The arrogance and audacity to presume you have any authority to suggest that a sin YOU PERSONALLY regard as "mere mortal error" is unworthy of God's attention, condemnation and wrath indicates your serpent-like character.
There's no comparison between "heterosexuality"...the natural "orientation" in alignment with God's design of humanity...and homosexuality...a disordered condition typified by immoral sexual desire for one of the same sex and the immoral physical manifestation of those desires. Homosexual desire is a sinful desire. Homosexual behavior is abomination. I'm not at all surprised you continue to enable this evil. It's what you do. No true "beloved community of God" tolerates open homosexuality in their midst without rebuke. Yours is a community of enablers of evil posturing as followers of Jesus.
Again Dan perverts Scripture. Jesus wasn't calling his disciples to forgive everyone without discernment. Why would He give them authority to forgive or not forgive? Because forgiveness was dependent upon the subject seeking forgiveness and being repentant. Those Dan enables aren't seeking forgiveness for that which they don't even acknowledge requires them to repent. Indeed, Dan does nothing to encourage them to repent, but instead Dan approves of those who practice abomination.
If we're to make moral judgements, why then does Dan refuse to do so? Dan judges according to that which pleases or displeases Dan.
Well, Dan demands proof yet doesn’t prove his own hunches.
Shocking.
If you’re happy making inconsistent and individual “moral choices”, then you don’t need a universal, consistent “moral standard”. Once you start lambasting others or behaviors as immoral or comparing the morality of things, you need a universal, consistent standard.
Dan insists that slavery is immoral, millions of Muslims and those in other cultures think it’s moral and continue to practice it. Without a consistent, universal standard how does one raise their claims about the morality of slavery above mere, individual, opinion?
Two questions are not one question. I’m sorry that the concept of plural or of correcting yourself eludes you.
Given the amount of vitriol you e aimed at me, along with your lies and misrepresentations, I find your self serving claim hard to believe and (as always) unproven.
You prate on about Grace, yet demonstrate it so poorly amid your arrogance and narcissism, that I simply can’t believe a word you say.
"And yes I get that YOU or Glenn might personally think that a gay couple getting married and loving each other, supporting each other, respecting one another, being a loving family together, is sinful but you're wrong. And You certainly can't prove otherwise."
The proof is that they are practicing homosexual behavior with God calls an abomination. Biology declares it unnatural. Common sense says it is disgusting.
While your self serving explanation of what is glaringly obvious is true, to some degree, it seems absurd to use this single passage as your anchor for anything. That so many default to a passage of questionable veracity because it "sounds like what they want Jesus to sound like" speaks volumes. If you want to build your foundation on something that is potentially not True, go for it.
I accept the story for what it is, and don't use it as a primary foundational piece of my theology. I can't help but note that the story speaks to the deity of Jesus and His authority which doesn't get nearly as much love as your hunches about it.
It's "true to (your) moral reasoning" as "moral reasoning" is not an objective, universal, consistent standard for you to apply. That you left out the key word in your claim is not surprising.
Let's start with the reality that those who brought the (theoretical) woman to Jesus had already failed to actually follow Torah law because they didn't bring the man as well. That alone seems to disqualify their complaints as being anything but one more way to test Jesus, who somehow managed to find a way around their bad faith test anyway.
"a gay couple getting married and loving each other, supporting each other, respecting one another, being a loving family together, is sinful but you're wrong. And You certainly can't prove otherwise."
Strangely enough, you can
t prove that YHWH "blesses" them, nor can you prove that the underlying sexual act is what Torah law prohibits. The rest is just a diversion to ignore that reality.
He seems to be a follower of a Jesus, not necessarily the one revealed in Scripture. More like a Mormon or JW.
"Again, I ask you the reasonable QUESTION: Do YOU THINK in your head that we are NOT to make moral judgements? (singular) That we are NOT graced with the power to forgive? (plural)
Emphasis added.
I'll note that Dan is back in magical incantation mode again.
Craig:
Strangely enough, you cant prove that YHWH "blesses" them, nor can you prove that the underlying sexual act is what Torah law prohibits.
Dealing with the last half, first:
I don't know how to make you understand:
I DON'T CARE...
MORALLY REASONING PEOPLE DON'T CARE...
If there is a line in the ancient rules given specifically to ancient Hebrews that seems TO YOU to condemn some or all homosexual acts, we don't care about your little human opinion. YOUR PERSONAL little human opinion on those ancient rules are meaningless to many of us. YOUR personal little human traditions are meaningless to many of us.
We also don't care about the rules that allowed enslaving people, selling your daughter into marriage, commanding the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children, babies and livestock included. YOUR opinions about ancient Hebrew rules have no validity or moral strength for many modern people.
We simply don't care about your personal religious traditions held by humans like you all (and me, once upon a time).
That is clear, or should be. What isn't clear is WHY in the name of all that is rational, good and holy do you think ANYONE would care about ancient rules that Hebrews may have held once upon a time?
Because you personally pick and choose some of those ancient rules for ancient Hebrews (ie, NOT universal moral rules at all, and certainly not proven to mean what you think they mean) and think they are more or less universal? That doesn't hold any rational or moral weight, son.
Craig:
Strangely enough, you cant prove that YHWH "blesses" them, nor can you prove that the underlying sexual act is what Torah law prohibits.
Dealing with the first half of the above:
I can't prove that God blesses gay folks marrying.
YOU can't prove that God doesn't bless gay folks marrying and you certainly can't objectively prove that God condemns gay folks marrying.
That is a simple, objective reality.
Will you agree to that much?
If not, if you can't agree to a basic, clear, objective, observable reality, then why would anyone care about your personal little human opinions?
These are reasonable questions (plural, if it matters that much to you).
Craig opined, with zero support, the spurious claim...
Once you start lambasting others or behaviors as immoral or comparing the morality of things, you need a universal, consistent standard.
Why? Says who?
Do you accept the reality that YOU do not have an objectively proven moral source of moral judgement?
Of course, you don't, I'm just curious as to whether you THINK you do. I don't think you're so arrogant or delusional as to make that kind of claim, but you tell me. And with all your self-pitying, "Dan's being mean to me" schtick, I will point out once again that I'm believing in you, I'm expecting the best in you. I THINK you can recognize that clear reality. That isn't an attack. Rather, that's me just trying to get clarity that you and I are on the same page.
Why you are so emotionally shrill about people asking reasonable questions and view them as "attacks" and "vitriol..." I just don't understand. Especially given the ongoing vitriol towards me that you and yours continue to spew.
It’s obvious that you don’t care. The problem is that you assert things based on your lack of care as if they were universally True.
Again, you demand proof without offering proof.
Again, you make unproven claims about what holds “moral weight”, with no basis for those claims beyond your individual, subjective, unproven, hunches.
“Who? Says who?”
By all means offer something that gives you the standing to call out others for violating some “moral standard” which is not objective, universal, or consistent. I’ll wait.
You’ll continue to argue against straw men based on your personal, individual, subjective, hunches about morality without providing proof of your claims.
I’m not suggesting that you asking stupid questions ungrounded in reality as “vitriol”, I’m referring to the actual vitriol and lies you’ve been spewing for years. The vitriol I’ve posted about at least twice.
But nice try to misrepresent what I actually said and use it for straw man construction.
Glenn, who is suffering from the same legalistic delusional eisegesis as Craig, said:
The proof is that they are practicing homosexual behavior with God calls an abomination.
Facts (and understand this: These are objective, observable facts that can be demonstrated/seen... theories about what a god may or may not think about some or all homosexual behavior is NOT objectively proven):
1. God has never called "homosexual behavior" an abomination.
2. Some HUMANS have recorded a god as referring to what SOUNDS LIKE SOME unspecified homosexual activity as wrong.
3. Those same handful of rules that SEEM to be addressing SOME aspects of homosexual activity are found in ancient rules that were NOT specified as to be universal rules, but rather, were literally given specifically to the ancient Hebrew people.
4. Those same handful of rules are included in other rules/commands that are clearly evil. Rules that allow for human enslavement, selling your daughters into sex slavery/forced marriages, commanding human forces to attack another nation and wipe out all the men, women, children and babes... these are awful, horror story evils that rational people recognize as grossly evil and a great human rights abuse. That ancient Israel had some good rules recognized as reasonably universal and some awful rules is not objective proof that any one or group of them are universal rules from God and certainly not that they're good. Because, of course, not.
4. The objective, observable fact is that the literal roughly handful of instances/passages that appear to be speaking to some aspect of homosexual behavior is that there is no objective proof that they were intended to be universal rules against all homosexual behavior.
Again, THESE are objective facts. Your personal little human opinions are not.
Yet you’ve repeatedly claimed that YHWH does “bless gay marriage”, why would you continue to make a claim you acknowledge that you can’t prove?
As I’ve never made either of the claims you say I can’t prove, of course I wouldn’t prove something I’ve never said. That’d be stupid, which is why you keep demanding that I do.
I assume that the “reality” are referring to is that we disagree about your unproven claims. The existence of “disagreement” doesn’t magically validate your claim. Of course, you insisting that I’ve made claims I haven’t is the real problem. Comparing the claims you’ve objectively made, with the claims you’ve made up and attributed to me is your real problem.
Craig:
By all means offer something that gives you the standing to call out others for violating some “moral standard” which is not objective, universal, or consistent.
As always, harm. We humans have generally agreed to the notion of human rights and that we have certain inalienable rights that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We can't objectively prove them, but they are reasonably recognized.
As always, you have no objectively proven moral system or set of codes at all... no one does. And yet, in spite of that reality, humans generally recognize that it is vitally important to stand for human rights and not causing harm.
Are you suggesting that this is insufficient?
If so, what are you suggesting in its place? Moral anarchy?
You do not believe that, I'd be willing to bet.
As to this alleged vitriol, feel free to point out ANYTHING in these exchanges that I've said that rises to the level of vitriol. I'll wait.
Craig made this vague and unsupported claim:
nice try to misrepresent what I actually said and use it for straw man construction.
Enough with the vague blandness, son. WHERE? What did I say that misrepresented you? How can I correct myself if you don't make yourself clear?
I did, in at least one comment, ask the question of why you are so emotionally shrill as to regard asking questions as vitriol? I asked that because that is ALL I can see that I'm doing - asking you reasonable, topical questions. But maybe there's something else. I'm just not seeing it and can't guess at what you're vaguely accusing me of with no support, no reference.
Converse with respect, good man, and be met with respect.
I asked the reasonable question...
Who? Says who?”
Craig did not answer, but instead said...
By all means offer something that gives you the standing to call out others for violating some “moral standard” which is not objective, universal, or consistent.
That is not an answer to the question. At all. It's a dodge.
I asked the reasonable, Says who in response to a claim you made...
Once you start lambasting others or behaviors as immoral or comparing the morality of things, you need a universal, consistent standard.
In a world with no objectively proven universal moral code, we are faced with two realities that I can see...
1. Accept moral chaos as an option. Rape, murder, child abuse, grifting... it's all on the table as accepted reality.
I'm NOT OK with that option and I suspect you aren't either.
Or...
2. Agreeing upon some moral basics based on something most people can agree as acceptable, even if it's not objectively proven.
That is where most freedom-loving, morally reasonable people stand, I'd suggest. Do you disagree?
In that case, it's not as if I alone have the "standing" to make moral judgment calls. We all do. Right?
Dan
I can’t figure out Dan's incessant use of incantations to begin his comments. It’s almost like he believes that saying or writing the incantations will magically make them True or some such nonsense.
1. Prove this claim. Hell, prove any of these claims objectively without using yourself as proof. I’ll wait.
Well, that’s simply adding one more subjective, undefined, non universal, non objective layer to your nonsense.
Thank you for acknowledging that you have nothing objective at all, and that you project your subjective nonsense on billions of people who disagree with you.
You pointing out that I don’t have something I’ve never claimed to have is so absurd and ridiculous that I can’t waste my time with that insanity.
I’m suggesting that your hunch is insufficient to be imposing your hunches about morality on others or passing judgement on those who have different moral views than you.
I’m not suggesting anything, nor am I required to. I’m pointing out the massive flaws with your unproven claims.
Again, your bizarre notion that your lack of vitriol in this one thread somehow erases the years of lies and vitriol you’ve spewed is likewise insane. But your attempt to rewrite history is cute.
Every time you assert something you’ve made up as having come from, or representing me or my beliefs, you misrepresent me.
For example your insistence that I’m regarding your “questions” as “vitriol” is an excellent example of your misinterpretation.
That I’ve addressed your bizarre misconception and misrepresentation yet you continue to repeat it, tells me that responding to you or answering your question is clearly pointless.
This entire comment is a dodge in an attempt to avoid you proving your claims.
That you haven’t offered anything that resembles a standard which gives you the authority to claim immorality on the part of anyone who doesn’t share your unproven hunches, but instead chosen this diversion is the real answer.
1. Yet we live in a world where all of those things are considered acceptable and/or moral by millions of people.
Whether you’re ok is not a factor. That you seek to justify making your subjective hunches about morality the grounds to pass judgment on others, is the problem. Not the answer.
2. Which, again, ignores those who don’t agree with your hunches and doesn’t give you the grounds or standing to make moral judgments about those who don’t buy into your subjective hunches.
Anytime you “suggest” without proof, I disagree with your unproven hunches.
If “we all do”, then what’s to stop millions of people from adopting a moral code that disagrees with yours, and by what authority can you say that they are wrong? If “we all do”, then that’s just 8 billion individuals living by 8 billion individual, subjective, moral codes. That some of them might align to some degree seems to be a meaningless coincidence.
Craig said Prove it to my objective fact claims. First of all, do you NOT see that these are each observably factual??
"1. God has never called "homosexual behavior" an abomination."
As an objective fact there is no data to support the claim that there is a God who said that homosexual behavior is always wrong or evil or an abomination. If you want to get all King Jamesy. In the King James the human people who passed down the stories that are recorded in the Pentateuch recorded God as having said that men who lay with men are an abomination and must be killed. Along with other things that we no longer think are an abomination. But that is literally human men writing down, passing on the story where they claim this is what God said. It is not God saying it. That is an objective fact.
Likewise...
"2. Some HUMANS have recorded a god as referring to what SOUNDS LIKE SOME unspecified homosexual activity as wrong.
Objectively that is what we have in Leviticus. These are the stories the human men wrote down and recorded. It is not God saying it literally. Also these were rules amongst a bunch of rules given specifically to ancient Israel. Literally there is nothing in the text that says these are rules that are universal. There is nothing in the text where GOD says these are rules that are universal. These are just simply observable objective facts. Do you disagree with reality?
Further there is nothing in the text that explains specifically what is being spoken of here. Is it any gay behavior? Is it only men laying down next to men? Does it include lesbians? Is it speaking of straight men laying down with men to have sex? Is it speaking of gay men living in a committed loving marriage? The text literally does not say.
I'll let you deal with those objective realities and see if you can agree that yes these are just objective observable realities. If not, if YOU want to make the claim that God's out there somewhere making these claims, you're the one making a rather extraordinary fact claim. The onus is on you to support that claim. I'm just noting that in all of the data that we have, God has never come out against gay guys getting married. That is an objective fact.
Dan
Also part of where y'all's logic fails is that you might BEGIN to perhaps have a LITTLE bit of a case IF the Bible was a moral rule book or moral rulings book. IF all we had to do was identify rules in the Old Testament, New Testament, and if a moral ruling exists somewhere in the text and we understand it correctly, then it's always immoral.
But the Bible is not that. The Bible literally makes no claim to be that. God has not told you it's that. Reason does not demand that. It is you all reading into the text in a Pharisaical sort of way what the text does not literally say. What God has not told you, that too is an objective fact.
Dan
So far your problem is that you can’t objectively prove your claims so you have to go to more and more ridiculous lengths to argue against straw men.
Craig:
1. Yet we live in a world where all of those things are considered acceptable and/or moral by millions of people.
Sigh. Another unsupported and almost certainly ridiculously false claim (hard to say because of Craig's typical vagueness.)
Craig:
This entire comment is a dodge in an attempt to avoid you proving your claims.
He said while he dodged proving ANY of his claims or answering any of the reasonable questions put to him.
Craig:
2. Which, again, ignores those who don’t agree with your hunches and doesn’t give you the grounds or standing to make moral judgments about those who don’t buy into your subjective hunches.
In our WHOLE world, generally speaking, the world and its peoples are in agreement. Murder, everywhere, is criminalized and generally frowned upon (not, of course, in our White House, but generally). Rape is everywhere criminalized and generally frowned upon and loathed, even. Slavery is everywhere criminalized and generally frowned upon.
Etc.
And yes, in each of those instances, there are people (like the man you keep voting for to be president) who don't think those rules should apply to them, but that doesn't disprove the general acceptance of general morality based upon harm to innocents.
Nations and Peoples generally can agree upon these things because (I'd suggest even though none of us can prove it objectively) we are created with that of God in us... that self-evident notion that all people deserve human rights, even when we so regularly fail to live up to it.
Failing to 100% live up to those moral ideals which we fairly universally agree upon is not evidence that people don't agree with the morality of not causing harm, just that we're good at finding excuses. See GOP voters.
Look, clearly you don't want to answer questions or engage in respectful dialog. I'll just note that, to the point of this post, my initial claim stands as a fact: I and people like me DO NOT believe in Love without repentance, and do, indeed, believe in the vital notion of repentance AND of holding those who cause harm accountable. So, while maybe there are some mythical "someones" out there who think as you suggest, you've offered no proof of them.
Nor have you clarified that you can't objectively prove any moral code.
Nor have you answered the reasonable question: Are you, then, a moral anarchist? Or offered any reason why we should take your objections to my respectful serious concerns about morality and oppression and causing harm, along with my and Jesus' belief in embracing grace for the more commonplace failings of humanity, grace, love, welcome and forgiveness. That's what Jesus taught and that's what I affirm. Feel free to disagree or not or offer vague "but, but blah blah" pablum or whatever it is that floats your boat. Just don't harm others when you do so.
And if you don't understand the need to stand behind the "Don't cause harm/human rights model," well, that IS telling. I expect you do but you're so vague and non-committal, it's hard to say.
When you get around to acknowledging (or not) my observable fact claims about my first two statements above (that God hasn't told us that all "gay behavior" is always wrong, etc), I'll follow up if there's anything to follow up with.
But if you can't acknowledge simple reality any better than you answer reasonable questions, well, what's the point.
A question for Glenn:
You probably think you take the Leviticus passages that "men shall not lie with men" as a universal rule against any "gay behavior..." do you also support the "If they do, kill them" portion of the law and believe that THAT is literally true and should be done, as well?
I think that Marshal and Craig have disavowed taking THAT part of the sentence literally, but I'm not sure about you.
Would you criminalize "gay behavior" if you could?
You seem to confuse repeating your claims with proving your claims. Simply asserting that something is “true”, isn’t the same as proving that to be True.
But, feel free to prove your claims rather than just repeating them. You’re clearly trying to speak for YHWH, and failing.
Ah, trying not to miss any questions from Craig, even as he dodges and ignores mine. Craig:
Yet you’ve repeatedly claimed that YHWH does “bless gay marriage”, why would you continue to make a claim you acknowledge that you can’t prove?
Because it's morally rational. Why would you oppose it, given that you are an apparent moral anarchist who is making NO claims of a moral nature?
You see, the objective fact is that NONE of us can objectively prove what God thinks. But IF we accept the notion of a perfectly good, loving, just and gracious God, THEN, based on that presumption, we can make some reasonable conclusions.
It's all about logic and moral decency. Why? Why do you care, if you are making no moral claims?
Craig...
For example your insistence that I’m regarding your “questions” as “vitriol” is an excellent example of your misinterpretation.
The first person to bring up vitriol in this thread was you, when you vaguely stated (with no apparent source for making you say this)...
Given the amount of vitriol you aimed at me, along with your lies and misrepresentations
I've looked back at all my comments here and, unless I'm missing something, ALL I've been doing in my interactions with you is asking reasonable questions based upon your words. Asking questions (generally assuming the best of you in those questions saying things like, "Surely we agree that...") is not vitriol. AND, since you were the one who has kept making claims of me espousing "vitriol" and "false claims..." what am I to think if it's not in response to the reasonable QUESTIONS I asked?
Especially since you won't cite ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of me misrepresenting you or waxing vitriolic.
Why NOT cite the quote that you find problematic rather than have people guess?
FACT: The O.T. does indeed state twice that God abhors homosexual behavior (Lev.18:22 and 20:13) Paul in the N.T. at Rom. 1:26-27 calls it degrading, unnatural and indecent. Stan gives a good examination of more:
https://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2011/05/bible-on-homosexuality.html
But Dan loves homosexuality so much that he denigrates the Bible as some people claim some god said something unclear about homoseuxality, and the rest of his lying blather about what Scripture actually say so he can defend the indefensible.
Oh, and Dan talks about what is moral causes no harm but I guess he forgets about homosexual behavior brought about AIDS/HIV and other diseases, let alone damage to the colon,
I wrote an article about 3 1/2 years ago again refuting Dan's claim about the Bible and homosexuality.
https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-bible-and-homosexual-behavior.html
I'll start by noting that you've simply announced something to be exclusively True while offering absolutely zero proof of your claim.
Yet, the problem that you have is that Jesus actually has the authority, position, and power to condemn (is an ultimate/final/judgement sense), or to forgive. Yet even in His alleged action, He puts a condition on His forgiveness" "Go and sin no ore." is His final alleged word to this woman. He forgives her for this one incident (at least partially because of the attempt to trap Him), then sets an incredibly high standard for her future behavior. "Go and sin no more." He's not giving her blanket forgiveness for her entire life. You, unfortunately don't.
Obviously we are to serve and forgive others, yet to confuse our forgiveness with Christ's forgiveness seems to be a bit of a problem. Further, forgiveness, does not remove the need for correction and repentance.
Whether "reasonable followers of Jesus" can agree on your claim is more about what the words you use mean in your mind than anything else.
To which Dan will pay zero attention, and provide no direct rebuttal for.
It's possible that I accidentally deleted one of Dan's comments without reading it first. As always in this situation, I apologize for my error and invite Dan to re submit the comment.
I'll simply note that Blogger should allow the retrieval of deleted comments.
From what I can see, Dan's attempt to reconcile homosexual activity and Scripture is twofold.
1. The "Bible is not a rulebook" fallacy is his big one. With this trite and oft repeated phrase he thinks that he can somehow diminish the fact the the Bible is rife with commandments, and laws. By using the term "rues" he diminishes the import of YHWH's commandments and laws and reduces them to the same level of importance as those of a game.
2. He makes the "gay marriage" argument (from the silence of Scripture) and theorizes that as long as gay people "marry" that somehow their fundamental sin magically goes away and that "marriage" makes everything OK. This of course denies the realities of "gay marriages" (higher domestic violence rates, and lack of commitment to monogamy), and denies what Scripture tells us about marriage.
Again, your ability to limit your focus to a singular thread, while ignoring years of history, and using this one thread to "prove" that you've never spewed vitriol and lies, is impressive in it's dis-ingenuousness. That you have somehow concocted a narrative out of thin air where "questions" equal "vitriol" is equally impressive in it's creativity and denial of reality.
I guess you chose to ignore the actual example I gave of you misrepresenting me, but that's to be expected.
When I reference you misrepresenting me, it almost always is directly related to the comment above my reference.
The better question is why you won't refrain from misrepresentation (if you're going to claim I said or believe something quote my actual words instead of making shit up), lying, and your historic use of vitriol? Wouldn't that be the more adult and respectful course of action?
"And yes I get that YOU or Glenn might personally think that a gay couple getting married and loving each other, supporting each other, respecting one another, being a loving family together, is sinful but you're wrong. "
You wanted an example, here you go.
1. Neither Glenn, nor I have said this. By all means, provide a quote to prove me wrong.
2. "you're wrong" is simply an unproven claim. Further, you are claiming that your "paraphrase" of what you'd like to think our position is is what you are claiming to be "wrong". Which perversely makes you correct in noting that your made up BS is "wrong" because it's made up.
"Do you actually find that to be a bad model?"
In theory, no. I disagree with how you choose to live claiming to follow this model, but failing.
"Do you think that we don't?"
Not equally to Jesus. Obviously we have the ability to discern and evaluate, but we are limited and sinful, while Jesus is not.
"Do you think that we don't have the capacity for deciding this is a sin, this is wrong, this is harmful, and this is not?"
We can recognize what Sin is, but we don't get to "decide", especially if our "decision" contradicts Scripture. As Jesus tells us, that which we consider to be "harmful" is often for out benefit. Again, I don't trust your and your subjective hunches about "harm".
"OF COURSE, we are to make moral judgements."
Another misrepresentation.
My point is that your lack of a reliable, objective, universal, consistent, standard to judge people's actions against is the problem. You make your "moral judgements" based (apparently) of your feelings about some magical consensus about how some people agree with your subjective hunches about morality rather than by comparing actions against a standard. Therefore, you have no grounds to brand people who hold a different moral compass than you as "immoral". You can disagree with their morality, but you can't call it immoral. You can say that you THINK something "immoral" or express your opinion about the morality of certain things, but that's not what you do.
"Cute theory. Prove it."
You don't prove your theories, but demand that others do.
"That is, the story is true to moral reasoning and consistent with the gospel of Jesus (as opposed to the bad news of the legalists) and given that, don't you just love the story?"
Np. I accept it for what it is and don't build significant theological theories on a story of questionable provenance.
"“Who? Says who?”
I thought this was a joke of a rhetorical question, I had no idea that someone who claims to follow Jesus and love Scripture could think that this is a serious question.
The answer is YHWH.
"Do you accept the reality that YOU do not have an objectively proven moral source of moral judgement?"
Of course, why wouldn't I accept something I've never claimed? How many times do we have to go through this charade of you asking this idiotic question based on a false premise? Nave you considered something to help your memory?
"And with all your self-pitying, "Dan's being mean to me" schtick,"
Where specifically (quote and link required) have I said this. My pointing out that you have been spewing lies and vitriol is simply a statement of fact with years of evidence available to anyone who wants to look.
"Why you are so emotionally shrill" Lie.
"about people asking reasonable questions and view them as "attacks" and "vitriol..." "
Misrepresentation, and lie.
"I just don't understand. Especially given the ongoing vitriol towards me that you and yours continue to spew."
False or unsupported claim, at best. Double standard.
I'm shocked, at the complete lack of proof for what Dan claims are " objective, observable facts that can be demonstrated/seen... ". Not one tiny bit.
One thing I've learned about Dan is that his "your don't answer questions" shtick is really him whining because I don't answer questions immediately when he asks them or in the way he wants them answered. I've recently returned to responding from my phone, and when I do I don't go into as much detail as I do when I respond from my computer. Dan, apparently isn't willing to give me any grace around that and instead engages in shrill, incessant, petulant carping which is more about timing than substance.
"We also don't care about the rules that allowed enslaving people, selling your daughter into marriage, commanding the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children, babies and livestock included. YOUR opinions about ancient Hebrew rules have no validity or moral strength for many modern people."
This one is obvious given your virtual silence regarding those who engage in these sorts of things in 2026. It's obvious that you don't care about those things beyond the usefulness of the list as an argument.
"That is clear, or should be. What isn't clear is WHY in the name of all that is rational, good and holy do you think ANYONE would care about ancient rules that Hebrews may have held once upon a time?"
I'm not going to waste time with the long, detailed, answer and simply say that the YHWH who gave the moral, civil, and ceremonial law to the Hebrews, is the same YHWH who sent Jesus to "fulfill" that "Law". Because the Torah is full of direct, links to Jesus and Jesus grew up in a culture where Torah was incredibly important. Because Scripture is one continuous narrative from Genesis to Revelation.
But, as you've made clear, you don't care.
"Because you personally pick and choose some of those ancient rules for ancient Hebrews (ie, NOT universal moral rules at all, and certainly not proven to mean what you think they mean) and think they are more or less universal?"
This question is incoherent because of your reliance on false/unproven premises.
1. You are stating as fact that the moral law was limited to the Hebrews and is not "universal", without having proven your assumption. Try again with proof.
Just more excuses for the obvious double standard Dan revels in. Demands of proof for thee, no proof for me.
Craig...
"and provide no direct rebuttal for."
I respond with the same response I've always given to this, I rebut it with the fact that the Bible is not a rule book. The Bible makes no claim to be a rulings book. The Bible is problematic for legalists who try to treat it as a rule book because you end up being pharisaical, just like you all are right here, right now.
The fact is, the Bible nowhere, not in one place anywhere in all the whole universe, makes a claim that it is a moral rulings book and that we know morality by looking at old laws given specifically to a time, a place, and a people. The Bible doesn't make that claim and God has not made that claim. Humans like you all make that claim but when you do so you are abusing the Bible, not reading it for enlightenment.
That the Bible is not a rule book is an observable objective fact, it makes no claim to be a universal rulings book. That is not disputed. Y'all ignore that. Y'all are the ones who don't deal with that, who do not rebut it. I've dismissed this nonsense long ago with objective facts and common sense reason.
And the same thing I've done with pointing out y'all have no objective authoritative rubric for deciding which rules are universal and which ones are not. Y'all randomly, whimsically pick out this rule but not that rule to accept as universal and then not universal, sometimes even in the same sentence, just like y'all do with your Leviticus attack abuse verse. If you all want to claim, as you appear to want to do, that sometimes some of the rules in the Bible are universal, then you have to have a rubric, or a method, or a source that identifies which ones are universal and which ones are not. Y'all have no such source. Objectively, observably. You've been rebutted. You just don't have the common sense or grace to acknowledge it.
Dan
"Sigh. Another unsupported and almost certainly ridiculously false claim."
Another absurd, unsupported, and bizarre false claim. This is what happens when you ignore what is going on outside of your little ideological bubble.
What claims have I specifically made and what question have I specifically dodged?
"In our WHOLE world, generally speaking, the world and its peoples are in agreement. Murder, everywhere, is criminalized and generally frowned upon"
As we watch thousands of women support and raise millions of dollars for a woman who murdered her three children (and multiple copycats), I'd say that you need to pay more attention. .
"Rape is everywhere criminalized and generally frowned upon and loathed, even."
Says the guy who ignores the vast wave of rapes that have swept Europe over the past decade, and the religious leaders who justify them. Or the legalization of marrying children as young as 9. Or the actions of a religious organization to justify the kidnapping and rape of a 12 year old in MPLS. Or the use of rape as a weapon by Hamas and those who are murdering Christians in Africa.
"Slavery is everywhere criminalized and generally frowned upon."
There are more slaves in 2026 that there have ever been in recorded history.
I've posted on these topics for years, and you've chosen to ignore the scope or the evidence.
"Look, clearly you don't want to answer questions or engage in respectful dialog."
This is simply false, and a misrepresentation. That I do not do so on Dan's schedule or in the way Dan demands, does not mean that I do not do so.
"Nor have you clarified that you can't objectively prove any moral code."
I've never claimed that I could "objectively prove a moral code", why would I prove a claim that I have not made? Why would you continue to demand that I do so?
Are you, then, a moral anarchist?
No.
"When you get around to acknowledging (or not) my observable fact claims about my first two statements above (that God hasn't told us that all "gay behavior" is always wrong, etc), I'll follow up if there's anything to follow up with."
Why would I acknowledge that which you can't and don't even try to prove?
"And if you don't understand the need to stand behind the "Don't cause harm/human rights model," well, that IS telling."
Who said I didn't understand your vague, inconsistent, subjective, unproven, hunch? Because I don't agree with your hunch, and point out the flaws, doesn't mean that I don't understand.
Craig, missing the point, said ...
"1. The "Bible is not a rulebook" fallacy is his big one. With this trite and oft repeated phrase he thinks that he can somehow diminish the fact the the Bible is rife with commandments, and laws."
But it literally is not a universal rulebook. You do not believe that all the rules in the Old Testament or Bible in general are universal rules. In fact the Bible is quite clear that they are given to specific people at specific times. They are rules written down by humans for specific people at a specific time. God has not told you that the Bible is a rulebook. The fallacy is that you're not dealing with this simple observable reality.
Are there rules and laws and commandments given to specific people at specific times found in the Bible? Yes as I've been abundantly clear. Does that make them universal rules? No or at least not just because they're there. Again this is something that you agree with but not all the rules in the Old Testament or anywhere are universal. Where is your rubric to objectively determine which ones are universal and which ones are not? You don't have it.
This is a huge hole in your argument. Dismissing it by calling it falsely a fallacy is not dealing with the hole in your reason. Deal with it. Failing that admit that I'm right because, of course, just objectively and observably, I'm just stating facts. Hard indisputable data.
Dan
"trying not to miss any questions from Craig, even as he dodges and ignores mine."
Yet doing such a poor job in your performative "answering", as well as showing your total lack of grace and patience because I don't give you exactly the answers you want exactly when you want them. I've got a life outside of responding to you, work, family, friends, church, etc. That I don't put all of that aside to do your bidding is a simply reasonable. That you get all pissy about it is a you problem.
"Because it's (subjectively) morally rational.(to you and those who agree with you) Why would you oppose it, given that you are an apparent moral anarchist (another misrepresentation) who is making NO claims of a moral nature?"
I'm too busy trying to deal with your absurd, and unproven moral claims. Strangely enough, pointing out the incoherence of your position does not reacquire that I provide an alternative. That's just you demanding that I provide you with a diversion from proving your own claims.
The issue is not whether you personally find something "morally rational" (whatever that means), the issue is whether or not your claim is True.
You basing things on your subjective presumptions, then passing them off as objective fact is where your problem lies. If you can't prove your presumptions to be True, who cares?
" Why? Why do you care, if you are making no moral claims?"
Why? Because you are making unproven moral claims as acting as if those claims are objectively True. Because you seem to want a moral code that acts as if it is objective, while actually being subjective. Because pointing out the flaws in your idiocy doesn't require or leave me time to do anything else.
The magic incantations are back, and as stupid as ever.
It's a trope that you trot out repeatedly which is based on your bizarre belief that anyone has ever said that "the Bible is a rulebook". Your entire premise is false and what springs from that false premise is therefore false.
That you've decided to impose your hunches in Scripture isn't a problem with Scripture, it's a problem with you.
FYI, according to an expert OT college professor" roughly 10% of the commands in the Torah are applicable to those outside of ancient Israel. Furthermore, of those for ancient Israel, many/most are aimed at subsets of Israel, not everyone.
I'm dismissing it because it's based on a false premise, and because it's not rocket science to figure out which Torah Laws are civil (to be applied to the Hebrew Theocracy) which are ceremonial (which were fulfilled by Jesus and ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD), and which are moral and are to be followed by everyone.
That's not a rebuttal, it's a trope based on a false premise.
Objective facts are not a rebuttal of speculative subjective opinions about rulings in an old text? Of course they are. What's wrong with you?
Dan
Dan
Craig...
"because it's not rocket science to figure out which Torah Laws are civil (to be applied to the Hebrew Theocracy)"
Agreed. Bullshit laws that allow people or nations to go in and slaughter men, women, and children are just wrong. They are not a universal rule. Bullshit laws that allowed for slavery are just wrong. Bullshit laws that perhaps were intended to keep gay guys and lesbian women from marrying are just wrong. They're stupid and stupidly false to try to apply them in any kind of universal way. Of course we recognize right and wrong because we have innate moral common sense and reasoning. That is what we should rely on and not some rule in the Old Testament.
You're making my argument for me. If indeed we can recognize which rules are not universal, then why do we need to even refer to those rules other than just as an interesting bit of history?
More questions go unanswered.
Dan
Craig...
"according to an expert OT college professor" roughly 10% of the commands in the Torah are applicable to those outside of ancient Israel."
That sounds about right but that's more something on my side of the argument. I'm not sure how it helps you other than maybe starting to win you over to common sense and reason and recognizing reality.
But here's the thing, even in the case of those 10% (murder, rape, theft), those things are not wrong because there's a line in the Bible that says them. They're wrong because they cause harm, because they are an abuse of human rights and human dignity. It can be informative to look at Old Testament rulings given to specific people in a specific place but we do not understand morality because there's a line in the Bible that gives a rule that ancient people perhaps observed.
There's a difference between saying murder and rape and abusing children, and not being welcoming to immigrants is wrong and there's a line in the Bible where it was even written even back in those days... There's a difference between saying that and saying, "We know that rape and murder are wrong because there's a line in the Bible that condemned them."
Agreed?
Dan
Craig...
"It's a trope that you trot out repeatedly which is based on your bizarre belief that anyone has ever said that "the Bible is a rulebook"."
So are you saying that it's not the case that people like Glenn and probably you think that it's morally wrong for gay people to get married and engage in typical marriage activities because you think God has condemned it in the Bible?
If it's not because you found a line in the Bible that makes you think that, why are you opposed to LGBTQ folks living their lives free from oppression and harassment?
Dan
No I'm not making your argument for you. I'm pointing out the simple reality that navigating the three types of Torah law and accurately assessing the relevance of each isn't as hard as you make it seem, nor is anyone advocating for the civil and ceremonial laws to still be valid.
Your feeble attempts to conflate the types of law and therefore ignore all of the Torah law is pathetic.
But thanks for acknowledging the time and effort spent in going back and answering your idiotic questions and dealing with your BS. It makes all the time and effort worth it.
Two comments repeating yourself.
I guess you'll not be proving your claims objectively any time soon.
Of course, your appeal to "human rights and dignity" raises the question of why do humans have these rights and dignity? What makes human life so valuable that taking it without justification is wrong? Why then, are some humans stripped of the most basic of these rights?
"Agreed?'
No.
"So are you saying that it's not the case that people like Glenn and probably you think that it's morally wrong for gay people to get married and engage in typical marriage activities because you think God has condemned it in the Bible?"
Yes. This is why I'm convinced that you either don't pay attention to anything anyone says (beyond where you find some useful tidbit to misrepresent or take out of context), or that you have the memory of a goldfish. Yes, you are wrong, and I've referred to why at least once in this thread.
"If it's not because you found a line in the Bible that makes you think that, why are you opposed to LGBTQ folks living their lives free from oppression and harassment?"
Where, exactly, did I say that I am "opposed to LGBTQ folks living lives free from oppression and harassment"?
I'll wait for as long as it takes for you to provide the specific quote and link to the quote where I said this.
It's strange that this criticism isn't applied equally.
But, again, your appreciation for the hour plus I spent answering your questions (some more than once) is really appreciated. It shows your commitment to grace and mature, respectful conversation.
Craig...
"Where, exactly, did I say that I am "opposed to LGBTQ folks living lives free from oppression and harassment"?"
If I have misunderstood you, I apologize and great. It's great to hear that you affirm LGBTQ people's rights to marry and adopt children and be the gender they identify as. I'm willing to bet that Glenn not only does not agree with you on that but that he would slander you and call you all sorts of bad names for thinking that.
Of course I'd be willing to bet that your vague blather does not mean that you support gay folks getting married. You can tell me and clear it up. Just say it directly. "I, Craig, support gay folks and lesbian folks being able to marry and live lives free of oppression and denial of rights."
I'll wait.
Dan
I asked if you agreed that murder and rape and slavery are wrong, not because of a line in the Bible, but because they're an affront to human rights. You said No. Why then, pray tell, are they wrong? Because there's a line in the Bible?
Conversation really would be easier if you were more clear and less vague. But surely you know that.
Dan
You asked a yes/no question and I answered it appropriately. It’s not my responsibility to make up for your mistakes.
How much more clear could I have been, given the question you asked? Simple, direct, clear, straightforward. Yet you still whine.
You whine when I “don’t answer“, you whine when I do answer, Except when you ignore the very fact I answered.
What an awesome freaking dodge of answering a question. You freaking claimed something as if it was factual and when asked to prove the accuracy of your claim, you pull this BS.
No, hell no, if you can’t acknowledge your BS and apologize, I’m not going to parrot whatever BS you demand.
This is typical of your response when you’re caught in BS. You go into “attack” mode and try to turn the attention away from your lie and onto the person you lied about.
Hell no.
Dan still isn’t going to acknowledge his graceless, impatient, BS or the fact that I answered his ridiculous and idiotic questions. That’s how cowards roll.
If Dan is eventually shamed into acknowledging my time and effort in answering his questions, the strong likelihood is that he’ll find one question out of dozens that I “didn’t answer“ and obsess over that.
At this point, I am going to choose not to demand that that Dan parrot my words, not that Dan respond to all of my answers, not that Dan prove the claims he makes, and not that Dan apologize for his BS. I’m simply going to approve his comments, let him make a fool of himself, and maybe pick off some low hanging fruit of idiocy.
I DO find myself wondering if you truly think in your head if you have and are answering my questions, when your responses only cause me to ask other questions seeking clarity, which you then don't answer.
Responding to a rational question with words and sentences that don't actually answer the questions being asked is not answering the question, dear man. You understand this, right?
And responding with claims that I'm the one who is being vitriolic and impatient and otherwise rude and not supporting my claims doesn't make it reality. You understand this, yes? And especially when you never/rarely cite whatever words it is that I wrote that make you feel rushed or that sound vitriolic or you think are misrepresenting you... and when you're asked to clarify because you're either not making sense or, at worst, I'm not understanding your "answer," that doesn't promote respectful adult good faith conversations.
Just fyi.
"opposed to LGBTQ folks living lives free from oppression and harassment"
I agree with Craig. However, stating the truth that SSM is not marriage and should not be treated as such, is not oppression or harassment. Refusing to agree that a man can become and woman or woman a man is not oppression or harassment. Stating that we don't want "rainbows" shoved in our faces, or that we don't LGBTQ agenda pushed in the school room are also not oppression or harassment. Etc, Etc, etc.
3 paragraphs of blaming someone else, while taking no responsibility. It must be difficult to exist with such perfection.
That you continue to refuse to acknowledge the time and effort that I’ve put into answering your questions makes me laugh.
That you don’t like my answers because they don’t fit your template is a sign that I’m doing something right.
Be honest, you don’t want to honestly answer your questions with my real beliefs, you just want me to stroke your ego by telling you that you’re right about everything you say. Narcissism and arrogance, with some ignorance sprinkled on top isn’t a good combination.
I get that you don’t like my answers, but that doesn’t mean you get to define what answers are.
"When Jesus says "neither do I condemn you" he is choosing to offer grace and forgiveness, and do so lovingly, as opposed to sentencing her to punishment."
Once again, Jesus did not come to condemn, but to save. Once again, Jesus had no authority to condemn the alleged adulteress to death, or was there any evidence or testimony that she was guilty. Did Jesus know she was guilty? Well, He did tell her to go and sin no more, did He not? The passage doesn't say what sin is that to which Jesus is referring...whether it's a general encouragement or if it was in reference to the sin for which she was accused, which He'd know whether or not she was guilty. Contextually, Jesus is simply acting according to the limitations of His civil authority...he had none...as well as according to the Law, which required testimony and her lover, neither of which He had. As such, He had nothing on which to condemn her, yet He still indicated she was a sinner, and possibly an adulteress. He knew about the adultery of the Samaritan woman at the well. It's hard to believe He didn't know about the life of this woman brought before Him to entrap Him.
Your John 13 reference is wholly irrelevant to the topic of this post and this particular story about the woman allegedly caught in adultery.
"Of course, we are to follow Jesus' example and forgive and welcome the mere failings of humanity..."
Where did Jesus preach that we should or must "welcome the mere failings of humanity". Where did He ever refer to any level of sin as "mere failings" rather than as sinful behavior we're to reject and from which we should repent? To "welcome the mere failings of humanity" is to encourage that humanity walk the wide path through the wide gate to destruction.
"even if that means strongly calling out the oppressors and those who harm others..."
...such as Jeff St fake Christians who defend the murder of infants in utero.
"As Jesus clearly, literally taught."
He did not "clearly, literally" teach what you're falsely accusing Him of teaching, and you're referencing that which doesn't teach it in order to pretend He had. You're neither a follower of Jesus nor a reasonable person.
And just to return to the initial point of your post and my first comment...
"Love the sinner, period" Just don't tell them or expect them to "go and sin no more". Affirm them in their sin, and only offer them a love which doesn't include correction or repentance."
I'll repeat again that this is not what I or we do. Perhaps you're just not familiar with how progressive folks are operating in the world. For one thing, many of us are teachers, nurses, work with the homeless, with the addicted, in justice-promoting networks, clean environment-promoting networks, with those with disabilities. That is, we work with flawed, imperfect humans (as we all do).
We regularly have to hold our students, our folks with addictions, our polluters, our city leaders to accountability. It involves correction and promoting healthier actions and outcomes because, of course, it does. Regularly. It's part and parcel of what we do.
We seek Restorative Justice programs in our schools and prison systems, for instance, which is a good example of our goals, which are 100% NOT to ignore problem behavior, but to lovingly hold folks accountable and work for reconciliation. Are you familiar with those efforts?
I'm not sure how one can be a rational adult living in the world today - even a conservative who isn't around liberal folks often - and not understand how badly your assumption is off the mark.
Or is it the case that you recognize that we DO try to hold a wide variety of people to accountability... it's just that you wish we'd agree with you and your ideas of your pet "sins" and you wish we were fighting against rights for LGBTQ folks or against immigrants because, to you, THOSE are the people who need to be "held accountable..."?
Again, I'm honestly curious.
Marriage isn’t a right, it’s a privilege which is regulated by the state. Arguing that it’s a right, opens the door for marriage to children, animals, siblings, and pretty much whatever nonsense someone can conjure up.
It’s easy to obsess over oppression thousands or hundreds of years ago or what amounts to minor regulation of people’s desires, while ignoring actual oppression and harm happening right now. FGM in MI isn’t on Dan's radar, nor is kidnapping and raping a 12 year old in MN. But heaven forbid someone can’t get their immediate desires fulfilled immediately if they claim oppression.
Schools socially “transitioning” children without the knowledge or consent of the parents, no problem. Not using pronouns, oppression. Which ignores the fact that the former is using agents of the state to undermine parental rights.
Craig:
That you continue to refuse to acknowledge the time and effort that I’ve put into answering your questions makes me laugh.
...? But you haven't answered my questions. I guess I CAN acknowledge that you took some time to respond to my questions, but as noted, responding is not the same as answering them. Is it the case that you think you've truly answered my questions, directly? Clearly?
For instance, you keep citing me misrepresenting you but I can find no place where you've stated WHAT I've misrepresented except that I thought you both were saying you are OPPOSED to two gay guys marrying, but you're ...not? Or are you? Do you see? IF someone doesn't understand your answer when it doesn't seem to fit with what you're actually saying... that this is confusing and NOT an answer, only a vague response.
Right?
Glenn, Craig, be clear: WOULD YOU remove the right to marry from LGBTQ folks if you could? WOULD YOU remove the right for gay couples to adopt children if you could?
And DO you think that (I'm pretty sure that, for Glenn, at least, the answer is yes and yes) because you think there are lines in the bible that make you personally think that God would be opposed to such things?
IF the answers to these questions are all YES, then I haven't misrepresented you, have I?
Direct answers, please.
Holy crap, Dan is so desperate that he’s circling back to the actual point of the post. Shocking.
I’m surrounded by people who are exponentially more left wing than Dan, but I have no idea what they do, say, or how they act.
That Dan has yet to specify that “Go and sin no more” is a part of his process, I think we all have a pretty good grasp of how things work.
No, unlike you, I have no desire to force you to agree to or say anything. You’re clearly going to do what you want, how you want and aren’t going to pay attention to anything that doesn’t agree with your narrative.
I do feel badly for people who might be led astray or enabled in their sin while you try to find out who’s oppressing them, but they have the agency to choose where they seek help.
Craig RIDICULOUSLY said:
Schools socially “transitioning” children without the knowledge or consent of the parents, no problem. Not using pronouns, oppression.
Now, here's your chance to learn. Read closely and carefully and see if you can get the point of this fact claim:
SCHOOLS ARE NOT TRANSITIONING CHILDREN FROM ONE GENDER TO ANOTHER WITHOUT THE PARENT'S PERMISSION!!! SCHOOLS DON'T HAVE OPERATING ROOMS OR MEDICATION NEEDED TO TRANSITION CHILDREN AND WOULDN'T/COULDN'T DO IT IF THEY DID HAVE THEM!
When you all espouse such nonsense, frankly, it makes you sound insane.
Now, if a child in school says, "I'd like to be known as Frank," YES, the teacher might call that child Frank (even if the name on their record was Alice). But that has always been the case because what kind of shitty teacher would not call a child by their preferred name? But calling a child by a preferred name or by a preferred pronoun is not "transitioning" a child. It's just not being an asshole.
One has to wonder why people like you care so much, especially when you clearly don't care about the abuse of children by people like Epstein and his allies, including the acknowledged pervert you keep voting for and defending.
Lord, have mercy.
Except you can’t offer one example to back up your unproven claim. It’s amusing as he’ll watching you flail around. You clearly don’t want actual, honest answers, you simply want ammunition and confirmation or your biases.
I’ve pointed out 3-4 specific examples of you misrepresenting and lying, but that doesn’t seem to matter to you.
No one has a “right” to marry, it’s impossible to remove something that doesn’t exist.
The data suggests that adoption by gay couples is not the most optimal option for the children and we’ve seen a disturbing increase in gay couples buying children and in abuse of adopted/purchased children.
I’ll probably piss Glenn off, but I’d want to see string vetting and close monitoring of adopted/purchased children in any demographic group with a higher likelihood of abuse. Having said that, adoption is not a right either. You can’t remove something that doesn’t exist.
No.
By your own standard you’ve misrepresented me on this one issue. But you’ll probably lie about that too.
I’ll have to find the story, but if I remember correctly some parents just won a lawsuit for doing exactly what you claim never happens.
That’s not new though, you claim things don’t happen, then we demonstrate that they do happen and you pretend otherwise.
Why look, Dan misrepresents me again. By lying as well.
I care because I have the crazy idea that parents should be parents and that teachers should not.
But the magical incantations are back.
"...we are to make moral judgements and denounce those who actually cause harm."
Such as those who enable and defend infanticide and those who enable sexual immorality. Both of these alone cause great harm.
"What I'm less clear on (and thus, asking you questions about) is whether you do distinguish between giving grace for mere human failures - that, as opposed to causing direct harm to others."
"Mere human failures" is Danspeak for sin he insists doesn't offend God, because how dare God be offended by sin which doesn't offend Dan. "Mere human failures" to me are those attempts to do good which result in good not achieved. Such failures are not a reflection on the attempt if the attempt is made in good faith. As such, they are simply failures. Sins, on the other hand, are matters of intention. That is, sinful acts one chose to commit. That Dan doesn't see them as personally offensive means nothing, and if Dan convinces the sinner those sinful actions are not worth fretting, they nonetheless offend God and Dan has committed a greater sin than the sinner by enabling and approving of the sin the sinner committed.
"Mere human failures" is equivocation and a lie. Lying is what Dan does.
Craig:
No one has a “right” to marry, it’s impossible to remove something that doesn’t exist.
I am amongst the many free thinkers and Christians who affirm that we humans have an innate, self-evident right of self determination. That would include, we freedom lovers would say, the right for two people to marry the person of their choice. There are, as always when it comes to human rights, LIMITS on that - one person can't "choose" to marry another person who doesn't WANT to marry them, for instance, because one's rights to swing their fist ends at another's face, for instance. But two people mutually agreeing to marry one another? That would certainly be an act of self-determination that we who affirm human rights would support.
Are you suggesting we humans do NOT have the right to self determination as it relates to marriage? Or perhaps, from that point of view, you and I can agree?
And no, forced marriage of a child is not a right, forced marriage to a dog or a duck is not a right, because the child and animal are not in a place to agree to it from an adult point of view. That would be the human rights limit on that.
Now, one COULD try to imagine a case where the "right" to polygamy (with mutually consenting adults) could be argued, as it was permitted in biblical times. But given the real world history of abuses of polygamy, where it wasn't always mutually accepted or people entering with equal levels of power in a patriarchal system, I'd be opposed to legalizing it. But for that same reason of Harm.
Craig, once again, vaguely and without support, makes a spurious claim:
Why look, Dan misrepresents me again. By lying as well.
Sigh. Where? That you have voted for an acknowledged pervert? I mean, you may not use those words, but that is the reality of the guy you keep voting vote and defending. That you defend him? But you do. Regularly. And, of course, you KEPT voting for him and who knows? If he actually tried to run again, you may STILL vote for him! I mean, aren't you the one defending the GOP for voting for the GOP candidate because they couldn't reasonably vote for a Democrat or choose not to vote? WOULD you vote for him if he ran a third time?
Would you huff and say, "NO! Of course, I wouldn't! That's unconstitutional!" Well, you've supported his unconstitutional extrajudicial killings, so "the Constitution" doesn't seem to stop you there. We just can't really know WHERE you all might ever draw a line and say, "too far!" If it hasn't happened yet, what would it take?
You’re believing something does not make that thing a right.
By your standard, what’s to stop incestuous marriage, child marriage, or animal marriage? As long as “self determination” is the only and final arbiter then wouldn’t it trump harm?
I’m suggesting that there is no right to marriage regardless of your hunches.
It’s hilarious to watch you argue that “self determination” makes marriage a right, then promptly deny that right to those you choose to oppress.
But just for grins, what is the appropriate age where a child should be allowed to marry?
WOULD YOU remove the right to marry from LGBTQ folks if you could?
Marriage has an historical definition and it is the union of members of the opposite sex. NO ONE had a right to marriage. Two people of the same sex do not constitute a marriage and therefore the SCOTUS judgement was a rank pandering to LGBTQ rather than to law, the definition of the word, and common sense.
WOULD YOU remove the right for gay couples to adopt children if you could?
Definitely, especially since statistics demonstrate most of these type of adoption lead to sexual abuse and indoctrinating the children into homosexuality. Again, there is no right to adoption.
Children deserve to have both a mother and a father, not two perverts with no idea of reality.
And, no, this is not oppression.
"I’ll probably piss Glenn off, but I’d want to see string vetting and close monitoring of adopted/purchased children in any demographic group with a higher likelihood of abuse. "
Why would common sense "piss" me off?
Would God bless a marriage between Dan and his goat? What if the goat really, really likes how Dan "loves" it?
Would God bless a marriage between Dan and his adult daughter?
I could go down the list of prohibited sexual behaviors and ask the same question referencing each one. Dan will now either ignore the logical extrapolation or pretend he can intelligently explain why the questions are invalid in arguing against the plain reality that God is unlikely (at best) to approve of any SSM given that He called the sexual behavior between two of the same sex to be abomination. Where does "reason" enter into Dan's defense of the blatantly indefensible?
I had asked:
WOULD YOU remove the right to marry from LGBTQ folks if you could? WOULD YOU remove the right for gay couples to adopt children if you could?
Craig responded, vaguely and without answering:
No one has a “right” to marry, it’s impossible to remove something that doesn’t exist.
Except that in the US, currently, YES, people DO have a legal right to marry. And in the last 10 years, LGBTQ folks have had the legal right to marry, just as straight folks have had the legal right to marry. And black and white folks have had the legal right to marry for 50+ years. (Glenn, would you remove that right if you could? Just curious.) Of course, we have a legal right to marry in addition to a human rights right to self determination.
AND SO, I ask you once again:
If you could, WOULD you remove the right of LGBTQ folks to marry adults of their own choice (mutual choice, of course)?
It really would help me figure out where I allegedly "misrepresented" you if you'd be more specific and cite the quote and WHAT was misrepresented. So far, in this example, I can't see that I've misrepresented anything, although to be fair, because of your vague non-answers, it IS a bit hard to tell.
Same for your response about LGBTQ folks having a right to adopt. You didn't give the simple, direct answer a normal person would give (ie, of course, if any adult is a fit, responsible adult with the necessary means, of course we'd love them to adopt because it's such a blessing! and it doesn't matter if they're gay or straight, just loving and responsible and able to provide a healthy home.) In response to the question you said, without answering the question:
The data suggests that adoption by gay couples is not the most optimal option for the children and we’ve seen a disturbing increase in gay couples buying children and in abuse of adopted/purchased children.
? And so... your answer is... what? "I fear that unsupported rumors of "gay couple 'buying' children and 'in abuse of..." etc, whatever... means they should not have that option? Your vague response is not an answer. Do you understand that?
Of course, men as a category are FAR and away more likely to sexually abuse children... should all men be prevented from adopting children?
Dan pretends to believe in God...that He exists. Yet, Dan demands we prove that which reveals Him to us...Scripture...is not objective proof for anything he personally dislikes. Scripture is the Word of God, passed down through the ages without alteration, and Dan rejects it as an objective source of moral Truth. Amazing!
"I just don't understand. Especially given the ongoing vitriol towards me that you and yours continue to spew."
Says the whiner who constantly refers to my comments as "vulgar", "disrespectful", "immature", "oppressive", "hateful", "racist", "misogynist" and a host of other examples of false and unproven descriptions.
To answer Craig's questions which have already been answered:
By your standard, what’s to stop incestuous marriage, child marriage, or animal marriage?
SELF-DETERMINATION. A child and an animal do NOT have adult human levels of capacity for make such decisions for themselves.
And holy crap, are you REALLY arguing against marriage as a part of our natural rights of self determination??
And, as noted later (perhaps you hadn't read it yet and somehow didn't know), in OUR nation, we DO have a legal right to marry, straight or gay. So, do you acknowledge that legal right, even if you would reject it as a freedom of self determining peoples?
What in the hell are you rambling about now? Because all you have is “blame Trump”. The actual data released in the files shows zero proof that Trump had any involvement with Epstein’s vile activities. Lots of folx on the left were much more closely tied than Trump. Harris had affairs and traded sex for power, Walz was a serial l liar and oversaw the largest fraud in the history of the US. I voted for an imperfect candidate running against other imperfect candidates who was more way more open to conservative policies than anyone else.
In desperation Dan needs to make up unrealistic scenarios to gin up fear.
But keep up with the lies and misrepresentation. I’ve provided ample evidence that the drug interdictions were both legal and constitutional, strangely you ignored that and chose the path of lies and hysteria.
But you are hysterical, so there’s that.
Craig, somehow, actually asked this question with an apparent straight face:
As long as “self determination” is the only and final arbiter then wouldn’t it trump harm?
??? NO. Of course, not. That is NOT how self determination works in the world of human rights. You know this, don't you? Humans DO have a right to self determination, but that right ends if and when they're harming others or interfering with others' rights to self determination.
You KNOW this, right? Tell me you understand that concept of human rights. It's important to me to know that you know this.
Another question:
But just for grins, what is the appropriate age where a child should be allowed to marry?
Humans have not determined this perfectly, as there is no one "right" answer. A "child" is someone without the full capacity of thought and effective decision making. All children are different, but they more or less tend to progress to a basic level of adult decision-making sometime in their late teens and early 20s, but all humans/children are different. There are, of course, some children with learning/intellectual delays who may not be making effective, responsible adult choices until later and maybe some who can do so at a younger age.
Because there IS biologically and ethically no one "right" answer, legally, most places choose something like 16 (sometimes with the permission of the parents) to 18. I'm generally fine with that.
In addition, add in all manner of varying factors (in earlier ages, many people didn't live past the age of 50 or 60 - if they survived childhood, so that might argue for younger marrying ages... also different cultures have different values), makes it a difficult/impossible question to authoritatively answer.
Sometimes, there are not definitive answers when dealing with humans. I guess you could agree with that? Or do you have an official "right" age that teenagers should be allowed to marry?
"1. God has never called "homosexual behavior" an abomination."
You're a liar. Why don't you play the weak-ass game of insisting the "homosexuality" wasn't coined until about 100-150 years ago to pretend the behavior didn't exist and wasn't prohibited as abomination worthy of death?
"2. Some HUMANS have recorded a god as referring to what SOUNDS LIKE SOME unspecified homosexual activity as wrong."
Another willful, intentional lie told in defense of indefensible behavior God has prohibited without caveat as abomination worthy of death.
"3. Those same handful of rules that SEEM to be addressing SOME aspects of homosexual activity are found in ancient rules that were NOT specified as to be universal rules, but rather, were literally given specifically to the ancient Hebrew people."
No legitimate, honest Biblical scholar pretends rules regarding sexual conduct are not universal, including...as I've provided on multiple occasions...even scholars who are themselves homosexuals or homosexual enablers. As regards sexual behaviors, Leviticus 18 presents it as behavior God finds detestable for ANYONE in the world, as I've also proven and you've done absolutely nothing to counter in any way except to say, "Nyuh uh" (paraphrasing here). You're a liar.
4. Those same handful of rules..."
This is where Dan equivocates instead of focusing on the rules in question. There's no doubt among honest Christian scholars and theologians about the universality of the prohibition against any sexual behavior outside the marriage of one man/one woman. None of the commandments of God were "awful". They all served His Purpose. They weren't laid down with any consideration to align with how some dipshit from "Jeff St." might regard them.
"4. The objective, observable fact is that the literal roughly handful of instances/passages that appear to be speaking to some aspect of homosexual behavior is that there is no objective proof that they were intended to be universal rules against all homosexual behavior."
That's just a pro-homo lie homosexuals like to tell because they're desperate to legitimize what God calls abomination. Those like you want to maintain the fiction that you're Christian and a child of God while telling God to go scratch. Galatians 6:7 (NIV) says, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." Dan say, "Hold my pink lemonade!"
"Again, THESE are objective facts."
They're self-serving lies promoting, defending, enabling and celebrating sexual deviancy God prohibits. What's more, you couldn't prove or support any of it if I helped you lie harder.
Dan,
If you are going to continually commit to more and more absurd and ridiculous BS, you can’t expect me to take you seriously anymore. You make the absurd suggestion, that “self-determination” somehow magically, invents or confers rights, then promptly start removing those rights from the people you choose to oppress. I can’t take you seriously anymore on any of this. So don’t expect much in the way of responses to this absurd foolishness.
I was just covering my bases.
I could be wrong, but I may well be the only person in this group who is adopted. And speaking for myself, I would have preferred adoption by a well vetted, gay couple as a preferable alternative to abortion.
Because something is legal, doesn’t mean it’s a right.
Rights are not conferred by the government, per the founding documents of the United States.
I’m not gonna play this game with you anymore. I’ve given you multiple specific examples of your misrepresentation, and you choose to ignore ithem. Blind, stupid, ignorant, forgetful, or just obtuse, it doesn’t matter to me. You’ve already acknowledged one, just be a man and acknowledge the other specific ones I have pointed out.
I’m not arguing anything, I’m stating the fact that in the United States there is no constitutionally enumerated right to to marry. An activist court decided that it is legal, but the courts do not confer rights. This is grade school civics.
Since you’re going to pretend that I don’t answer your questions, I see no reason to continue answering your questions.
So I asked you specifically what your personal answer was, and you gave me everything but your personal answer.
I could extrapolate from what appears to be your moral guidelines, and conclude that the appropriate age for marriage is whatever age marriage is legal or accepted within a given society. Would you agree with that?
Dear Racist Dan,
Black or brown or "white" are just skin colors and have nothing to do with what marriage is. Any human male can marry any human female.
"Teenagers" are those who have usually passed puberty and are actually young men and young women. The term "teen" or "teenager" was invented to keep children as children rather than train them to be adults, which is why so many college student are no more mature that 13-yr-olds.
Historically members of both sexes have married as early as 15 because they were raised to be responsible adults.
My mom was 15 and father was 19 and their marriage was legal. I've know many couples who married right out of high school when the woman was 17! If a 17-yr-old can sign up for the military, he/she should have the right to marry. There are many cultures in the world today when a 15 year old young woman is marriagable.
It’s kind of amusing to watch Dan flailing and grasping at straws right now. It’s especially amusing to watch him. Decide which groups he thinks should be oppressed in terms of being denied their “right” to marry. V
Most scholars believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was 13 or 14 when she became pregnant with Jesus. It seems strange that Dan place so much weight on Mary‘s response to the angel yet by his standards. It seems he would argue. She is too young to marry. In some western societies, the age of consent is as low as 12, and in many countries the age of consent is between 14 and 16. Dan seems to be advocating for significantly older than that as being the ideal age to Marie. I can’t help but wonder if legally marrying a 12 year-old would be considered immoral by his standard. Then we get to places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and many Muslim lyrics, who would argue that it is perfectly acceptable and legal to Marie at the age of nine. Because we cannot forget that the prophet Muhammad married a six-year-old and graciously refrain from contemplating the marriage until she was the ripe old age of nine. Because, as we know, Mohammad was the final messenger from God and is the great moral example that all Muslims must follow. Brutal, violent conquest, owning slaves, and sex with a nine-year-old, are part of Mohammed’s legacy.
The chances of Dan getting too worked up about any of that, are pretty slim. He’ll make his usual vague, general, milk, toast, statements about how all of XYZ is bad and should be condemned. But probably won’t work himself up enough to specifically condemn those who practice the very things he list as being immoral and agreed on.
Whoever that anonymous is at 3:04 PM, you need to check what your computer thinks you mean!
Craig...
"Because something is legal, doesn’t mean it’s a right."
I don't know how to help you here. I asked you clearly, indirectly, and simply: If you had the power to remove the legal right for gay folks to get married, would you do so?
It's a simple question and a reasonable question and it helps me get to the question of whether or not I misrepresented you all. From what y'all have said so far I'm not sure that I did misrepresent you. I don't believe you support gay folks being able to get married legally and adopt children. Clearly Glenn doesn't and I wasn't misrepresenting Glenn.
Beyond that I'm just left with rolling my eyes. You clearly are not trying to engage in a good faith conversation or answer questions directly, as evidenced by your real-world examples of not answering the questions that are asked of you.
And so I would ask once again, do you not realize that you're not answering the questions?
Dan
"As always, harm."
Subjective and thus not an answer.
"We humans have generally agreed to the notion of human rights and that we have certain inalienable rights that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
You don't agree to the notion of life being a universally unalienable right, so merely stating this does nothing to present an objective standard. And given this American principle isn't even shared by all Americans...like yourself...we know fully that not all the world buys into it, either. So "we humans" have not at all "generally agreed" to these unalienable rights, so you fail again.
"As always, you have no objectively proven moral system or set of codes at all... no one does."
We Christians, do. You pretend Christians, not so much. Scripture is our objectively proven moral system. Who has suffered at the hand of those who keep God's moral system?
"...humans generally recognize that it is vitally important to stand for human rights and not causing harm."
Some humans, yes. But even among them, what constitutes rights and harm is still subjective and thus, doesn't meet the challenge. I would suggest you stop saying this sort of thing as if its universally understood in the exact same way. YOUR understanding is destructive.
"Are you suggesting that this is insufficient?"
Yes. Particularly given the ambiguity inherent in your presentation of it.
"If so, what are you suggesting in its place? Moral anarchy?"
God's Will. There's already anarchy in your presentation of morality due to the incredible subjectivity therein.
"In a world with no objectively proven universal moral code..."
I don't know which world you reference, but here on earth, we have the Will of God. Who has suffered at the hands of those who abide God's Will? Be specific.
Craig...
"It seems he would argue. She is too young to marry."
Dan, as he already made clear...
"in earlier ages, many people didn't live past the age of 50 or 60 - if they survived childhood, so THAT MIGHT ARGUE for younger marrying ages... also different cultures have different values), makes it a difficult/impossible question to authoritatively answer..."
Dan, continuing...
" In some western societies, the age of consent is as low as 12, and in many countries the age of consent is between 14 and 16. Dan seems to be advocating for significantly older than that as being the ideal age to Marie. I can’t help but wonder if legally marrying a 12 year-old would be considered immoral by his standard."
Yes, I would be opposed to 12 year old marrying anywhere today. Wouldn't you?
[Rolls eyes some more!]
Dan
"As an objective fact there is no data to support the claim that there is a God who said that homosexual behavior is always wrong or evil or an abomination."
This is a straight up, intentional, consciously delivered lie. First, there's plenty of evidence for the existence of God. Secondly, there's no doubt God prohibits homosexual behavior as an abomination and does so without caveat, without providing any examples of contexts or scenarios in which two queers can indulge in same-sex sexual behavior without that behavior being detestable abomination. None. Two pervs saying, "I love you and won't be perverse with anyone but you until death parts us" doesn't legitimize the behavior and make it less detestable and abominable.
"It is not God saying it. That is an objective fact."
There is nothing in Scripture indicating God the Father or God the Son speaking which are actually examples of God the Father or Son saying it, but are records of such by the authors. That is, not even the red letters are examples of Jesus saying anything but are just what the Gospel writers claimed He said. Thus, nothing in Scripture can be believed because Dan doesn't think the Biblical authors are accurately recording anything about God if Dan doesn't like what they've recorded. It's that simply. We can only believe that which Dan likes personally, and the rest are not credible and must be proven objectively to the extent that Dan gives his A-OK to them. Until then, it's apparently all crap and why are we even daring to speak about morality at all?
"
"2. Some HUMANS have recorded a god as referring to what SOUNDS LIKE SOME unspecified homosexual activity as wrong.
Objectively that is what we have in Leviticus"
You're a liar. What we have in the Torah is Moses having written down everything God told him to record. And he wrote down God saying, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Lev 18:22 NIV) This is not a prohibition against "some form" of homosexual activity. It's a prohibition against homosexual activity. You have no objective basis for saying otherwise except that what Alvin Lee referred to as "dykes and fairies" gives you a tingle in your lady bits.
"Also these were rules amongst a bunch of rules given specifically to ancient Israel. Literally there is nothing in the text that says these are rules that are universal"
We've covered and explained this many times in the past and you've always dodged it as if it wasn't clearly presented to you. With regard to Lev 18, this chapter refers to the commandments within it as that which was practiced in both Egypt and Canaan and was as detestable for those people as it was for the Hebrews. God never so much as hinted that it was OK for anyone else to indulge in the sexual prohibitions of this chapter. v. 27---"For all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. v.28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
v.29"Everyone who does any of these detestable things---such persons must be cut off from their people. v.30.Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were pracitice before you can and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God." ...Who means absolutely nothing to Dan Trabue.
"Do you disagree with reality?"
I disagree with your intentional lying, which isn't reality at all.
"Further there is nothing in the text that explains specifically what is being spoken of here. Is it any gay behavior?"
Is it any treat before dinner you mustn't eat, or only candy? What a childish load of crap posturing as a mature question! On what basis can you even ask this question? "Does that stop sign mean I have to stop, too?" I can't understand why this pathetic fraud continues pretending he's Christian!
"Does it include lesbians?"
Stupid question dishonestly posed as if this putz doesn't know the answer.
"Is it speaking of straight men laying down with men to have sex? Is it speaking of gay men living in a committed loving marriage? The text literally does not say."
It doesn't have to. Not for actual Christians who don't seek ways to make God's Will not apply to them. What it DOES need to say is "Here is a list of exceptions to My commandment against same-sex behavior" without which there is no way to rationalize your rejection of His Will on the matter. The mere fact that you're trying to find a loophole you can exploit to legitimize your deviancy rather than sacrifice your carnal desire to conform with God's Will reveals loudly just what a reprobate you are! We don't have to prove the obvious. It's on you to prove the ridiculous. "How 'bout popcorn, Ma? Can I have some popcorn before dinner?" What a perverse buffoon you are!
"Also part of where y'all's logic fails" (it neither fails nor have you come within a universe of showing how it might) "is that you might BEGIN to perhaps have a LITTLE bit of a case" (my case is rock solid and you've not come within a universe of showing otherwise) "IF the Bible was a moral rule book or moral rulings book."
...which it is, even if not exclusively. Of course it's more than just a rule book for how Christians are expected to behave in order to show they're actually Christ-followers, but to pretend it's not a rule book is just something reprobate sinners say while posturing as actual Christ-followers.
"IF all we had to do was identify rules in the Old Testament, New Testament, and if a moral ruling exists somewhere in the text and we understand it correctly, then it's always immoral."
That's funny. The reprobate pervert pretends Lev 18:22 isn't simple to understand correctly.
"But the Bible is not that. The Bible literally makes no claim to be that. God has not told you it's that."
And here again we see the pervert insist that the Bible and/or God must assert a truth or make a claim in precisely the manner demands it must in order for that assertion or claim to be true and factual. God must feel really badly about failing to measure up to Dan's strict standards of Godly behavior!
"Reason does not demand that."
You wouldn't know reason if it kicked you hard in your lady bits.
"It is you all reading into the text in a Pharisaical sort of way what the text does not literally say."
This is just you lying again. We don't read into the text. We just read the text. It's not at all ambiguous as you wish it was. YOU are trying to suggest caveats Lev 18:22 doesn't have. That verse is as distinct and specific to a given behavior as is "Don't murder".
"What God has not told you, that too is an objective fact."
Is this the same God Who gave several chapters of commandments in Leviticus?
"But IF we accept the notion of a perfectly good, loving, just and gracious God, THEN, based on that presumption, we can make some reasonable conclusions."
That would be "a perfectly good, loving, just and gracious God" according to Dan's definition...or for that matter the definition of anyone who wants what they want and claims "a perfectly good, loving, just and gracious God" would approve.
Most scholars believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was 13 or 14 when she became pregnant with Jesus. It seems strange that Dan place so much weight on Mary‘s response to the angel yet by his standards. It seems he would argue. She is too young to marry. In some western societies, the age of consent is as low as 12, and in many countries the age of consent is between 14 and 16. Dan seems to be advocating for significantly older than that as being the ideal age to marry. I can’t help but wonder if legally marrying a 12 year-old would be considered immoral by his standard. Then we get to places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and many Muslim lyrics, who would argue that it is perfectly acceptable and legal to Marie at the age of nine. Because we cannot forget that the prophet Muhammad married a six-year-old and graciously refrain from contemplating the marriage until she was the ripe old age of nine. Because, as we know, Mohammad was the final messenger from God and is the great moral example that all Muslims must follow. Brutal, violent conquest, owning slaves, and sex with a nine-year-old, are part of Mohammed’s legacy.
The chances of Dan getting too worked up about any of that, are pretty slim. He’ll make his usual vague, general, milk, toast, statements about how all of XYZ is bad and should be condemned. But probably won’t work himself up enough to specifically condemn those who practice the very things he list as being immoral and agreed on.
Mostly fixed, voice to text isn’t awesome sometimes.
C
Art,
I obviously, it’s Dan's hunch about what that really is.
As I said, Dan would have objected to Mary being wed Joseph and is willing to place his hunches over and above countries with lower ages of consent than Dan feels appropriate. Strangely enough, not a word specifically about the countries and cultures that believe 9 is the magic age.
1. I don’t have the authority to unilaterally overturn a SCOTUS decision. I don’t see the point in dealing with a fantasy world which is so absurd.
2. Marriage is not a right.
No, I stopped trying to jump through your “good faith” hoops after spending extended time answering your questions earlier today only to have you deny this reality.
So, I’m simply mirroring your idiotic lack of respect, and choosing to respond to your idiocy without taking your nonsense seriously.
If I can't get you to be concerned about 12-year-olds being married, then why should you pretend to be concerned about 9-year-olds?
Y'all just really don't understand stuff. You have a hard time reading and understanding even when written by a fellow countryman in the same era, in the same language. Y'all really should be more humble about your ability to understand the biblical authors if you can't understand me writing to you today in your own language.
Glenn, will you condemn the idea of a 12-year-old getting married today?
Hell, no wonder y'all can't get upset about Trump's perversions.
Dan
Craig, read closely and try to understand: If Dan does not like the idea of 12-year-olds being forced into marriage and does not think that 12-year-olds can consent (since they're not adults or at an adult level), then doesn't it seem reasonable to you that, of course, Dan is opposed to 9-year-olds being forced into marriages? What is wrong with your reasoning? ...with your reading comprehension?
Dan
Craig...
"I don’t have the authority to unilaterally overturn a SCOTUS decision."
But that literally was not the question, was it?
" don’t see the point in dealing with a fantasy world which is so absurd."
I get that you, a straight white guy with all the privileges in the world, may not understand the point in dealing with this very reasonable real-world question because you don't understand that there is a very real risk. If Trump and the MAGA world ultra-conservative extremist get their way, like Marshall and Glenn, then that right, which they legally currently have, may very well be taken away. So I'm asking you the fucking reasonable question, son. If you had the power would you overturn the right to legal marriage that the gay folks currently enjoy?
Answer the question and don't be a dumbass coward. Come on!
Now if you want to call that vitriolic (when you won't answer a very basic question about a very reasonable concern about very real human rights and legal rights that are very much at stake right now in the real world), then call it vitriolic. But don't be a coward and don't be a jackass. Answer the question or be exposed as the loser in this conversation and in the history books going forward. Those opposed to human rights always ultimately are exposed as the fascist cowards that they are.
Dan
What is this delusional nonsense? Unlike you I AM simply pointing out the fact that there are currently nations where the legal age of consent is 12 and at least 2 where the age of consent is 9.
Coming from someone who claimed to be currently studying “ALL of the data in the known world.”, being lectured on humility by you is pretty damn funny.
Especially given your recently demonstrated ability inability to communicate one of your many claims accurately.
Again, the last line is a misrepresentation, but that won’t bother you at all.
Yet, the wisest leaders in multiple countries disagree with you.
But as long as the 12 year olds are only kidnapped and raped (and their religious leaders speak glowingly of their character) a light sentence doesn’t bother you at all, right?
Well, you’re deep in fantasy land now.
With the premise established that marriage is not a right, and that you are extremely clear that you would deny this privilege to multiple groups, oppressing them.
My answer is that I do not have or want the power to unilaterally overturn laws which have been arrived at through the appropriate process. Given that the current law went through the appropriate political and legal process, I would not unilaterally overturn it.
Still misrepresenting the vitriol thing I see. How mature, adult, and respectful of you.
Your false claim about losing rights is simply absurd and ridiculous, but that’s what we expect from you.
It’s strange that you invest more time and energy whining about “gay marriage” in countries where it’s legal with virtually no chance of that changing, than you spend trying to legalize “gay marriage” where it’s not.
Put your money where your mouth is, pick a country where “gay marriage” isn’t legal and go protest.
But I’m the coward because you don’t like my accurate and Truthful answer to your insane hypothetical question.
One problem with Dan's "SCOTUS decisions=new rights" theory is that SCOTUS has a long track record of affirming "rights" then removing those same "rights". If your foundation for a "right" is a judicial body with a track record of affirming slavery and discrimination as "rights" that seems like a bad idea.
Dan, I noted puberty was where a child becomes a young man or young woman. Most don't reach puberty until around 14 years old. I noted only that 15 was often a common age for young women to marry. Never even hinted at 12.
Why would Dan care what you actually said. It'd get in the way of him trying to spin a fanciful tale.
Post a Comment