You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
A lawsuit brought by Donald Hitchcock after he was dismissed from the DNC as the party's gay and lesbian outreach director, has shed light on a fissure between GLBT people and one of the party's most crucial special interest groups, African Americans.
DNC Chairman Howard Dean describes the rift in his fascinating deposition in the lawsuit, a portion of which was just recently posted on YouTube and is causing more than a little political heartburn as the party prepares to nominate Barack Obama as its first African American for president.
In the video, according to National Public Radio, Dean describes how he has tried to broker peace between gays and lesbians and prominent African American leaders, led by onetime Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile, who had objected to goals and timetables for gay and lesbian delegates to the party's national convention.
"I wanted equal representation for gay and lesbian Americans, and I wanted to achieve it in a way that wasn't offensive to the history of the civil rights movement," Dean says in the deposition, which was videotaped in March but only made public a week ago.
Personally, I'm offended by the notion that my quest for equality somehow upsets the sensibilities of some self centered African American homophobes who learned all the wrong lessons of the civil rights movement. That movement was about Dr. King's dream of equality for all people - not the narrow, selfish agenda of equal rights for certain people.
In any case, let's hope Democrats can come together and elect Barack Obama - who will then sign pro-gay legislation into law, which will certainly help put this controversy behind us.
119 Comments:
Lets not loose sight of the fact that Obama does NOT support full equality for GLBT people as far as marriage equality goes, an attitude that continues to pervade the African-American community many of whom find the analogy between our full civil rights and theirs to be offensive. Sadly, they are perpetuating the same discrimination that they were once subjected to. They've really learned nothing except the bigotry espoused by their religious beliefs.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 9:16 AM
Talk about hijacking the civil rights movement! As a black American I am deeply offended!!
Yes, as an exercise in marketing and merchandising, the homosexual activist strategy of hijack is the most brilliant playing of the race card in recent memory. Probably not since the "poverty pimps" of 35 years ago, who leveraged the guilt and sense of fair play of the American public to hustle affirmative action set-asides, have we witnessed so brazen a misuse of African-American history for partisan purposes.
But the partisans of so-called "homosexual marriage" have a problem. There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights.
As the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese observed more than 30 years ago, the black American experience as a function of slavery is unique and without analogue in the history of the United States. While other ethnic and social groups have experienced discrimination and hardship, none of their experiences compare with the physical and cultural brutality of slavery.
It was in the crucible of the unique experience of slavery that the civil rights movement was born. The extraordinary history of the United States as a slaveholding republic included the kidnapping and brutal transport of blacks from African shores, and the stripping of their language, identity, and culture in order to subjugate and exploit them.
It also included the constitutional enshrining of these evils in the form of a Supreme Court decision - Dred Scott v. Sandford - denying to blacks any rights that whites must respect, and the establishment of Jim Crow and de jure racial discrimination after Dred Scott was overturned by a civil war and three historic constitutional amendments.
It is these basic facts that embarrass efforts to exploit the rhetoric of civil rights to advance the goals of generally privileged groups, however much they wish to depict themselves as victims. Whatever wrongs individuals have suffered because some Americans fail in the basic moral obligation to love the sinner, even while hating the sin, there has never been an effort to create a subordinate class subject to exploitation based on "sexual preference"...err, "sexual orientation"...err, whatever the popular political correct title is today.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 9:52 AM
So Anonymous, are you in agreement with the majority of your fellow African-Americans but unlike Dr. King, that lesbian and gay citizens should not have full equality? If that is the case, then you too have learned nothing about discrimination and are helping to perpetuate it and I find that equally offensive. Throughout history, gay people have been tortured, put to death for merely existing and in some parts of the world, that hasn't changed to this day, the middle east comes to mind. Are you comfortable with that, or better yet, do you support it? Let me also remind you that in some parts of Africa, slavery was also used by native born black Africans to enslave their own people long before the white man colonized.
By the way, it is NOT homosexual marriage but marriage equality. Since when does one refer to marriage as heterosexual marriage?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 11:12 AM
Should we then have "marriage equality" for polygamists? What about the discrimination toward polygamists? And are you seriously comparing the discrimination and violence suffered by African-Americans and that suffered by homosexuals? I think you're just as much a bigot as you claim others to be!
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 11:27 AM
That's quite a jump from marriage equality between two consenting adults to polygamy. why do bigots always jump to the extreme?
the argument is about equality for all human beings. Why does it offend you, Anonymous, if two gay men want to be married?
I thought Dr. King's message was freedom and equality for ALL mankind. Period. Not just heterosexual mankind. "Civil Rights" apply to ALL citizens.
Those foolish enough to ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
posted by Rowdy, at
8/06/2008 12:28 PM
This is why McCain will win. The deomcratic party is too speical intrest oriented. And these special interests conflict with eachother. The interests of African Americans are different then that of gays which are differant then those of labor unions etc. There is not really a unifying ideal to rally around. As a gay man I can handle either candidate, but am voting Libertarian, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 1:17 PM
Talk about hijacking the civil rights movement! As a black American I am deeply offended!!
I am sorry that you are offended, but deal with it. This is not about Dr Kings opinions nor about sins and sinners. this is about equal rights for all. If some states want to recognize gay marriage, then so be it. As a Libertarian, I would favor a system of merit rather that protected classes of people. I think quotas are wrong as is affirmative action. I hope that the courts rule against A/A,
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 1:43 PM
Any black person, having anguished over the discrimination and prejudice that he or she has suffered, who proceeds to reject gays and lesbians (thereby engaging in the same kind of marginalizing and dehumanizing that they are so rightly upset with) should be hanging their heads in total shame.
Homophobia exists everywhere, even amongst groups who themselves know the pain of being pushed out of the common circle of humanity. It is shocking that those who are acutely aware of the sadness of man's inhumanity to man would then turn around and attempt to impose that same type of stigma upon another group, or would engage in the pointless horror of "my discrimination is worse than your discrimination."
The controversial fact of the matter is this: If America's population had turned out to be 80% black with whites being the 14% minority, the black population would have treated white people just as badly as they themselves have been treated by whites. The black community's homophobia reveals that their problem isn't with bigotry or prejudice; their problem is simply that it happened to THEM.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 1:49 PM
Sigh.
People of color should know better.
The oppressed take on characteristics of the oppressor. It's called assimilation, what else is new.
And nobody gets hurt more by it than their fellow people of color. Gay people of color have to deal with racism from stupid white people, and homophobia from stupid people of color.
Robert NYC I feel for you, but Obama is still light years beyond McCain. I think he's more open minded than he is able to let on right now. The real problem is that our country is now so blatantly religious that one cannot become president without pandering to Christian "morality".
I use the term "morality" very, very loosely.
Oh and anonymous, you don't have a right to not be offended, so shove it right up your arse. Kay? Bye.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 2:00 PM
Dear anonymous: no one's hijacking your movement. Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is someone directing it against you or you directing it against someone else.
No one would deny that both segregation and slavery were grave evils. What is and has been done to gay people the world over is also a great evil. Playing the game of my suffering is greater than your suffering is counterproductive.
Prejudice is prejudice, hate is hate, discrimination is discimination.
Let me tell you something. you claim I cannot understand your pain. I think i do, which is why I believe in civil rights laws and ending racism, and would no more vote for a racist or give money to a racist organization than i would to a gay-hating one.
what is equally clear ot me, however, is that you don't understand our pain. you should, because in many ways they are similar. but you don't.
remember the book "Black like me"? here's an experiment for you. go aorund to a bunch of people, both family and strangers, and tell them you're gay. Stand up in your (possibly) all black church and announce "I'm a fag." See if you can reconcile the treatment you will receive with how you have been trzated as a black person.
And when you are done learning something about the nature of oppression, of hatred, of prejudice, come back and tell me how much great you suffer as a black person than I as a gay person.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 3:45 PM
I'll ask again:
Should we then have "marriage equality" for polygamists (i.e., multiple consenting adults)? What about the discrimination toward polygamists? And are you seriously comparing the discrimination and violence suffered by African-Americans and that suffered by homosexuals?
And Eshto's clearly another racist on this site. I've checked and he and others have always bellyached about being offended. But when a black man says he's offended he complains and tells me to shove it. Sad man.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 8:13 AM
sure. if you can find a national movement for and against polygamy. but you won't.
sure. if that were the issue being debated. but it's not.
sure. if you actually gave a rat's ass about polygamy vs. gay marriage. but you don't.
sure. if you can answer the question 'what's preventing polygamists from getting married right now?" Or 'what's preventing Osama from marrying his dog/goat/10 year old cousin right now?"
reagrding the violence and discrimination suffered by black vs. gay. As i already said, i have no interest in decding who has experienced worse discirmination. But let's get one thing clear (assuming you are afro-american). YOU were never the subject of slavery-- maybe your great great grandfather, but not you. So don't think it is ok to accept that for yourself--any more than as a jew, i can claim that the holocaust happened to me. you never experienced it, though you may have experienced some of the lasting effects.
But yes, i will compare the two. I'm sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your prejudices, whether or you prefer to call them your religious beliefs or just admit them for what they are. I am equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE-- just like black people have been-- because someone doesn't approve, or believes their God does not approve.
Prejudice is prejudice, hate is hate, discrimination is discrimination.
Good post Ben. If it was not for Jewish people, life would be a lot worse for gays. Jews have been in the forefront defending gay rights. They have a respect for reason that Christians often lack. I say this even though I am not Jewish.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 11:21 AM
Nope. Basically because of its evasiveness, straw-man, and inconsistency.
For years, critics of the idea of homosexual "marriage" have made the point that accepting the proposition that two persons of the same sex can marry each other entails abandoning any principled basis for understanding marriage as the union of two, and only two, persons.
So far as I am aware, homosexual activists have made no serious effort to answer or rebut this point. Their strategy has been to dismiss it as a mere slippery-slope argument (although the truth is that it is a more fundamental type of argument than that) and to accuse critics of the idea of homosexual "marriage" of engaging in "scare tactics." Some homosexual activists have even denounced critics of the idea of homosexual "marriage" as "bigots" for suggesting that homosexual relations are on a par with polygamy and "polyamory" - the union of three or more persons in a sexual partnership.
But that is changing. A group (http://www.beyondmarriage.org/) of self-identified "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers" has released a statement explicitly endorsing "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner." Got that? More than one conjugal partner.
The statement lays out with remarkable candor and clarity the agenda of their movement. They have said what very few "gay marriage" advocates have heretofore been willing to reveal for fear that it would alienate people who might otherwise be persuaded to support homosexual "marriage" on the theory that "love makes a family." These are people who do not want to change the meaning of marriage or undermine the institution, but who might be open to the idea of "extending" marriage to "committed, loving same-sex couples."
In acknowledging that under the doctrine of "love makes a family," what applies to "committed, loving homosexual couples" must apply to "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner," the group actually exhibits the virtues of intellectual honesty and logical consistency.
And they let the cat out of the bag. What lies "beyond gay marriage" are multiple sex partners and government recognition thereof.
The choice facing America is this: Either we retain as legally normative the traditional conjugal understanding of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman, or we give legal standing and public approbation to every form of consensual sexual partnering and child rearing, including polygamy and polyamory. Just ask those notable lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and allied activists, scholars educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers. They'll tell you exactly what lies beyond gay marriage. They already have.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 11:21 AM
Anonymous, multiple sex partners beyond gay marriage, please!
Your kind were using the same tactics when Massachusetts passed marriage equality. Nobody married their dog, cat, brother, sister, cousin, niece, nephew as predicted. Using polygamy is yet another desperate attempt by right wing nuts such as yourself from denying people full equality. Your group is losing the cultural war and that's why you rant on gay blogsites. You're outnumbered, closet case that you are. Come out, love yourself and be happy. You're beginning to sound like Theo.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 11:59 AM
Anonymous, honey-- you still are evading the question. I don't care what one group of people says this is very much like benkof's argument that he 'stumbled' across a website that didn't specifically say that marriage had to be monogamous, and this was his 'proof' that gay people don't think monogamy belongs in marriage. It was one website that he 'stumbled' across, not a policy statement from the HRC.
Your proof doesn't represent me, or anyone I know. Every couple I know, and have known in my 58 years, has been a one-on-one situation. Every couple I know that has been married-- same thing.
I don't know who this group of people are, beyond your description of them as " A group (http://www.beyondmarriage.org/) of self-identified "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers"
what I do know is that there are heterosexual polyamorists, and they are far more common than gay ones. but no one is insisting that they represent heterosexual society.
Your either-or dichotomy is a false one. It is a slippery slope argument, not a reality based argument. It is not because a man-woman marriage holds the line against any other form of marriage. It is because we don't allow those kinds of marriages, and there is no serious push to create them. Except in Utah, where the new-age Mormons heartily condemn the polygamist Mormons, yet don't seem to do too much about it,.
Show me some hard evidence not a statement from some self-identified group. show me evidence that gay marriage leads to polygamy. It certainly hasn't in Canada, Spain, Norway, south Africa, Belgium, or Holland.
and since domestic partnerships and there equivalent exist in several states and most of Europe, show me that this has led to a demand to recognize man-on-dog marriage or polygamy, except for those nice Muslim people who think polygamy is ok.
honey, your arguments have no basis in fact, reason, reality, or anything but your fevered imagination as to what will happen if we add a little more dignity to the human existence.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 12:16 PM
We already have polygamy in Utah and Colorado and it is heterosexual. When a man fathers children by more than one woman the government is going to be involved. Like it or not these are de facto marriages and are rooted in religion, and deeply held religious beliefs at that. It is up to society to define what marriage is, and we have decided that a person can be married multiple times. Larry King and Liz Taylor have each been married 8 times. We have decided to make divorce much easier then it was in the past and there is no action to turn back the clock on that. Marriage is legal in Massac huts because that is what the state wants. you may not like it but some states are more libertarian on this issue and are not guided by religious superstition. If at some point people want to expand the definition to include polygamy in Utah then so be it. We have a government of, buy and for the people, not one meant to please "god". If you want that you might consider moving to Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps government should get out of the marriage business all together and leave it up to chuches or other civil entities. Until the 19th century marriages were only recorded in church records in many states, especially in the South.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 12:55 PM
Anonymous; you're in luck. I feel like I'm on a roll today, and I could use a little diversion. So I'll explain the problem to you.
you ask, quite reasonably from your point of view, I'm sure, that if we allow gay marriage, we must allow polygamy as well because how else we could possibly not justify it and be logically consistent?
The problem with the question is that it ignores the obvious: making marriage gender neutral still means that marriage is a legal contract between two people that is recognized by the state, and all states. It AFFIRMS that marriage is two people, not many people. It does not negate the concept, it reinforces it.
But it also recognizes the subtext of the debate, which is the some straight people don't like the very existence of gay people, and certainly resent the idea of uppity gay people demanding an end to differential treatment. And they certainly have the right to make the lives of the people whom they don't like as difficult as possible. sort of reminds you of the separate drinking fountains in the good ol' days in ol' south, doesn't it, when 'those' people knew their place and it was unthinkable that they could actually think that they deserved equal treatment.
But more importantly, it is a recognition that gay relationships contribute to society in exactly the same way as hetero relationships contribute, including the raising of children, occasionally their own, but usually the cast offs of unthinking, irresponsible heterosexual reproductive activity that seems to be so special that our world is choking on it. There nothing special about heterosexual relationships and heterosexual families-- there are many horror stories in the papers every day. You can claim that there is, but in my life's experience, there isn't. and please, don't cite Paul cameron to 'prove' that there is. There isn't.
(But gay marriage is somehow the problem. no, what is really the problem is 1) some straight people behave very badly, like having too many babies and getting divorced in record rates, and can only point out gay people's alleged sins while missing the large beams in their assholes, and 2) that some straight people are so wigged out by the very existence of gay people that they behave badly, and then blame gay people. DADT is a great example. unit cohesion is nothing to the moral righteousness of an insecure, bigoted, and ignorant straight boys in the shower. Then gay people get the blame. We're the ones disrupting morale. Except that we're not. We're already there. IT'S THE GODDAMMED STRAIGHT BOY THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
But I digress.
It is a recognition of something called the myth of heterosexual superiority, but which is expressed as the reality of heterosexual privilege. Your relationships are important, our relationships are not. Well, why? Because you say so, and you are both morally and numerically superior. I will agree to the latter, but the former is just an unsubstantiated, self-serving assertion. (Like 'we're flagellating you to save your soul'. Self-serving,) As I wrote earlier: "I am angry as hell that any man and woman who met five minutes ago and have $50 for a marriage license can get married and have the full panoply of rights and obligations that go with it, but my friends Andy and Paul, a devoted couple for 40 years, or Lance and Peter, together for 35 years, are legal strangers to each other. I am angry that they have to jump through all sort of expensive legal hoops to secure their lives together, all of which can be undone by the combination of a distant relative, a homophobic judge, and a law that permits it."
It is a recognition that I share my life with another responsible, law-abiding, contributing, working, adult human being, who happens to be of the same gender, not the opposite. And not a goat and not my ten year old sister and not 37 polyamorists who exist only in the reality of fundamentalist Christianity and the imagination of anti-gay fundamentalists.
and finally, it is a recognition that the stupid vicious prejudice against gay people is yet another sad mark on the history of heterosexual humanity in general and organized religion in particular, one that many are trying to correct. It is stupid, it is vicious, and it is bigotry, like anti-black bigotry, like anti-Jew bigotry, like anti-woman bigotry. Like all the rest of it.
It's not special just because YOU believe it. It's still bigotry. it is neither special nor superior nor normal. It's just distressingly common, like heterosexuality itself.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 3:12 PM
The combination of homosexual "marriage" being approved by judges in California with the raid on the Texan polygamists seems to have made a few people ponder the logical connection between homosexuality and polygamy.
There is a clear, logical connection between the two and what they seek, and if the time for homosexual "marriage" comes, then the polyamory's time will come is the near future.
Why? Because polygamy has already been approved in principle by homosexual activists. Nothing should logically keep homosexual activists and the loony left from eventually leaping to approve polyamory as an "alternative lifestyle."
Look how homosexual activists argue for homosexual "marriage." They don't refer to any metaphysical or natural rules or standards or absolutes or traditions, except to argue that they don't apply.
Most of the time they simply tell stories of how homosexual couples are suffering because they cannot solemnize their relationships that have made them happy and helped them make others happy. They say that they love each other and therefore should be free to marry. It is the only way they can be fully "who they are."
Now, hearing all this, the polyamorist naturally demands the right to "relate" to more than one person at a time. It is what they want, what fulfills them, part of "who they are." In insisting that one ought to have sex only with someone for whom one has forsaken all others, the homosexual activist is, on their own grounds, just clinging to a tradition and to social mores they claim time and again they don't even believe in. After all, why just two people in a marriage? God's Word? Tradition? The homosexual activists rejects these. And the polyamorist takes the homosexual activists principles and draws a perfectly logical conclusion.
Homosexual activists dismiss all this sound logic as a "slippery slope." In that, they reveal both their ignorance of the difference between a slippery slope argument and a slippery slope fallacy and the truth of the Apostle Paul's argument in Romans 1. From vaccines to health bans, from polygamy to proposed invasions, the "slippery slope" argument has never been more reliable as a predictive model. If one accepts the premises put forward by homosexual activists for homosexual "marriage," then you have to accept the exact same premises put forward by polygamists. And if you accept the premises, the conclusions follow.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 7:11 PM
"...truth of the Apostle Paul's argument in Romans 1..."
thilly boy
Your opinion rests on a myth. the myths in the bible. All around the world Gay marriage is being inacted. we are wining the curture war! rejoice!
btw, it was just reported that Gay divorce is at !%. Perhaps god is using Gays to teach the straight world something.
anonymous honey-- I'm afraid you fall into the category 'not paying attention'. I point out to you that homosexual marriage in fact is an affirmation of a two party marriage, and you come up with some idiocy about 'homosexual activists.' I happen to be one of them, and not one thing you have said applies to me, nor owuld i agree iwth yourconclusions or premises.
And haven't. but it isn't really about gay marriagei s it, just how much you don't like gay people.
Like AJ, Theo, and one of the other anonymouses around here, you really only like hearing yourself talk. what you believe is true. the very use of the quotes around marriage tells us what your bias is.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/08/2008 12:20 AM
fyi, AJ and Theo are the same person
posted by Anonymous, at
8/08/2008 1:51 AM
Saying Ben's response is evasive would obviously be pointing out the obvious. He and others ignore so much.
As one polygamous couple, err, party, stated in a Newsweek article: "polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle." The stirrings for the mainstreaming of polyamory clearly has its their roots in the homosexual "marriage" movement.
As already pointed out, it is completely logical for "polygamy rights" to follow "homosexual rights." After all,
IF the Biblical and/or traditional concept of marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender,
AND IF, as homosexual "marriage" advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but hate, prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love,
THEN the first requirement - the number restriction (two AND ONLY two) - is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
Now, this line of argument infuriates homosexual activists. I can understand why they don't want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does.
To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Consider a union of, say, three homosexual women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds can homosexual activists dismiss their union? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/08/2008 9:49 AM
Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a legal one. Our legal system is constitution based, not bible based. We as a society decide what marriage will be. If 90% of the population wanted polygamous marriage, we would have it. This is not the case. Society is moving to recognize that gay marriage is a positive step forward for Gays, not a negative one. The younger generation is more accepting then the older. Society moves forward. We evolve in out thinking. You may not like this because it conflicts with your religious views, but it does not conflict with other people religious/personal views. In the end it will be "We the people" who decide what constitutes a marriage. And the trend is toward recoginizing gay marriage. There is no trend toward recognizing polygamous marriages. There just is not a big pologamy movement outside Utah. California will be deciding soon what they want marriage to be. The decision will be close what ever it is. Peoples minds are changeing for the better in my opinion and worse in the minds of the "left behinders".
posted by Anonymous, at
8/08/2008 12:06 PM
Anonymous: it's clear your another garden variety bigot. Trying to have a conversaiton with you is a bit like masturbation-- it's a lot of effort, and you still have a mess to clean up when your done.
Your basic assumption seems to be that it is impossible that gay people could want marriage for he same reason that straight people do. that alone is enough to label you a bigot. we're not human beings, we're walking agendas. your obsession with polygamous marriages is a further demonstration of this. what theoretical polygamous marriages have to do with actual gay marriages is not clear to me, though your obsesion is.
I just came across this quote. It seems to apply. thanks daniel dirito.
"I think it's safe to conclude that this level of disjointed dogma makes it virtually impossible to conduct an intelligent dialogue with many of these intransigent ideologues. Watching the folks at FRC and FOF using the views of the same person...to make seeming judgments about the nature of all homosexuals...gives credence to the theory that ignorance is bliss. Frankly, who am I to disagree? In fact, I'll be the first to admit that these folks must be blissfully ignorant."
so anonymous honey-- no more responses for you.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/08/2008 1:27 PM
Anonymous, polygamy as is practiced results in large numbers of young men being deprived of partners and forced out of the community to prevent competition. It is exploitive of females and destructive. The simple fact of the matter is that with a 50% divorce rate its clear its hard enought to make a relationship work when there are only two people in it let alone with trying to balance the needs and desires of three or more. These reason's alone justify restricting marriage to two individuals.
The irony of your position is that you yourself are making the argument that you have no reason to oppose polygamy. By your "logic" the only reason polygamy is opposed is because gay marriage is opposed. That's not a reason. If anyone is justifying polygamy, its you, not the gay community. Polygamy and equal marriage for same sex couples are seperate issues and each will be decided on their own merits or lack thereof. The fact is taht despite your absurd insistence that one must follow the other, this has NEVER happened anywhere where same sex relationships have been recognized - you couldn't be more disingenous.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/08/2008 2:48 PM
"The irony of your position is that you yourself are making the argument that you have no reason to oppose polygamy. By your "logic" the only reason polygamy is opposed is because gay marriage is opposed. That's not a reason. If anyone is justifying polygamy, its you, not the gay community. Polygamy and equal marriage for same sex couples are seperate issues and each will be decided on their own merits or lack thereof"
brilliant PL. couldn't have said it better myself
posted by Anonymous, at
8/08/2008 9:14 PM
Let me simplify this EVEN MORE for the depraved mind crew.
The concept of marriage has traditionally and historically been defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender.
Ben and his cohorts insist that the gender requirement is nothing but hate, prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love.
Now turn your thinking cap on Ben and others and read the question a couple of times if you need to.
On what basis do you retain Part One (the number requirement) of the traditional and historical definition of marriage?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/09/2008 10:45 AM
honey-- you've been answered any number of itmes. unfortunately, for you, it's just not the answer you want to hear.
Please stop wasting air and electrons, think about what has been said to you, examine the very nature of prejudice (which I'm sure as a black person you've jhad some experience with), examine your prejudices, read the ideas presented, lecture the arab world, mormon, and some asian countries on their polygamous marriages, and then get back to me.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/09/2008 12:33 PM
Quit avoiding the question with evasive rhetoric Ben. I've read what you've wrote and you know you haven't directly answered the specific question I'm asking. I'll ask it again and look forward to see you lay out a simple, logical answer.
A. The concept of marriage has traditionally and historically been defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender.
B. Ben insists that the gender requirement is nothing but hate, prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love.
C. Based on this, my specific question is this:
*** On what basis do you retain Part One (the number requirement) of the traditional and historical definition of marriage? ***
posted by Anonymous, at
8/09/2008 1:30 PM
like I said, you've been answered numerous times, but here you go.
I believe marriage is between two people who can legally make those promises to each other and are capable of signing the ocntract..
same as you. that's the basis.
though i would have to say that someone who wanted to come home to two angry people instead of one must be a blithering idiot-- much like someone hwo keeps demanding and answer to the question that has been answered numerous itrmes
posted by Anonymous, at
8/09/2008 1:38 PM
Anonymous, you've been told the reasons why marriage is restricted to two people. A much more interesting question is what reason do you have for disallowing polygamy? It seems you don't have any reason at all as "because gays aren't allowed to marry" is not a reason to disallow polygamy.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/09/2008 2:12 PM
And anonymous, the concept of marriage has NOT been "traditionally and historically been defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender.".
Traditionally polygamy has been an accepted form of marriage and is promoted in your bible. Once again, given that on what basis do YOU oppose polygamy?!
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/09/2008 2:15 PM
Yes I know Ben that you believe that marriage is between two people. But WHY? On what basis (i.e., on what standard)?
My basis and standard for the people restriction in marriage is the exact same basis for the gender restriction. But you reject the latter. My question, again, relates to how YOU (YOU!) justify retaining former restriction.
So you still haven't answered my question. Probably because you can't understand Elementary Logic.
Priya Lynn, I oppose government recognition of polygamous relationships for the same reason I oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships.
However, I do think that de jure or de facto polygamy - which is tantamount to polygyny due to historical sexual dynamics - is vastly more societally stable than the current Western system of a serially monogamous divorce culture. And I suspect the unintended consequences of the homosexual activist push for homosexual "marriage" may turn out to have some surprisingly positive results. For if state-sanctioned homosexual "marriage" is the price required to effectively destroy feminism - and polygyny will totally eviscerate feminism - it may be a pretty small price to pay.
Now, it's true that a polygamous culture isn't likely to be very respectful of individual liberties nor is it necessarily inclined to small government, but then, neither is the one we currently inhabit.
And you are simply wrong that the Bible "promotes" polygamy. It reports that polygamy took place. It was never God's ideal. Read Genesis 1 and 2, Matthew 19, Ephesians 5, etc.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/09/2008 2:37 PM
Gay marriage isn't going to lead to legitimizing incest or prostitution, nor will heterosexual marriage fall apart because Adam and Steve got hitched. I also don't expect anyone (other than Peter Singer perhaps) to be in a rush to marry their goat.
There is, however, one landing pad at the end of the slippery slope that gay rights supporters can't ignore - and this POLYGAMY.
Now, there are vast differences between the homosexual activists and polygamy activists. The main one being that a STRONGER argument can be made for polygamy than can be made for homosexual "marriages." After all, there is already a great deal of precedent since, unlike homosexual "marriage," polygamy has been widely practiced throughout history. There are few civilizations, religions, or cultures where polygamy has not taken root.
In fact, almost ever religion has, at some point in their development, accepted the legitimacy of or allowed polygamy to some degree. All of the major world religions - Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity - have condoned the practice of taking multiple wives. In contrast, none of them has ever tolerated, much less openly accepted, homosexual "marriage."
The same holds true for most every culture on earth. Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of "serial polygamy."
Many of the same arguments AGAINST homosexual "marriage" can even be used IN FAVOR OF polygamy.
Take, for example, the claim that homosexual family structures have a negative effect on children. Both research and common sense support the idea that children function better when they have both a mother and a father. In a polygamous marriage, the child would generally not only have a mother and father but a "spare" parent as well. Imagine the benefit of having both parents at work and yet still having a parent who can stay home with the children.
When the facts are taken into account, the reasons for favoring homosexual "marriage" while excluding polygamy are completely arbitrary and based on personal preference. If you truly believe that homosexuals have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same.
This leaves proponents of homosexual "marriage" with two choices. They either have to (1) accept that polygamy is just as legitimate as homosexual "marriage" or (2) they must admit that there is no INHERENT "right" to expand the definition of marriage.
If homosexuals always had the "right to marry" then why did no one realize it until just now? If it does fall within the purview of the equal protection clause, though, then polygamy would also have to be included. And if it is not an inherent Constitutionally protected right, then the citizens retain the ability to decide the legal status of homosexual "marriage."
Which branch of government retains the right to decide the issue is a subject open to debate. One thing, however, is rather clear: if the courts have the authority to decide if a woman can marry another woman, then they must afford the same right to a woman, a woman, and a man.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/09/2008 2:49 PM
Anonymous said "I oppose government recognition of polygamous relationships for the same reason I oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships".
LOL, and what is that reason?! Obviously you're afraid to give a reason because you don't have a good one.
Once again the reason polygamy is disallowed is because polygamy as is practiced results in large numbers of young men being deprived of partners and forced out of the community to prevent competition. It is exploitive of females and destructive. The simple fact of the matter is that with a 50% divorce rate its clear its hard enought to make a relationship work when there are only two people in it let alone with trying to balance the needs and desires of three or more.
It is you who repeatedly argues that there is no reason to oppose polygamy, that it is opposed merely because gay marriage is opposed - not a reason!
And the bible obviously promotes polygamy, many of the bible's holy heroes practiced polygamy and your god never once criticized or opposed it - stop lying.
Once again, stop evading the question and state on what basis you oppose polygamy.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/09/2008 2:50 PM
Biblical polygamists blessed by the Christian god:
Note in particular, Abraham, Moses, and David - a king of Israel "After God's own heart".
Clearly the Christian god supported and promoted polygamy as well as incest. Moses married his half sister and god blessed him. He created Adam and Eve to have children who had sex with each other to populate the planet.
Anonymous, by your bible you must support both polygamy and incest as your god did. Jesus never condemned polygamy or incest.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/09/2008 3:09 PM
And I should add that NOWHERE does the bible speak against marriage for loving monogamous same sex couples.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/09/2008 3:12 PM
you are right lynn. the bible never views pologamy as an abomination. It is presented very matter of factly. It also has nothing against a young girl straddling her father berfore he dies so suck up is seed in her snatch. so all you girls are free to do daddy acording to the bible.
"If you truly believe that homosexuals have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same."
If you truly believe that heterosexuals have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same.
you see, change homo to hetero and it makes asm uch snese. Limiting marriage to man/woman is just as arbitrary. you just think its ok.
Ok. Last posting for real. you arej ust too silly...
and too filled with hate.
there is almost no "logic" in what you say, and it is very annoying to be accused of not understandingl ofic.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/10/2008 12:32 PM
Well, Ben's obviously a man on the run. Can't answer a simple, logical question laid out in a clear format.
As for the other question, I oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships and polygamous relationships because they defy the historic and traditional definition of marriage based on the objective standard of the created and natural sexual order between man and woman. Plain and simple. If that wasn't clear from my previous posts, I again recommend to you Priya Lynn a course in basic reading comprehension as well as a skills course in deductive reasoning.
As for polygamy vs. monogamy in the Bible and your almost laughable understanding of Biblical Theology, the clearest evidence that monogamy is God's ideal is from Jesus Christ's clear teaching on marriage in Matthew 19: 3 - 6. In this passage, Jesus cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, saying "the TWO [one man and one woman] will become ONE flesh" (i.e., one MAN and one WOMAN, and not MORE THAN TWO).
Another important biblical teaching is the parallel of HUSBAND and WIFE with Jesus Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5:22-33, which makes sense ONLY with monogamy (i.e., Jesus Christ will not have multiple brides).
The Tenth Commandment, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife [SINGULAR]," also presupposes the ideal that there is only ONE WIFE. Polygamy was expressly forbidden for church elders (see 1 Timothy 3:2), but not only for elders, because St. Paul also wrote that "each MAN should have his OWN WIFE [SINGULAR], and each WOMAN her OWN HUSBAND [SINGULAR]." St. Paul then went on to explain marital duties in terms that make sense only with ONE HUSBAND and ONE WIFE.
One point that Ms. Priya Lynn doesn't seem to grasp given her depraved mind is that not everything RECORDED in the Bible is APPROVED in the Bible. Consider where polygamy originated - first in the line of the murderer Cain, not the godly line of Seth. The first recorded polygamist was the murderer Lamech (Genesis 4:23-24). Then Esau, who despised his birthright, also caused much grief to his parents by marrying two pagan wives (Genesis 26:34).
Recall that God clearly forbade the kings of Israel to be polygamous (Deuteronomy 17:17). Look at the trouble when they disobeyed, including deadly sibling rivalry between David's sons from his different wives; and Solomon's hundreds of wives helped lead Solomon to idolatry (1 Kings 11:1-3). Also, Hannah, Samuel's mother, was humiliated by her husband Elkanah's other wife Peninnah (1 Samuel 1:1-7).
Well, what about the godly, yet imperfect, men who were polygamous? Abraham and Sarah would have been monogamous apart from a low point in their faith when Hagar became a second wife - note how much strife this caused later. Jacob only wanted Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her older sister Leah, and later he took their slave girls at the sisters' urging, due to the rivalry between the sisters. Jacob was hardly at a spiritual high point at those times, and neither was David when he added Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Samuel 25:42-43).
But why did God allow this to take place? For similar reasons as the case of divorce, which God tolerated for only a time under certain conditions because of the hardness of the human heart, but both polygamy and divorce were never intended from the beginning (see Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19:8). But whenever the Law of Moses, which has passed away, had provisions for polygamy, it was always the conditional "IF he takes another wife to himself..." (Exodus 21:10), NEVER an encouragement.
And God actually put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would actually DISCOURAGE polygamy. It is no wonder that polygamy was unknown among the Jews after the Babylonian exile, and monogamy was the rule even among the Greeks and Romans by New Testament times.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/10/2008 1:45 PM
and ladies and gents, more twisted pretzel logic from theo.
the world needs a moral code based on reason.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/10/2008 3:24 PM
And God actually put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would actually DISCOURAGE polygamy
does discourage mean the same thing as forbid? I only have a first grade education so please help.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/10/2008 6:29 PM
No, of course it's not the same. Just as divorce wasn't "forbidden" under the Mosaic Law, but still not the ideal. Do I need to explain that again? And really, first grade education may be giving you too much credit.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/10/2008 7:21 PM
but then god done went and changed his mind, kind of like women do.
Anonymous said "I oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships and polygamous relationships because they defy the historic and traditional definition of marriage."
And as has been pointed out to you and as I'm sure you're well aware (but too dishonest to admit) polygamy is part of the historic and traditional definition of marriage. Once again you have no reason whatsoever, as you've emphasized, to oppose polygamous marriage. The same is true for gay marriages, gay marriages have occured throughout history and even the Catholic church at one time blessed gay marriages. Nowhere in the bible does it oppose gay marriages or polygamous marriages.
Your spinning and twisting of the bible does nothing to support your baseless case. Just because your Christian god acknowledged two person marriages doesn't mean he opposed polygamous marriages and his blessing of Moses, Abraham, David and others who were in polygamous marriages shows that he favoured those types of arrangments just as well as two person marriages.
You torpedoed your own argument when you acknowleged that the law of Moses repeatedly sanctions polygamy when it speaks of "if you take another wife". Contrary to your lie, the law of Moses is still in effect - Jesus said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" and "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail". You also shot yourself in the foot when you said "god actually put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would actually DISCOURAGE polygamy". Nowhere did your god say he was trying to discourage polygamy, the opposite is true, he was sanctioning and blessing it by specifying HOW IT WAS TO BE CARRIED OUT. Despite your desperate clinging to your god's recognition of two person marriage there is no denying that he also recocnized and sanctioned polygamous marriages WHICH ARE A PART OF HISTORY AND TRADITION. By your own logic you must support polygamous marriages as well as incestuous marriages such as those entered into by your god's favourite Moses and the children of Adam and Eve whom your god created to populate the earth with incestous sex.
Ultimately it doesn't matter anyway. You want to live according to your twisted interpretation of the bible you're welcome to but no one else is obliged to follow your twisted theology. The seperation of church and state means your bible doesn't apply and your dishonest theology can't form the basis for law preventing loving gay couples from marrying.
As a black american you should know better than to discriminate against another minority. Knowing the history of discrimination against blacks you should be loath to engage in that type of discrimination yourself. You're a disgrace to your race and your history.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/10/2008 10:54 PM
Well, you're obviously Biblically illiterate. Using Matthew 5 as an argument that the Law of Moses is still rule of faith for professing Christians? My goodness...WOW!
Concerning your argument related to the "separation of church and state" and marriage, as already stated above, if homosexuals always had the "right to marry" then why did no one realize it until just now?
And if homosexual "marriage" is not an inherent Constitutionally protected right, then the citizens retain the ability to decide the legal status of homosexual "marriage."
And, as you know full well, those citizens have time and time and time and time again rejected government recognition of homosexual "marriage."
posted by Anonymous, at
8/11/2008 12:40 AM
leave it up to the states. The beauty of America is that we have a laboratory or 50 states to try these types of things out. Federalism is the way to deal with this. Besides we already allow same sex marriage. If a man has a sex change operation, he can legally become a "woman" and marry another man, yet dna wise he/she is still a man.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/11/2008 1:33 AM
Anonymous said "Well, you're obviously Biblically illiterate. Using Matthew 5 as an argument that the Law of Moses is still rule of faith for professing Christians? My goodness...WOW!"
LOL, that was one of the most pathetic bluffs I've seen in a long time. Fact is Jesus was clear, not one tittle of the law of Moses shall pass until the universe comes to an end. Christians may well "profess" that it isn't, but that would be just one more in a long list of lies Christians tell about their bible and gays. Fact is nowhere in your bible does it oppose marriage for loving monogamous same sex couples.
Anonymous said "Concerning your argument related to the "separation of church and state" and marriage, as already stated above, if gays always had the right to marry then why did no one realize it until just now?".
They've been blinded by the bigotry of christians such as yourself. Up until recently gays were so oppressed few people knew one, now that gays are more visible more people know them and can see it makes no sense to condemn the actions and marriages of those who hurt no one.
Anonymous said "And if gay marriage is not an inherent Constitutionally protected right, then the citizens retain the ability to decide the legal status of gay marriage.".
What do you care if its a constitutionally protected right or not? You claimed you opposed gay marriage and polygamy based upon the lie that historically and traditionally marriage has been one man/one woman. As you well know polygamy has historically and traditionally been a practiced form of marriage and as you may not know so has gay marriage. So your rational for rejecting both fails miserably, not to mention the fact that even if your lie were true it wouldn't be an argument against gay marriage OR polygamy - "because we've always done it this way" is not a valid reason to continue doing it that way, based on that "logic" mankind should never have accepted cars, airplanes, or modern medicine because "historically and traditionally they were never done before". If we left it up to your "logic" there'd never been any progress of any sort because "historically and traditionally its never been done before". Take your absurd excuses and go home.
Anonymous said "And, as you know full well, those citizens have time and time and time and time again rejected government recognition of equal marriage for same sex couples."
In some cases they've rejected those attempts to ban equal marriage for same sex couples and the trend is clear, the numbers of people in favour of equal marriage is growing and the number against is dropping. The young in particular are mostly in favour of ending this christian bigotry. Its just a matter of time until bigots like you are forced to crawl under a rock just like the racists of past have had to. Enjoy your brief heyday of bigotry, it won't be long until people equate you and your talk of "homosexuals" to white supremacists and their talk of "niggers".
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/11/2008 1:49 PM
Pathetic bluffs? No, it's your argument that's pathetic Priya Lynn, and demonstrates almost a zero understanding, as noted, of Biblical and Systematic Theology. You simply do not understand that which you're attempting to oppose.
Christians are not, and never have been, bound to the Law of Moses. The clear-cut teaching of the New Testament is that the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative with the death of Jesus Christ. The Law of Moses no longer has authority over any individual. Simply read Romans 10:4. The Apostle Paul clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is the end of the law. That law has been rendered "inoperative." Cross-reference that with Galatians 2:16 Hebrews 7:19.
The Law of Moses has been done away with, and Christians are now under the Law of Christ (cf. Galatians 6:2)/Law of the Spirit of Life (cf. Romans 8:2) - new law totally separate from the Law of Moses. The Law of Christ contains all the commandments applicable to a New Testament believer.
Concerning Matthew 5, you simply fail to understand (small wonder) the context - historically and theologically - of Jesus' words. It's true that Jesus did indeed come to fulfill the Law of Moses. He came to fulfill the Law of Moses, and He did! Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle. He fulfilled the Law of Moses, and the Law of Moses ended upon His death.
Remember, or in your case actually read in context for the first time, that Jesus spoke in Matthew 5: 17 - 19 while He was living. As long as Jesus was living He needed to obey the Law of Moses in the manner that Moses commanded in order to fulfill it. And as Mark 7:19 illustrates, while Jesus was living, He also foreshadowed the abolition of the law: "This [Jesus] said making all meats clean." Can it be any clearer than this that at least the dietary commandments have been done away?
And I'll repeat the following because it infuriates homosexuals and Priya Lynn couldn't answer it:
If homosexual "marriage" is not an inherent Constitutionally protected right, then the citizens retain the ability to decide the legal status of gay marriage.
Why does this infuriate the Lavender Brigade? Because the citizens act on their voting ability to oppose the mockery of homosexual "marriage" every opportunity they get.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/11/2008 3:09 PM
the tide, it is a changing on gay marriage. stable gay relationships, advanced by gay marriage, is good for society. I do believe that this should be left up to the states, however. as far as the mockery remark goes, this just shows anger and frustration. muture adults need to understand that we don't always get everything we want in life.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/11/2008 3:22 PM
Priya Lynn said...
"Once again the reason polygamy is disallowed is because polygamy as is practiced results in large numbers of young men being deprived of partners and forced out of the community to prevent competition. It is exploitive of females and destructive. The simple fact of the matter is that with a 50% divorce rate its clear its hard enought to make a relationship work when there are only two people in it let alone with trying to balance the needs and desires of three or more."
And those are just some of the social reasons that would be argued against it. All things being equal (male/female), if one man marries 10 wives, that's 9 other testosterone laden men who go without a partner for LIFE, and you think society isn't violent enough now?
"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
So what are you saying Anon, that God changes his mind? -- Furthermore, I don't believe we’ve gotten an answer as to why you don't also approve of incest. Clearly it was part of God's original plan. So at what point did God decide that incest was a sin? -- Also, how exactly did you come to the conclusion that the Bible itself is somehow without error?
posted by Unknown, at
8/12/2008 1:37 AM
Anonymous said "The clear-cut teaching of the New Testament is that the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative with the death of Jesus Christ. The Law of Moses no longer has authority over any individual. Simply read Romans 10:4. The Apostle Paul clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is the end of the law.".
LOL, you truly are pathetic, give it up you fool. Paul was no Jesus, under no circumstances do Paul's words take precidence over Jesus's and Jesus was unambiguous:
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail".
If he had meant the law was no longer obligatory when he died he'd of said that, he DIDN'T - HE SAID THE LAW WAS IN EFFECT UNTIL THE UNVIVERSE COMES TO AN END.
All your weasiling, twisting, and spinning won't change the obvious - Christians like you are liars and too pathetic to accept what your bible clearly and unambiguously says. Polygamy was endorsed by your god as was incest. By your own logic you must support polygamy, incest, and because it occurred traditionally and historically equal marriage for same sex couples.
There are rational reasons why polygamy is opposed and equal marriage for same sex couples is a good idea. You on the other hand are totally bereft of reasons to oppose either.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/12/2008 1:29 PM
Anonymous said "And I'll repeat the following because it infuriates homosexuals and Priya Lynn couldn't answer it:"
I chose not to answer your rhetoric because the answer should have been obvious to you but I underestimated your ability to be willfully stupid.
Equality under the law is a constitutional right and this covers equal marriage for same sex couples as the california court decided.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/12/2008 1:33 PM
So Ms. Priya Lynn, what about Jesus' words in Mark that was cited concerning dietary laws? HMM...convenient avoidance on your part. And was Paul an Apostle or not? Surely you have an answer and know...
And can you not read? Jesus fulfilled every little tittle of the law. It's been fulfilled.
And if equality under the law is a constitutional right that includes government recognition of homosexual "marriage," then it also includes government recognition of polygamous "marriages" as well.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 7:49 PM
Anonymous said "So Ms. Priya Lynn, what about Jesus' words in Mark that was cited concerning dietary laws? HMM...convenient avoidance on your part. And was Paul an Apostle or not? Surely you have an answer and know...".
He made an exception to that particular law, not to the law in general. Nowhere did he say polygamy is now prohibited or that the law in general was repealed - he was very clear, THE LAW IS IN EFFECT UNTIL THE UNIVERSE ENDS.
You're woefully ignorant of the bible, you should read the links emproph gave and educate yourself.
God Himself has described Himself in polygamous terms. While it must be and certainly is understood that this is not to suggest in any way whatsoever of "literal" marriages to actual human wives, it is important to note the occurrences in the Bible when the Lord God described Himself in such polygamous terms.
"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. ...While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; ...And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage:" Matthew 25:1-2,5-6c,10a-c (See verses 1-13).
It should be noted, however, that this is not a literal, physical marriage to literal, physical women. While it was only a parable, even so, Jesus would never have described Himself this way in a parable if polygamy was a sin.
God himself gave David wives:
2 Samuel 12:8 rather clearly reveals otherwise.
"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." 2 Samuel 12:8.
The context of the verse is that of God, speaking through a prophet (Nathan), calling out David for David's sin of taking another man's wife (Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite), which is adultery indeed, and for setting up the death of Uriah the Hittite to try to hide David's sin.
Also, at the point in time of this situation, David had already been married to at least seven known-named wives. (1_Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2_Samuel 3:2-5.)
But, in this verse 12 (above), God was not condemning David for all his wives! In fact, this verse 12 shows God Himself actually saying that HE was the One Who had GIVEN David His wives.
If God was against David's polygamy, He certainly would not have said that He had GIVEN David his wives.
But the LORD did not stop there. That verse 12 shows that the Lord took it even one step further than that! The LORD God even went on further to say that if David had wanted more wives, the Lord Himself said that He would have given David even more!
It was only because David had sinned, in committing adultery by taking another man's wife, and then causing that man's death to try to hide David's sin, that the Lord was calling him out through the prophet Nathan. There was no sin in the polygamy at all.
This is later confirmed that this was the only matter by 1 Kings 15:5, which says the following:
"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. " 1 Kings 15:5.
Two verses before that, in 1 Kings 15:3, the Bible says that David's heart was perfect with the LORD God.
Very clearly, therefore, what all this shows is that God is the One Who gives wives, even when more than one wife.
God's favourites, Moses, David, Abraham, and 37 others were polygamists that he blessed. It is undeniable that polygamy is blessed in YOUR bible.
Frankly I don't give a damn about the ignorant and bigotted fantasies of bronze age sheep-hearders, you can engage yourself in mental masturbation and think the bible is of significance all you want, it matters not one whit in a country that seperates church and state and not one whit given you've alread hung your hat upon the lie that gay marriage and polygamy are to be opposed because historically and traditionally they didn't happen. They did, you know it, and you haven't a leg to stand on.
Anonymous said "And if equality under the law is a constitutional right that includes government recognition of homosexual "marriage," then it also includes government recognition of polygamous "marriages" as well.
No, everyone is treated equally if we allow same sex couples to marry. Everyone is allowed one partner of their choosing. To do otherwise is sex discrimination. If a man has a right to marry a woman then a woman deserves the same right he has to marry a woman and vice versa.
Once again based on the standard you have hung your hat on it doesn't matter if equal marriage is a constitutional right or not, you stated you accept those marriages that have historically and traditionally been performed. That is both gay and polygamous marriages.
Once again you hide from your god's institution of incestous relationships. Are you going to acknowledge that incestuous relationships are sacred just as your god intended, or are you going to acknowledge your bible is a disgrace that no moral person would use as an example?
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/12/2008 8:29 PM
Ah, question. Why only one person? Where does all this "two people" discrimnation and bigotry arise from?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 8:45 PM
Hey Priya Lynn, you brought up morality. I'll bite and challenge you on that.
Whenever any of us object to anything, we always assume some standard or rule that the thing violates.
So, when you object to the Christian faith, you're assuming some standard that Christianity violates.
But can you justify the standard - whatever that standard is - that you so readily use?
So I've read that you object to the God of the Bible on the basis of ethical "problems" with the character of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Now, despite the surface plausibility of some of your objections, a careful examination of them shows that far from this being your strongest case against the true God, your objection actually reveals the radical futility of your unbelief.
How? Because without God there are no ethical objections to ANYTHING.
Now, save your rhetoric and make an argument.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 9:19 PM
Quote of the Day, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:
"From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict which each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time," - F.A. Hayek.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 9:25 PM
OK, I've reviewed the website http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/
Now, which article shall we debate first?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 9:41 PM
"OK, I've reviewed the website http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/
Now, which article shall we debate first?"
You haven't even addressed the example given, why don't you start there. And you stil haven't explained why you don't support incest - part of God's original plan.
Nor have you answered how you came to the conclusion that the Bible is somehow completely without error.
OK, I'll address the first article on the first page. The article is titled "Remember Moses wrote it." The main contention of the article is that Moses engaged in polygamy, and therefore this is allegedly evidence that polygamy is OK.
The conclusion of this article from the Christian perspective is a hearty "So what?" Even if this was true - and it probably is - it would do nothing to prove that polygamy was and is God's ideal. A very important point to again emphasize is that not everything RECORDED in the Bible is APPROVED in the Bible.
Yes, Moses probably took a second wife. Of course, it is possible that Moses' first wife had died. The article does touch on this, and I would agree that the text gives no indication of this. It may be true that Moses wife was dead. It may not be. We simply don't know.
But assuming she was alive and Moses took a second wife, it's simply not relevant to the Christian. The fact is that prior to the Christian New Covenant (i.e., prior to the beginning of the Law of Christ) God did allow this practice. Why did God seem to allow this? It's similar to the case of divorce, which God tolerated for a while under certain conditions because of the hardness of human hearts, but was not the way it was intended from the beginning (cf. Jesus' words in Matthew 19:8).
The practice is not consistent with the Christian life. A consideration of Jesus' comments in Matthew 5-7, Matthew 19:1-9 and perhaps especially St. Paul's comments on marital love in 1 Corinthians 7 tell us much more. St. Paul assumes either no marriage or monogamous marriage within the Christian life.
Why the change? It wasn't a "change" really. It was a return to the beginning. A return to the ideal. Again, cross-reference this with Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19.
Now, I obviously don't support incest. As for your objection, it should be pointed out that for one to identify a legitimate contradiction, they must be considering the same time frame. To condemn Thomas Jefferson for not paying Federal income tax would be inappropriate because there was no Federal income tax in the United States during his lifetime.
Likewise, to accuse certain righteous men of breaking God's law prior to the establishment of that law is equally erroneous. The first indication of God forbidding incestuous marriages is not until AFTER the Israelites departed Egypt. Prior to the Law of Moses, men COULD LAWFULLY MARRY close family members. Indeed, God blessed Abraham while he was married to Sarah, his half-sister. What's more, implied in the creation of Adam and Eve is that their immediate offspring married each other and had children. Furthermore, following the Flood, the entire Earth was repopulated by Noah, his three sons, and their wives. Thus, in the beginning God allowed a form of incest.
There was no need for strict laws on marriage partners in the early Patriarchal Age (apart from the divine "one man, one woman, for life" institution), and for at least one good reason: during this time, man was in a relatively pure genetic state, having left not long before the perfect condition in which he was created and the Garden that had sustained his life. No harmful genetic traits had emerged at this point that could have been expressed in the children of closely related partners.
However, after many generations, and especially after the Noahic Flood, solar and cosmic radiation, chemical and viral mutagens, and DNA replication errors, led to the multiplication of genetic disorders. God therefore protected His people by instituting strict laws against incestuous marriages in the chapter 18 of Leviticus.
As for inerrancy, what's the mystery? Show me an error...
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 12:30 AM
show me an error..
wher have we heard that before? Yes, the bible is full of errors. you can't be shown an error because the bible,by your theology can contain no errors. Therefore an obvious error is not an error of the bible, but an error of own interpertation. So when a fundy tells you there are no errors,they are really asking "who are you going to believe, me or your own lyeing eyes?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 1:03 AM
ON THE SABBATH DAY "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5
ON THE PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH "... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4
"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10
ON SEEING GOD "... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
ON THE POWER OF GOD "... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26
"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19
ON INCEST "Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..." -- Deuteronomy 27:22
"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...." -- Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god's reaction to Abraham, who married his sister -- his father's daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12
"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife...I bless her, and give thee a son also of her..." -- Genesis 17:15-16
ON TRUSTING GOD "A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD..." -- Proverbs 12:2
Now consider the case of Job. After commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan. God asked Satan: "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." -- Job 2:3
ON THE HOLY LIFE-STYLE "Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart..." -- Ecclesiastes 9:7
"...they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not..." -- 1 Corinthians 7:30
ON PUNISHING CRIME "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
ON TEMPTATION "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1
ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS "Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26
ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD "...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9
"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29
ON THE END OF THE WORLD "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. " -- Matthew 16:28
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. " -- Luke 21:32-33
"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." -- Romans 13:11-12
"Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." -- James 5:8
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." -- 1 John 2:18
"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." -- 1 Peter 4:7
These words were written between 1800 and 1900 years ago and were meant to warn and prepare the first Christians for the immediate end of the world. Some words are those supposedly straight out of the mouth of the "Son of God." The world did not end 1800 or 1900 years ago. All that generation passed away without any of the things foretold coming to pass. No amount of prayer brought it about; nor ever so much patience and belief and sober living. The world went on, as usual, indifferent to the spoutings of yet another batch of doomsday prophets with visions of messiahs dancing in their deluded brains. The world, by surviving, makes the above passages contradictions.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 1:21 AM
Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified. A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second. The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translator should have chosen to use a different word in one of the two scriptures in order to avoid the resulting logical contradiction that now appears in English—that is, the translator made an error. If no translation error occurred, then an error of fact exists in at least one of the two scriptures. Appeals to "context" are irrelevant in cases like this where simple declarative statements are involved such as "no one has seen God" and "I have seen God." Simply put, no "context" makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.
If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors. Left only with our error-prone copies of the originals, the claim of infallibility becomes completely vacuous. Pandora's Box would truly be open: You could have the Bible say whatever you want it to say by simply claiming that words to the contrary are the result of copying or translation/interpretation errors, and nothing could prove you wrong.
Let's look at several more of these context-independent contradictions and errors of fact.1
Contradictions
2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul" 2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." 1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..." 1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..." 2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..." 2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came...unto Jerusalem" Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem" 1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..." 2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa." Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death] Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..." Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..." Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."
Factual Errors
1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about." Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Fowl do not go upon all four. Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..." Hare do not chew the cud. Deut 14:7: " "...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof." For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare don’t chew the cud and they do divide the "hoof." Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..." whales and fish are not related Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees. Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 1:32 AM
"OK, I'll address the first article on the first page."
Actually I was thinking you should address the latest article that was brought up. The one where God APPROVES of polygamy:
"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." 2 Samuel 12:8 ---- "Now, I obviously don't support incest.
The first indication of God forbidding incestuous marriages is not until AFTER the Israelites departed Egypt.
There was no need for strict laws on marriage partners in the early Patriarchal Ageman was in a relatively pure genetic state
No harmful genetic traits had emerged at this point that could have been expressed in the children of closely related partners
However, after many generations, and especially after the Noahic Flood, solar and cosmic radiation, chemical and viral mutagens, and DNA replication errors, led to the multiplication of genetic disorders. God therefore protected His people by instituting strict laws against incestuous marriages in the chapter 18 of Leviticus."
So God decided to make incest a sin in order to avoid genetic defects?
In that case, wouldn't that mean that if there were no potential for genetic defects, that God would then approve of incestual marriages?
posted by Unknown, at
8/13/2008 4:52 AM
OK, let's dive right in.
The person posting wasn't even right on the first on! LOL!!
ON THE SABBATH DAY - How is this possibly an error? You have two different laws (the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ) addressed to two different groups (Israel and the Church). Biblical and Systematic Theology 101?
ON THE PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH - Where's the error? You're picking verses out of two completely different contexts and comparing them. Not only does that lead to you looking like a fool, it's intellectually dishonest.
The context of the Ecclesiastes passage is revealed in the previous verse (v. 3) which says,
"What advantage does man have in all his work which he does under the sun?"
In other words, the perspective of Ecclesiastes is from a completely human standpoint. The same is occurring in a related Psalms passage (104:5), which is also a description from a human perspective.
Therefore, the writers will see the earth abiding forever because that is exactly how it appears. But, in 2 Peter 3:10 (see also Isaiah 65:17) the contexts are altogether different. They are speaking of the time in the future when the new heavens and new earth will be made. Take a look at 2 Peter.
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 3:10-12).
Since sin is in the world, the earth and all its works will be destroyed and cleansed and a new heavens and new earth will replace them.
ON SEEING GOD - Alleged errors such as these are often proposed by no-nothings who simply read the Bible in modern American English, on their own terms, and do not even bother to try to understand it in terms that those who wrote it would. Hebrew? Greek? They ain't got time. They're in search of errors.
Concerning this alleged one, these verses simply indicate that God cannot be seen by men WHEN IN HIS FULL GLORY. God can be seen when in lesser form - such as in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, or a theophany.
Now, let me analyze the two verses cited in order to demonstrate PARADOX - which by definition is NOT contradiction:
Gen. 32:30 - This verse is no trouble at all, given that it only reflects what Jacob thinks and says in the first place! Even so, we can draw something for this issue from it. First of all, the Hebrew term "face" has an idiomatic twist which refers to awareness and direct knowledge of presence, without the help or hindrance of a mediator - one might say today, it is a "close encounter" of a personal kind!
Second, note that Jacob here says he sees not YAHWEH, but ELOHIM.
Finally, most important to note here is Jacob's reaction. He clearly knows that the fact that his life was preserved is SOMETHING UNEXPECTED.
So what we see being set up here is not a contradiction, but a paradox. Jacob knows that God cannot be seen, or the result is death; but something has happened that overruled that normal constraint. His reaction presupposes knowledge that God cannot be seen, and so he is aware of the "contradiction," which should give us pause. What happened? Far be it for Jacob to know. But by the time of the Exodus, someone gets a clue about an important distinction.
John 1:18 - With the New Testament, the dichotomy between seeing YAHWEH on the one hand, and not seeing ELOHIM on the other, remains. John, in mirroring the prologue of Genesis, clearly means to equate "God" here with the majestic ELOHIM. The Greek word here in John 1:18 incidentally, is "horao," and is used in the sense of understanding, as in Matthew 18:10 - "TAKE HEED that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."
As is typical, the objection that asks whether or not God can be seen rests upon a lack of linguistic and theological knowledge by those who hate the God of the Bible and despise their Creator. The objection is without any grounds whatsoever.
ON THE POWER OF GOD - WOW! The skeptics are really getting desperate here! The alleged "contradiction" or "error," here, is based on two faulty assumptions:
1. That if God was with Judah, then Judah was supposed to win the battle.
2. That the "he" in Judges 1:19, in some of the older English translations, such as the KJV, refers to God rather than to Judah, which was a region in the southern part of the land of Israel.
The newer English translations of the Bible, such as the NIV, make it clearer, for modern English speakers, that the pronoun in Judges 1:19 refers to the people of Judah, rather than to God:
"The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." - Judges 1:19 (NIV).
Cross-reference this with the NASV, NKJV, and the ESV.
As for the battle itself, there is no promise in the Bible that the Jews would win every battle. For any number of reasons, the Lord allowed the people of Judah only a limited success at that time and they were unable to conquer the people of the plain.
And one more point to remember. Since God is all-powerful, He has the power to decide when and how and where to use that power. There is no contradiction there. And there is no contradiction in Judges 1:19.
ON INCEST - Here again, this person is comparing apples and oranges and then crying error. It's a false analogy.
ON TRUSTING GOD - The individual who "crafted" this alleged "contradiction" is happy to give only the faintest portion of the story of Job. He must do so, otherwise the shambles of his argument collapses. Again, he is counting on the biblical illiteracy of the reader to make his point.
We know that Job stayed faithful to God throughout his trials - and God ultimately restored all favor to him, including more property and family. Certainly there could be no better example of God testing and strengthening us through pain and justification for endurance and trust. Job did obtain favor.
So to be precise, we know from reading the book of Job that the "LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. He had also seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Kerenhappuch. And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren. After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations. So Job died, being old and full of days" (Job 42:12-17).
ON THE HOLY LIFE-STYLE - St. Paul the Apostle's advice in his letter to the local church in Corinth was mainly for Christians to prepare mentally and spiritually for the great trouble and persecution they would endure in the future. The advice in Ecclesiastes is more of an appeal to a "simple" of approach to life - that life's excess is meaningless, but a simple life of "eating and drinking" is approved by God. The author did not have a concept of eternal life in the passage, for he wrote that "the dead know nothing."
Both verses are appeals against worldliness and materialism. In this case there is no way that the "drink thy wine" can be mistaken for unholy and sinful revelry.
ON PUNISHING CRIME - Yeah, this one is an anti-Jewish, anti-Christian gem of a "contradiction" - to those who don't actual read the Bible in these verses in their context.
The Exodus verse was and is always understood to mean that God permits the descendants to suffer consequences of the sins of the parents. Do we not observe this every day? The Ezekiel verse shows that God is just, and will not punish the innocent. We are all responsible for our own sins only.
ON TEMPTATION - WOW! The God-hater who posted this is REALLY lame. The second passage means "test" in the Greek. We are all tested by God, but not tempted. A test can be God allowing temptation by Satan, such as in Matthew 4:1 - "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil."
ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS - Is this person for real? C'mon, at least offer a challenge! This is another easy one. "Hateth" is used in contrast to the love of God. God requires first place in the Christian's life. The things mentioned must be in subjection.
ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD - As far as Job knew there was no life after death. This was his opinion and, as we later find out, Job does NOT speak for God here. The resurrection was a long-standing argument among Jews (cf. Mark 12:18-23) before Jesus - the promised Messiah of Israel - cleared up the issue.
ON THE END OF THE WORLD - The Matthew 16 verse refers to the Resurrection, not the end of the world. The first part of the Luke 21 passage refers to the coming of the Kingdom of God, and the incarnate Word of God (i.e., Jesus Christ and His Resurrection). The second part of that selection refers to the endurance of the Word of God. A simply reading of those verses in context makes that perfectly clear.
Concerning Romans 13, the anti-Christians appear to be really confused about this subject. The Christian's salvation is through our belief in Jesus Christ - it does not refer to the end of the world, but to the end of the bondage of SIN (e.g., slavery to the sin of homosexuality).
In reference to James 5:8, the person would do well to read...ah...yes...James 5:7!
"Be patient, then, brothers, until the Lord's coming..."
This is the context here - a warning to always be ready, but patient, since no one knows when. And that answers the rest as well.
This post had to have been written by someone who never read the passages above in their context. Otherwise, they could have come up with some much better "contradictions."
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 10:18 AM
That's why I specifically asked you which one you wanted me to deal with Emproph. So I pick one, and you whine. Typical...
I predict that when I'm done answering your questions and objections and wish to question you, you'll scurry off. Typical...
Now, I have to remind you (again) that (1) not everything RECORDED in the Bible is APPROVED in the Bible and (2) there is a distinction to be made between what was allowed and what is the ideal.
Concerning 2 Samuel 12:8, it does not even refer to marriage! It's referring to succession and dominion. In fact, God punished David for practicing polygamy (cf. 2 Samuel 12:10).
"So God decided to make incest a sin in order to avoid genetic defects?"
Yes.
"In that case, wouldn't that mean that if there were no potential for genetic defects, that God would then approve of incestual marriages?"
Possible, yes. But then, assuming again the no potential for genetic defects, you'd be allowed to marry you relation?!?! Yes.
And actually, if you don't marry your relation, you don't marry a human! A wife is related to her husband in some way before they are married because all people are descendants of ONE BLOOD. Since the Bible describes all human beings as sinners, and we are ALL related. But beginning with Mosaic Law, incest is now outlawed among God's people.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 11:01 AM
"ON SEEING GOD"
Seems a bit more simple than that to me:
matthew 7:8 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
matthew 5:8 8Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God
Have you asked to see God lately? -- "Concerning 2 Samuel 12:8, it does not even refer to marriage! It's referring to succession and dominion. In fact, God punished David for practicing polygamy (cf. 2 Samuel 12:10),"
No, He didn't, as has already been explained - it had nothing to do with the number of his wives. --- E: "So God decided to make incest a sin in order to avoid genetic defects?"
A: "Yes."
E: "In that case, wouldn't that mean that if there were no potential for genetic defects, that God would then approve of incestual marriages?"
"Possible, yes. But then, assuming again the no potential for genetic defects, you'd be allowed to marry you relation?!?! Yes."
So you concede then that you have no "moral" objection to incestuous marriages?
posted by Unknown, at
8/13/2008 12:30 PM
Anonymous said "Why only one person? Where does all this "two people" discrimnation and bigotry arise from".
It has nothing to do with bigotry. Just as your right to swing your fist ends where your fist contacts my nose a person's right to marry ends when they deprive others of marriageable partners. When a man marries 10 wives he deprives 9 other men of partners. It is moral and just to prevent polygamists from infringing on the rights of others to find a partner.
Anonymous said "Because without God there are no ethical objections to ANYTHING.".
LOL, well then you've got no ethical objectisons to anything because your "god" is imaginary.
Anonymous said "when you object to the Christian faith, you're assuming some standard that Christianity violates.
But can you justify the standard - whatever that standard is - that you so readily use?".
Of course you moron. The standard is fairness and equality. We inately have the right to do whatever we want as long as we harm no one. Morality comes from our desire to live the best lives we can, and the need to compromise with others in order to achieve this. The only objective all humanity can ultimately agree on is to maximize the benefit and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion. Humanity can never be united under religion given the thousands of competing visions.
At the core of Christianity is the violation of the universal fundamental principle of fairness. The idea that people inherit the sins of ancient ancestors is fundamentally evil. The idea that the torture and murder of an innocent person for the wrongdoings of others absolves people of sin is fundamentally evil. The idea that people should be tortured eternally who have harmed no one (gays and non-believers for instance) is fundamentally evil. Christianity violates the principles of fairness and equality left right and centre and in no way can be considered moral.
I didn't read all your lenghty spinning as utlimately your tortuous biblical interpretations are irrelevant as bronze age myths of ignorant goatherders can never form the basis for civil society. However a couple points do come to mind. The claim that Mozaic law is no longer in effect is nonsensical. Clearly the entire law couldn't have been revoked because anything goes then, including murder, theft, rape and so on. No where does the bible say the entire law was revoked. Its plausible that parts of the law were revoked, but that being the case there'd need to be a list of which laws were revoked and which weren't. THERE IS NO SUCH LIST IN THE BIBLE. It is entirely arbitrary as to which laws christians claim are no longer in effect and without the aforementioned list its clear no such revocation of the law occurred.
The idea that Jesus "fulfilled the law" and therefore it is revoked is similarly nonsensical. What does that even mean, to "fulfill" the law? The only rational meaning is that to fulfil the law is to obey the law and once again the idea that the law is revoked by obeying it is absurd. There is NO BASIS FOR THE CLAIM THAT THE LAW IN GENERAL OR PARTS THEREOF ARE REVOKED.
Ultimately Jesus has the final say and under no circumstances can paul's word's be considered to take precidence over his. Jesus was clear and unequivocal:
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" and "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail".
THE LAW IS IN EFFECT UNTIL THE END OF THE UNIVERSE. By your own logic you must support polygamy.
Case closed.
I glanced at your pathetic handwaving over the biblical contradictions. This one was particularly laughable:
"ON THE PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH - Where's the error? You're picking verses out of two completely different contexts and comparing them. Not only does that lead to you looking like a fool, it's intellectually dishonest.".
The intellectual dishonesty is entirely on your part and you couldn't look any more foolish. You simply make the baseless assertion that an obvious contradiction isn't one and offer nothing to back up that claim save the nebulous claim that its two different contexts and that that magically means its not contradictory.
I'm not going to take the time to go through your rantings one by one as its clear you're in denial of reality and utlimately arguing about the 'truth' of what's in the bible makes as much sense as arguing about the 'truth' of dungeons and dragons.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/13/2008 2:03 PM
Anonymous, here's something you obviously haven't thought of and clearly need to:
Does your imaginary god tell people to do what is moral, or are things moral because your god says they are?
If your god decides it is moral to kill innocent people does that make it moral? Or is that immoral regarless of what your god says?
As you can see the idea of one being dictating morals to everyone is completely subjective and relative. Your bible is not the morals of a god, but the morals of ignorant bronze age sheep hearders claiming to speak for your imaginary god. You can see why the bible is a failure at providing moral guidance in a society that has advanced light-years beyond the superstitious past.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/13/2008 2:23 PM
One more thing I should address. Anonymous said "There was no need for strict laws on marriage partners in the early Patriarchal Ageman was in a relatively pure genetic state
No harmful genetic traits had emerged at this point that could have been expressed in the children of closely related partners
However, after many generations, and especially after the Noahic Flood, solar and cosmic radiation, chemical and viral mutagens, and DNA replication errors, led to the multiplication of genetic disorders. God therefore protected His people by instituting strict laws against incestuous marriages in the chapter 18 of Leviticus."
Pure bunk. It doesn't say this anywhere in the bible and any modern day geneticist can tell you that the problem with incest is that the genes are too similar to produce consistently healthy offspring. The problem with incest is the lack of genetic diversity and this is a problem regardless of how "pure" the genes of close relatives. Absolute pathetic handwaving.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/13/2008 2:47 PM
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5"
Anonymous said "The Exodus verse was and is always understood to mean that God permits the descendants to suffer consequences of the sins of the parents".
The problem with that idea is that your 'god' specifically TAKES RESPONSIBILITY for vistiing the iniquity of fathers unto children. He says "I" do it, not that it just happens as a consequence. Once again you twist, spin and lie.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/13/2008 3:37 PM
Of course I have a moral objection to incestuous relationships and "marriage." Whatever action God specifies as a good action is a good action. Conversely, if God specifies an action to be evil - as He has with incest - then it is evil.
Thus, moral good is both ultimate and specifiable. It is ultimate because it comes from God. It is specifiable since it can be found in His revelation to humankind.
Priya Lynn, some questions:
Why should humans be fair? And what constitutes "harm"? Physical, mental, emotional?
You say that the "only objective all humanity can ultimately agree on is to maximize the benefit and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion."
So basically, a greatest good for the greatest number sort of thing. So you're defining moral rightness in terms of what brings the greatest good in the long run. Is your view of good quantitative or qualitative?
And doesn't it beg the question to say that moral right is what brings the greatest good? For then we must ask what is "good"? Either right and good are defined in terms of each other, which is circular reasoning, or they must be defined according to some standard beyond your allegedly moral calculation process.
You wrote: "What does that even mean, to 'fulfill' the law?"
My case in point. You have no idea what you're talking about. None. At least you admit it...
Now, again, if there is no God, then ALL the things about the God of the Bible that you object to on allegedly "moral" grounds are in the same meaningless category. So is all the fairness and equality that you speak of. They're equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before.
If there is no God, then ALL abstractions - including fairness and equality - are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning TRUTH and FALSITY to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or RIGHT and WRONG to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 8:11 PM
"So why don't you approve of polygamy? Clearly it's in the Bible, God approved (2 Samuel 12:8):
"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
In relation to that, I asked you this, and you did not answer:
"So what are you saying Anon, that God changes his mind?" -- I asked you to address this, and you did not:
"Also, how exactly did you come to the conclusion that the Bible itself is somehow without error?" -- I asked you this, and you did not answer:
"Have you asked to see God lately?" -- You say: "Of course I have a moral objection to incestuous relationships and "marriage." Whatever action God specifies as a good action is a good action. Conversely, if God specifies an action to be evil - as He has with incest - then it is evil."
But the 'good or bad' aspect has noting to do with it, and therefore, is not moral. As you've said, it's "evil" because of birth defects - why wouldn't that make all procreation that would increase the risk of birth defects also then be immoral? -- You said: "Thus, moral good is both ultimate and specifiable. It is ultimate because it comes from God. It is specifiable since it can be found in His revelation to humankind."
So if the Bible said that raping robbing cheating and murder were "moral" and "good," then you would also think of these things as moral and good? -- And I will ask AGAIN, what specifically has brought YOU to the conclusion that the Bible is completely without error? -- And P.S. No belief in a god is necessary to understand the universal law of love: Do unto others as you would have done unto you - and/or the concept of utilitarianism - concepts that exist quite outside of your Bible (whichever incomplete one you happen to be quoting at the time).
posted by Unknown, at
8/14/2008 3:54 AM
Here, Emproph. As I told this moral cretin before, we have all the morality we need in the immortal qwords of Mammy Yokum:
"Good is better than evil because it is nicer."
posted by Anonymous, at
8/14/2008 12:42 PM
Anonymous, I don't even need to address your jumbled spin, its obvious BS as it is. You summed it all up when you said "Whatever action God specifies as a good action is a good action. Conversely, if God specifies an action to be evil...then it is evil".
That means if god said the most horrific crime you can think of was good it would be moral and the most unselfish act of caring you can think of would be evil if god said so. Torture and murder of innocents would be good, helping the poor would be evil. Obviously not. I feel sorry for you, you're so wrapped up in your book of myths you can't see right from wrong and are prepared to accept absurdities in order to avoid admitting the truth you know deep down inside.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/14/2008 1:22 PM
"Whatever action God specifies as a good action is a good action. Conversely, if God specifies an action to be evil...then it is evil".
Unfortuantely, iti s usually not god who is specifying, but some uhman who has himself ocnfused with god.
thou shalt not suffer a wtich to live" and we get the witch burnings. who besides Ms. Theo believes there are ACTUAL witches.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/14/2008 1:37 PM
I should add that its obvious that anonymous himself doesn't believe his claim that "Whatever action God specifies as a good action is a good action. Conversely, if God specifies an action to be evil...then it is evil".
Look at how he freaks out when its pointed out to him that god's contradicted his morality by calling an act good in one place and evil in another. He ties himself in knots trying to rationalize how god can call incest and polygamy good in one place and evil in another. He goes on at length about how the SITUATION has supposedly changed (pure genetics versus unpure, etc.) and how this, NOT HIS GOD'S ARBRITRARY DECISION decides what's good and evil. If he truly believed that it was solely god's say so that defined good and evil he wouldn't need a rationalization for why god calls incest good in one place and evil in another - he'd just accept that nothing beyond god's say so distinguishes an good act from an evil one.
Anonymous you're god is imaginary so by your logic you're just swamp gas over fetid water. As for the rest of us our worth as human beings isn't determined by the existence or non-existence of imaginary beings.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/14/2008 1:45 PM
Ben in oakland said...
"Here, Emproph. As I told this moral cretin before, we have all the morality we need in the immortal qwords of Mammy Yokum:
"Good is better than evil because it is nicer.""
Yeah, but then they'd warn you that being 'nicer' is just not warning of you of your certain destination to eternal hell. -- But in their case however, I figure it's about one tenth that we say that get's through. In their case however, maybe about 1/10 of a percent.
Sorry it took so long to respond Emproph. Was gone the past couple of days, which I'm sure disappointed you. This is gonna be REALLY long because you ask a lot of good questions. You write:
"So why don't you approve of polygamy? Clearly it's in the Bible, God approved."
As I said, polygamy is RECORDED in the Bible, but it is NOT APPROVED in the Bible. As for 2 Samuel, I have answered that too. I will add that if there were not any other statements or teachings in the Bible concerning polygamy and the Godly ideal of monogamy, and one took this verse out of context, a person could possibly conclude a tacit allowance of the practice of multiple wives.
However, in context, what Nathan is telling David is that God had given to David all that appertained to Saul and that the reference to Saul's women was the ultimate proof, especially if we find sound evidence that God was not pleased with polygamy.
"So what are you saying Anon, that God changes his mind?"
I did not address that one, and apologize for overlooking it.
The attribute of omniscience, of knowing all things, should be clarified. Judeo-Christian belief holds that God is timeless. Past, present and future for God can be seen as a whole. This much is commonly asserted.
What is sometimes not asserted as a corollary is that God also knows how things would turn out differently had a different path been taken at every potential choice-making nexus. God knew you would turn left at Main Street this morning; but He also knows what would have happened had you turned right.
Now, "prophet" in the Bible means more than simply "a predictor of the future." A prophet was also a messenger and an exhorter. His words were never set in stone. A key verse for this is Jeremiah 18:7-10 -
"If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."
With this verse, and the fact that the role of a prophet was more than just as a predictor, it is quite clear why it is pointless to object when, for example, God withholds judgment upon Nineveh (Jonah 3:10). We may read it as a definitive prophecy, but it would be understood by the hearers as exhortation allowing for the disaster to be avoided.
Following ancient rules of rhetoric and the constraints of oral communication, as well as the nature of the Semitic mindset which typically expressed itself in extremes, it would be less appropriate for a prophet making a popular declaration to delineate possible exceptions in his general proclamation. Such side-tracking would make his message less memorable and effective in an era when retention and effect was far more important in the short term than detailed analysis.
Finally, let me make it clear what it means to say that God does not "change." You're actually a pretty bright person Emproph, and I do not think you're so naive as to think that this means that God is static, never does anything, or never says anything. Nor can it be asserted to mean that God does not alter stated plans in reaction to human freewill choices. My quote from Jeremiah shows that well enough. The references to God not "changing" cannot hold up such a narrow interpretation.
I answered the inerrancy argument too Emproph. My question to you is this: If you don't believe in inerrancy, where is your list of errors in the Bible? Show me the list and we'll discuss them!
Now, have I seen God lately? Nope. But I will. In heaven Christians will actually see the Lord face to face. This is impossible in the earthly realm. As long as we are tainted by sin, we cannot see God. The view of such perfect righteousness would destroy us. In heaven, since we will be free from sin, we will see God's glory unveiled in its fullness.
Your objections related to morality are nonsensical. Again, whatever action God specifies as a good action is a good action. Conversely, if God specifies an action to be evil, then it is evil. Thus, moral good is both ultimate and specifiable. It is ultimate because it comes from God. It is specifiable since it can be found in His revelation to humankind.
Your objection to this seems to be that defining good in terms of God's will is somehow arbitrary. This objection applies, however, only to a voluntaristic view of good, not to an essentialistic view.
A voluntarist believes that something is good simply because God wills it. An essentialist, on the other hand, holds that God wills something because it is good in accordance with His own nature.
This view of right and wrong is neither arbitrary nor groundless. It is not arbitrary because what God wills is in accord with His nature as absolute good. It is not groundless because it is rooted in what never changes, namely, God's immutable essence.
Although God is free to act according to the dictates of His own essential goodness, He is not "free" to act contrary to it. Likewise, His commands will always be rooted in His immutable nature as the ultimate Good.
All ethical imperatives given by God are in accord with His unchangeable moral character. That is, God wills what is right in accordance with His own moral attributes. True ethics are rooted in God's immutable nature, but it is expressed by God's will.
Your view on ethics is also nonsensical. In your rhetoric, your morality seems to endorse the hunch which popular music and writing so often express, that "love" will justify anything and that in seeing this we are both wiser and more humane than our parents were.
First, since loving action is what the the law of Christ is all about, your antithesis is false. But since your morality sees "love" as the only prescribed duty and denies that there are any other, more specific, divine laws to keep, I obviously can't leave the matter there.
The effect of your denying that there are universal God-taught prohibitions is to enmesh love (good will, the commanded motive) in perplexities. For HOW exactly are we to love our neighbor? What does that mean? What does that entail, or not entail?
Any circumscription will be arbitrary and open to challenge. And however you define it, how can you be sure what is really the most loving thing to do? By trusting your "built-in moral compass"? How would we know if that itself is right or wrong?
Love has to be, and is in a reasonable and consistant ethic, directed by law. So far from seeing an antithesis and possible clash between the claims of persons and of principles, the Bible assumes that we can only meet the claims of persons as we hold to the God-taught principles in dealing with them, and the principles take the form of directives as to what should and should not be done to them.
The theology, in a nutshell, is that our Creator has revealed the unchanging pattern of response that He requires. The pattern is both an expression of God's own moral character, an indication of what He approves and disapproves, and also a due to man about his own nature and that of his neighbor.
So love and law-keeping are mutually entailed. The sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth commandments prohibit particular actions and attitudes (murder, adultery, theft, covetous jealousy), and when we keep these commandments we truly love our neighbor as ourselves, and when we love our neighbor as ourselves we keep these commandments.
So biblically, then, there is no antithesis between the motive of love and the divine directives which tell us what kinds of action on man's part God approves and disapproves. Your idea of "love" is completely arbitrary and has no direction to say which acts are loving and which aren't.
And because of that, it must be rejected as unreasonable and illogical.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/15/2008 8:22 PM
Ms. Priya Lynn is running from the challenge she's not even smart enough to realize exists. It's like dealing with a high school freshman who just picked up a book with philosophical terms in it. She knows some lingo, but doesn't have a clue what it all means or how to use it.
I assume that you would acknowledge the distinction between human intelligence and swamp gas, but you have no way to ACCOUNT for it.
If there is no God, then WHY is there a distinction between the chemical reactions in your head and elsewhere? Let me illustrate this as I have elsewhere. Suppose you and I agreed that the walls of a house are straight. I say there must be a foundation under it - a PRECONDITION for straight walls. Your hypothesis is the house has no foundation at all and doesn't need one. You cry, "See, the walls are straight without a foundation."
But given your worldview's assumptions, WHY? Can you please explain to me how time and chance acting on matter can produce the straight walls of reason and morality?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/15/2008 8:29 PM
"Now, have I seen God lately?"
I didn’t ask you that. These were my words:
"matthew 7:8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God
Have you asked to see God lately?" -- Because I have. -- Or do you truly not believe that God can do ALL things? Or do you truly not believe that if you will ask you will receive?
How about asking to see enough of God to know the proof of the glory of God? Do you think that's possible to receive in human form?
Or how about asking for divine truth that the Bible is inerrent in every way so that you can give personal testimony to that effect instead of placing the burden of proof on the other person?
Like you did with me:
"If you don't believe in inerrancy, where is your list of errors in the Bible? Show me the list and we'll discuss them!"
There are two LONG lists of errors above, none of which you addressed.
You're the one who is speaking from the Bible/God's Word in an authoritative fashion. Obviously there are things that need explaining, but I'm NOT talking about those things, I'm asking YOU, what has drawn you to the conclusion that this book is of somehow superior accuracy, than any other book that exists on the planet?
posted by Unknown, at
8/16/2008 7:52 AM
"However, in context, what Nathan is telling David is that God had given to David all that appertained to Saul and that the reference to Saul's women was the ultimate proof, especially if we find sound evidence that God was not pleased with polygamy."
No, God specifically said God would have given him MORE. Hardly evidencence of someone displeased with what someone already had.
So either God has changed his mind on polygamy, or still approves of it.
posted by Unknown, at
8/16/2008 10:49 AM
"This view of right and wrong is neither arbitrary nor groundless. It is not arbitrary because what God wills is in accord with His nature as absolute good. It is not groundless because it is rooted in what never changes, namely, God's immutable essence."
Which is the whole point, which is also something you refuse to answer - God's immutable essence. Love. The only difference is that you’re calling God and confining it to belief in a book.
You STILL haven't answered my question, IF GOD (the Bible) SAID that hurting others was a good thing, then would you then hurt others?
If that's your argument, then argue it, otherwise, quit dancing around the subject, because I'm getting rather tired of it.
You claim your beliefs are based on the Bible, well then if the Bible told you to rape rob and steal, WOULD YOU DO THAT?
posted by Unknown, at
8/16/2008 11:11 AM
Matthew 5:8 says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." The Greek verb translated "see" (horao) is in a tense that denotes a future, continuous reality. In heaven the Christian will continually be seeing God.
So no I haven't, nor have I asked. But I know that reality awaits me when I die.
How do we know the Bible is what is claims to be - the Word of God? There are two basic approaches.
First, the Bible itself is self-authenticating. The Bible is true because it says it is true and the Holy Spirit bears witness to this truth. No other argument is necessary.
But a second, very reasonable approach is to examine the claims of the Bible and then see that they have sufficient evidence to back them up. There is overwhelming evidence to convince anyone that the Bible is what it claims to be - the Word of God.
So first I would say let the Bible speak for itself. It clearly claims to be God's Word. In a court of law people have a right to testify on their own behalf. So the Bible should be allowed to testify as to what sort of book it is.
Furthermore, the Bible does more than merely claim to be God's Word. The witness of the Holy Spirit supernaturally reveals to the reader that the Bible is the Word of God. When the truths of the Bible are personally and truly and authentically applied, the credibility of the Bible is demonstrated.
As people read the Bible they find the Holy Spirit giving confirmation that what they are reading is God's Word. Therefore we not only have the claim of Scripture we also have the witness of the Holy Spirit that these things are true.
Yes, those who criticize this approach say that it is circular reasoning - it is assuming what it should be proving. By quoting the Bible to prove the Bible does not prove anything. Why should the claims of the Bible be believed? There are many religious books that claim to convey truth. In addition, adherents can be found who will testify as to the power of the truths in these books to change their lives. How can anyone know which claims, if any of them, are right and which claims are wrong? Religious experience alone is not a valid test.
I don't want to minimize that criticism, so I say examine the evidence about the truthfulness of Christianity. The Bible never argues for the existence of God - it takes it for granted, and for good reason. Every worldview that doesn't assume God WILL be demonstrated to be unreasonable, arbitrary, and inconsistent. And every religious worldview that assumes God, except Christianity, WILL be demonstrated to be philosophically insufficient and internally inconsistent.
The New Testament, though, does argue about the truth of its claims through three lines of evidence. They consist of miracles, fulfilled prophecy, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. When the evidence related to these three lines of evidence is considered according to the rules of evidence, the verdict become clear - the Bible is the Word of God.
A person can know the Bible is God's Word by first examining the claims of Scripture, considering the evidence for those claims, and then personally accepting the challenge of Scripture to "taste and see" if these things be true.
"So either God has changed his mind on polygamy, or still approves of it."
Actually, even accepting your view on 2 Samuel wouldn't prove this at all. Again, take divorce, which God tolerated for a time during the Mosaic Law under certain conditions because of the hardness of men's hearts, but was not the way it was intended from the beginning (cf. Jesus' teaching Matthew 19).
Concerning morality, I completely understand that you're attempting to show an internal flaw in my notion of God and goodness. Is a thing right simply because God declares it so, or does God say it is good because He recognizes a moral code superior even to Him?
You're trying to present a dilemma and force me to choose between only two options, both ultimately hostile to Christian theism. On the one hand, God reigns and His Law is supreme. As the ultimate Sovereign, He establishes the moral rules of the universe. His commands are absolute. We must obey. My theory of ethics is one in which the ultimate foundation for morality is the revealed will of God, or the commands of God found in Scripture (i.e., ethical voluntarism).
And you're still insisting that the content of this morality is arbitrary, dependent on God's whim. Though God has declared murder, theft, and debauchery wrong, it could have been otherwise had God willed it so. Any "immoral" act could suddenly become "moral" by simple fiat.
But again, the "dilemma" is a false one. There are not two options, but three.
I reject that morality is an arbitrary function of God's power. An objective standard exists, but that standard is not external to God, but internal. Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.
So could God simply decree that torturing babies was moral? No, God would never do that. It's not a matter of command. It's a matter of character. Morality is not anterior to God, but rooted in His nature. Morality is not grounded ultimately in God's commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands. Whatever a good God commands will always be good.
That answers your question. I'll do whatever God commands me to do. Because what He commands will always be in line with His perfect character.
You mean you would massacre people like Saul did when commanded by God? Yes. Isn't there a moral problem with that? Yes, actually, because Saul was disobedient and didn't kill everything as God instructed. I wonder why such a massacre by Saul is a problem for you though. After all, objective truth cannot be validly derived from the premises of your worldview. You are borrowing objective rationality and morality from the Christian worldview in order to attack the rationality and morality of the Christian worldview. YOU should have no objection to God commanding people to kill. Given YOUR worldview, there is no moral difference between Saul's massacre of the Amalekites and a day at the beach. In both cases, all you have is atoms banging around.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/16/2008 1:02 PM
"The New Testament, though, does argue about the truth of its claims through three lines of evidence. They consist of miracles, fulfilled prophecy, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. When the evidence related to these three lines of evidence is considered according to the rules of evidence, the verdict become clear - the Bible is the Word of God."
Well, only if you believe that the NT is "evidence" of anything at all-- and certainly not by the rules of evidence that i am aware of. Only by assuming its truth does it become true in any sense at all.
This is as silly as your statement that without god there is no morality. I certianly pregfer the morality of people without god 9in general) to the morlaity of people hwo claim to speak for god, or that their paritcular version of a book does.
I'm glad to REPEAT my argument. IF THERE IS NO GOD, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter.
If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Coke and a bottle of Sprite. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is TRUE, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions.
Thus, your atheism destroys rationality and morality. Intellectual and moral relativism have long challenged atheistic worldviews. No atheist has successfully addressed this problem, although you are invited to try.
Concerning morality specifically, your challenge implicitly brings up an important detail in any discussion on the nature of morality: grounding.
I'm referring to the foundation or logical basis of a claim. What is the logical grounding of morality? What base does morality "stand on"?
Relativists like you who make any claim to knowledge have absolutely no basis for your assertions. You're standing, not on solid ground, but on thin air.
The problem of grounding morality is a difficult one for atheists who love to claim that one can have ethics without God. Certainly an atheist can act in a manner some people consider "moral," but it's hard to know what the term ultimately refers to for them. In fact, it's completely arbitrary. Without a transcendent Lawmaker, there can be no transcendent Law, and no corresponding obligation to be good.
So an allegedly "moral" atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn't believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or cooks. He believes the food just appears, with no explanation and no sufficient cause. The atheist's morality simply has no grounding.
Because of this, the atheist seeks to live by the dominant cultural morality whenever it is convenient for him, and there are even those who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.
But even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.
One need only ask an atheist what his morality is, and inquire as to how he developed it and why it should happen to so closely coincide with the dominant societal morality to discover that there is nothing rational about most atheists' beliefs. Either he has none and is unquestioningly accepting the societal norms that surround him, or he is simply selecting which aspects to credit and which to reject on the basis of his momentary desires. In neither case does anything that can legitimately be described as "reason" enter into the picture.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/16/2008 3:41 PM
But even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.
Great refutation Anon at 7:10. Brilliant! LOL...
posted by Anonymous, at
8/16/2008 8:43 PM
An atheist lacks any claim to an objective and universal moral standard. So they have to irrationally latch onto the standard that happens to be dominant in their culture as a moral parasite, sans only those aspects of it that most directly conflict with their momentary desires.
None of this changes the fact that without that parasitism, they possess no basis to criticize the morality or immorality of another individual regardless of their faith or lack of faith.
A consistent atheist would never use the words "evil" or "should." They do not exist for the atheist. All that exists for him is "do what thou wilt."
Thankfully most atheists are safe little illogical and inconsistent creatures. For they are simply crippled Christians who have rejected their God while clinging to most of His values.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/16/2008 8:53 PM
Just when I think the limits of moral silliness have been reached, you give usd THESE:
A consistent atheist would never use the words "evil" or "should." They do not exist for the atheist.
For they are simply crippled Christians who have rejected their God while clinging to most of His values.
"Silly" - an atheist's final retort when their arguments fail and their worldview is shown to be unreasonable, inconsistent, and arbitrary.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/16/2008 10:36 PM
"In a court of law people have a right to testify on their own behalf. So the Bible should be allowed to testify as to what sort of book it is."
The Bible can testify in court all it wants to, that doesn’t prove it’s not lying, or perhaps honestly mistaken.
None of what you said makes the Bible true, it just makes it true that YOU believe it's true.
posted by Unknown, at
8/17/2008 7:01 AM
"Furthermore, the Bible does more than merely claim to be God's Word. The witness of the Holy Spirit supernaturally reveals to the reader that the Bible is the Word of God."
Not for everyone. Some people are more attuned to the spirit than others.
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is just that, a SPIRIT. Not something that can be contained in a book or words written in a book.
posted by Unknown, at
8/17/2008 7:07 AM
"Matthew 5:8 says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." The Greek verb translated "see" (horao) is in a tense that denotes a future, continuous reality. In heaven the Christian will continually be seeing God.
So no I haven't, nor have I asked. But I know that reality awaits me when I die."
Matthew 5:8 doesn't refute Matthew 7:8: Ask and you shall receive. I even clarified this by saying:
"Or do you truly not believe that God can do ALL things? Or do you truly not believe that if you will ask you will receive?
How about asking to see enough of God to know the proof of the glory of God? Do you think that's possible to receive in human form?
Or how about asking for divine truth that the Bible is inerrent in every way so that you can give personal testimony to that effect instead of placing the burden of proof on the other person?"
What you are saying to me is that you don't believe that God can/and/or will answer that prayer.
Where did Priya Lynn and her nonsense run off too? I need a good laugh...
Anyway, Emproph writes: "The Bible can testify in court all it wants to, that doesn't prove it's not lying, or perhaps honestly mistaken."
No! Really? That's the point. It testifies, then the burden shifts to you. Prove it's lying. Demonstrate that it's "honestly mistaken."
Your next set of questions completely misunderstand omnipotence. Omnipotence means that God can do anything that is consistent with His nature. God could not violate His own essence and nature. We see this reflected in the Bible when it says, for example, that God cannot lie. This is a logical necessity since to lie would be a self contradiction and if God is true, then He cannot be self contradictory.
Concerning Matthew 7:8, our prayers are not always answered the way we want them to be, especially when we ask outside of God's will and outside of His already revealed truth. Consider that even Jesus' prayers were not always answered (cf. Matthew 26:39).
You're implying, by isolating a verse outside of it's smaller and larger context, that Jesus is teaching that whatever we want, whatever we ask, God will do it. In your intense Bible study, you seem to have forgotten the previous chapter already. In Matthew 6:10 Jesus first established the general principle: Thy will be done. God's will be done. Our wants and our needs are subordinate to that. We do not pray: "Our will be done."
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 11:24 PM
"Emproph writes: "The Bible can testify in court all it wants to, that doesn't prove it's not lying, or perhaps honestly mistaken."
"Anonymous": "No! Really? That's the point. It testifies, then the burden shifts to you. Prove it's lying. Demonstrate that it's "honestly mistaken."
Except - DEAR - the Bible isn't the one who's on trial here, I AM, on behalf of "the Bible."
I am the defendant, the Bible is the prosecutor. The burden of proof is on whether or not the Bible's testimony against me is accurate and believable beyond a reasonable doubt.
And at this point, even though I'm just the defendent, I feel confident that many of the jurors have some VERY, VERY, REASONABLE DOUBTS. -- You made the accusation (via the Bible), therefore the burden of proof lies with YOU.
And you seem to be the only one here who’s willing and/or able to SPEAK for the Bible, SO MAKE YOUR CASE: Why should we believe the Bible?
posted by Unknown, at
8/18/2008 6:21 AM
"Concerning Matthew 7:8, our prayers are not always answered the way we want them to be, especially when we ask outside of God's will and outside of His already revealed truth. Consider that even Jesus' prayers were not always answered (cf. Matthew 26:39)."
But you've admitted that you haven't even asked.
I'm not suggesting you'd get a vision on the spot, but I may be questioning how much faith you have in the love God has for you.
That could sound manipulative, but to take it out of my hands - did someone tell you that it was a sin to pray to see God's glory?
Do you think the prophets in the Bible who did see God's glory weren't sinners themselves?
Sin may blind us from God's glory, but God NEVER intentionally shields us from it.
God's face is a thought away.
And if you don't get that from your Bible, then FUCK your Bible!
posted by Unknown, at
8/18/2008 6:56 AM
Where did you get that idea from?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/18/2008 8:20 AM
It can be as simple or as comprehensive as you want it to be. Know that my question is an epistemological one. You've claimed a certain knowledge of God, His attributes, His character, His capabilities, etc. How do you know these things? What is this knowledge based on?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/23/2008 7:19 PM
Set aside for a moment that I believe I can prove this, are you willing to accept the idea that we may be all one?
posted by Unknown, at
8/25/2008 1:40 AM
Maybe. Describe what you mean by "we may be all one" and where this idea comes from (i.e., justification).
posted by Anonymous, at
8/25/2008 5:49 PM
Before I get into some convoluted rant that could easily confuse things more, maybe just read this first.
posted by Unknown, at
8/26/2008 6:34 PM
Very interesting take. I first off want to authentically compliment you on your writing. While I disagree with you, I really think you're a gifted writer.
Before even addressing the main points of your post, I want to first address your use of logic.
Now, you try to put together a logical argument. There are flaws in the argument I'll address later, but what I first want to know is how you account for the laws of logic you clearly accept and readily employ.
Let me explain. The Christian worldview can very easily account for the laws of logic. The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth. Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.
God did not create the laws of logic. They were not brought into existence since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.
Man, being made in Gods image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them. Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that man is only discovering them.
But again, how do you - how does your worldview - account for the laws of logic? It appears you're trying to use logic to try and disprove the existence of a transcendent Creator God, but in so doing you are assuming absolute laws of logic, and in reality borrowing from the my worldview.
So how can you, with a seemingly naturalistic presupposition, account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?
So please explain how you account for the laws of logic in your worldview.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/26/2008 11:12 PM
First of all, thanks for the compliment, but I did not write the article itself (the part in blockquotes), the commentary below it is what is mine. I just put a disclaimer at the top to avoid any more confusion.
Secondly, perhaps something got missed (or we haven't gotten to it yet), because I basically agree with everything you just said.
If one takes logic as far as it goes, then it becomes apparent that that logic came from God itself. Meaning, that it wasn't you who discovered God through logic, but God who gave or allowed you, etc., the logic to comprehend God through logic. Ultimately meaning that when this is realized, what is seen is that God is thinking (or leading you to think) your own thoughts about itself (God), and that you just happen to be in the middle of the loop.
Thirdly, I'm not coming from a "naturalistic presupposition," nor am I "trying to use logic to try and disprove the existence of a transcendent Creator God."
I'm coming FROM a transcendent Creator God REALITY, and trying to demonstrate that "natural presupposition" logic, in and of itself -- if taken to it's furthest degree -- can PROVE a transcendent Creator God (oneness) Reality. Furthermore, upon receipt of this proof, it is automatically understood that this is the ONLY POSSIBLE way it could ever be. In other words, the proof itself, proves itself. -- I'm sure there are many things we disagree on, and we may never come to any agreement on some of these things, I just want to make sure that WHAT we're disagreeing on is concepts and not semantics.
It is clear that our understandings of God are vastly different, but our understandings of the nature of God may not be so different.
It is my contention that God can be seen through logic alone. If this can be done on a practical level, there will be no religious books to divide us. We, as a human species, will be one in spirit and in mind, and in agreement of God's (Love's) will for all creation -- thus, the "second coming of Christ."
No nothingness = Oneness Oneness = Everything is God Everything is God = Everything is Love/Heaven Everything is Heaven = We never left the garden We never left Eden (heaven) = Nothing bad can ever happen
Which is why God warned us not to understand the difference between good and evil - to perceive them in perfect balance is to perceive heaven all the time, and that nothing bad can ever happen. And we ate of that "fruit," and for the first time, understood good and bad as SEPARATE sensations.
There's no turning back now. This world was designed to show us how to CONSCIOUSLY reintegrate the balance of good and evil for the purpose of perceiving heaven (good and evil) on a perpetual level. Before the "fall," we were only recipients of God's Love, once we master this (the knowledge and experience of good and evil), we will have the capacity to be generators of God's Love, at will. ---- See, that's what I meant by "Before I get into some convoluted rant that could easily confuse things more" :) ---- Anyway, before I can even start backing any of that up, we'd have to agree that the existence of nothingness is not possible. Are you ready for that, or was my explanation of where I get my logic from still lacking?
posted by Unknown, at
8/27/2008 9:07 PM
This is what I'm trying to figure out how to say in a simple way that everyone can understand:
Logic itself COULD ONLY BE THE RESULT OF consciousness.
There's a lot of the Bible I believe in, just as you do, I assume, though perhaps I "interpret" it differently.
The last part of that passage, #40 -- given that I understand oneness as a reality -- I take literally:
40) "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
posted by Unknown, at
8/28/2008 5:28 AM
So you believe in the laws of logic then. Good. Would you characterize them as universal?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/30/2008 2:21 PM
"So you believe in the laws of logic then. Good. Would you characterize them as universal?"
Uni means one.
I thought I made it clear that I understand oneness as a reality (or reality as one).
So of course I would "characterize" the laws of logic as universal - they would have to be.
Not that a reality/creation couldn't be created that defied what we consider to be logic, but isn't that the perfect definition of evil? (At least when it comes to a God of Love whose only goal is to generate more of itself (love/heaven.)
Simply, for the sake of our conversation, I think we can agree that the "laws of logic" are universal.
posted by Unknown, at
8/30/2008 7:50 PM
Sounds good. Now, please identify the statements you disagree with:
- The Bible is the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects.
- The Scriptures are "God-breathed" and therefore fully authoritative in and of themselves; they rely for their authority upon no church, council, or creed, but are authoritative simply because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, as they embody the very speaking of God, partake of His authority, His power.
- There is one true and eternal God, unchanging, unchangeable.
- God is the Creator of all that exists in heaven and in earth. The God who is described in the Bible is unique; He is unlike anyone or anything else in all the universe. God has all power, all knowledge, all wisdom, and is due all glory, honor and praise. All that comes to pass does so at the decree of God. All things will, in the end, result in the glory of God.
- There is but one being of God, yet there are three Persons who share this one being of God: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Each Person is fully and completely God, each is described in Scripture as possessing the attributes of God. The Father, Son, and Spirit have eternally existed in the relationship described by the term "Trinity."
- Men and women were created in the image of God. Man rebelled against His Creator, and fell into sin. As a result, man became spiritually dead, totally unwilling and indeed incapable of seeking after God. God, from eternity past, having foreordained all things, joined a certain people to Christ Jesus, so that He might redeem them from their sin and in so doing bring glory to Himself. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died in the place of this elect people, providing full and complete forgiveness of sins by His death upon the cross of Calvary. No other work can provide for forgiveness of sins, and no addition can be made to the completed and finished work of Christ.
- God, in His sovereign grace and mercy, regenerates sinful men by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by any action of their own, bringing them to new life. God grants to them the gifts of faith and repentance, which they then exercise by believing in Christ and turning from their sins in love for God. As a result of this faith, based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, God justifies or makes righteous the one who believes. God's gift of faith, and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the elect, results in good works. These good works flow from true, saving faith; they are a necessary result of faith, but are not to be considered necessary to the gaining of justification, which is by God's grace through faith alone, so that no man can boast.
- Jesus Christ established His Church, which is made up of all the elect of God. His Church, as an obedient bride, listens to His Word as found in the Bible. All who believe in Christ are placed in His body, the Church. The local expressions of the Church are very important, and each believer should be actively involved in such a fellowship.
- Christ is coming again to judge the living and the dead. This promise is found throughout the inspired Scriptures. Till His return, believers are to live lives that bring glory to God through Jesus Christ. The Church is to be busy doing the work of evangelism and discipleship, proclaiming the pure, uncompromised Gospel of Christ by teaching the Word of God.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/30/2008 8:17 PM
Sounds good. Now, please identify the statements you disagree with:
Does that one count?
Oh but I kid, I too feel that we haven't been disagreeing enough lately.. -- "- The Bible is the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects."
Why and how? -- "- The Scriptures are "God-breathed" and therefore fully authoritative in and of themselves; they rely for their authority upon no church, council, or creed, but are authoritative simply because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, as they embody the very speaking of God, partake of His authority, His power."
According to whom? -- "- There is one true and eternal God, unchanging, unchangeable."
I'll give you that one.
Infinity, by nature, is a state of perpetual increasing.
God is clearly in a mode of constantly increasing awareness of its own magnitude.
So, Yes. God is unchanging in that it is, was, and alway will be, in a perpetual state of increasing awareness. -- "- God is the Creator of all that exists in heaven and in earth. The God who is described in the Bible is unique; He is unlike anyone or anything else in all the universe. God has all power, all knowledge, all wisdom, and is due all glory, honor and praise. All that comes to pass does so at the decree of God. All things will, in the end, result in the glory of God."
I agree with the attributes of God that you've described, but I don't agree that they're "unique" to the Bible. The Golden Rule is the Only Rule.
If there's any "universal logic," to be had, for the sake of universal logic's sake alone, I suggest that it's this.
The "attributes" may be unique - as far as this world is concerned - but God is Everywhere (and from my perspective, is everything), so I don’t see how universal attributes could be "unique" to any particular thing...OR BOOK. -- "- There is but one being of God, yet there are three Persons who share this one being of God: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Each Person is fully and completely God, each is described in Scripture as possessing the attributes of God. The Father, Son, and Spirit have eternally existed in the relationship described by the term "Trinity.""
God is Everything The Son is God's creation The Holy Spirit is the relationship between the two
So yes, Trinity, agreed. (and yes, I know that's not what you meant, but that's all I've got to offer for now...) -- "- Men and women were created in the image of God. Man rebelled against His Creator, and fell into sin. As a result, man became spiritually dead, totally unwilling and indeed incapable of seeking after God. God, from eternity past, having foreordained all things, joined a certain people to Christ Jesus, so that He might redeem them from their sin and in so doing bring glory to Himself. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died in the place of this elect people, providing full and complete forgiveness of sins by His death upon the cross of Calvary. No other work can provide for forgiveness of sins, and no addition can be made to the completed and finished work of Christ."
Jesus "died" on the spiritual "cross" between spirit and matter, to demonstrate that there is NO SUCH THING as sin.
No doubt, there are actions, and there are consequences, but people like me call that karma. But if you think about it, karma's just a glorified version of the Golden Rule. Which, if I'm not mistaken, Christianity is based on, is it not? -- "- God, in His sovereign grace and mercy, regenerates sinful men by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by any action of their own, bringing them to new life. God grants to them the gifts of faith and repentance, which they then exercise by believing in Christ and turning from their sins in love for God. As a result of this faith, based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, God justifies or makes righteous the one who believes. God's gift of faith, and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the elect, results in good works. These good works flow from true, saving faith; they are a necessary result of faith, but are not to be considered necessary to the gaining of justification, which is by God's grace through faith alone, so that no man can boast."
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit can not, or will not enter the heart of an Atheist for the glory of God, or that the Holy Spirit is willing to enter and inspire, knowing full well that that person's going to hell for all eternity?
Do you really think God (Love) cares if it gets recognized for being shared?
Yes, it helps, and it's SO MUCH more special when you see love as divine (conscious). But does true divine love require the recognition of its own divinity? -- "- Jesus Christ established His Church, which is made up of all the elect of God. His Church, as an obedient bride, listens to His Word as found in the Bible. All who believe in Christ are placed in His body, the Church. The local expressions of the Church are very important, and each believer should be actively involved in such a fellowship."
Prove it. -- "- Christ is coming again to judge the living and the dead. This promise is found throughout the inspired Scriptures. Till His return, believers are to live lives that bring glory to God through Jesus Christ. The Church is to be busy doing the work of evangelism and discipleship, proclaiming the pure, uncompromised Gospel of Christ by teaching the Word of God. "
The dead in Christ rise first because they are more sensitive to His presence. Like a starving rich kid.
If oneness is true, then nothing bad can ever happen. What could be bigger than that?
Seriously. Think about it, What could possibly be bigger than that?
The true question is, if you could see God, if you could see what I mean by "nothing bad can ever happen," then why would you feel the need to rely on the Bible?
I asked I begged I pleaded
Because I wanted it that bad.
And eventually...I received
What good's a Book if you don't even take the advice it gives you?
"Man rebelled against His Creator, and fell into sin. As a result, man became spiritually dead, totally unwilling and indeed incapable of seeking after God. God, from eternity past, having foreordained all things"
foreordain: determine future events: to arrange or determine an event in advance of its happening
How could an All Powerful God of Love, foreordain a need for eternal suffering?
posted by Unknown, at
9/01/2008 6:51 AM
