I was talking to someone recently about a common acquaintance and her marital difficulties. I said, "Yeah, I hope they can work those problems out and get back together." She said, "Oh, no! That would be horrible! He's such a loser! The best thing she can do is move on with her life!" I was stunned. We both know that God hates divorce. We both know that marriage is intended for life. Still, apparently God doesn't know what He's doing in this case because if He did He'd be in favor of this split. Not too bright, God.
I was discussing corporal punishment with some friends. They were shocked that I favored it. "It's child abuse!" they assured me. "Wait ... the Bible says that if you don't discipline your children, you don't love them. Hebrews says that God Himself chastens those whom He loves, and if He doesn't chasten you, you're not His child." "Oh," they told me, "that's the old way of seeing things. Haven't you seen the news? Studies show that spanking children lowers their IQ." Wait ... so, here's what you think. God commanded, commended, and practices corporal punishment; unfortunately His views are out of date and we know so much better today. Not too bright, God.
On Oct 11, 2009, President Obama, a self-described Christian, addressed the HRC on the topic of gay rights. Here is part of what he said:
My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them. (Source)If we translate this through biblical eyes, we read something very bizarre. We read that when God said, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" (Lev 20:13), He was very much mistaken. The goal, you see, is that these relationships be just as "admirable as relationships between a man and a woman." The idea, apparently, is that God, who back then saw it as an abomination, will see the light, realize how wise His creation has become, and correct His own thinking. Unless You do, you're not too bright, God.
How many ways can you think of that we do this? "Yeah, sure, all things work together for good, but you aren't talking about my situation." "Well, maybe God commands us to share the Gospel wherever we go, but He hasn't worked where I work." "That whole 'wives submit to husbands' thing is so wrong. It was never intended for today." "Everyone knows that Paul's 'I do not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority' thing was a product of his time. Women are much better educated today. It is an outmoded viewpoint." So, so sorry, God, but sometimes you're just not too bright.
I'll tell you what ... you tell Him that. I think I'll try to conform my thinking to His rather than vice versa. Seems safer to me. Because the God I worship actually is omniscient -- much wiser than I.
51 comments:
Stan,
Please let Dan post today...he'll have the (many) right words to clarify or correct you where you went wrong.
C'mon, it's Friday! He'll be nice this time?! (I'm only half kidding...I do enjoy some of the old banter)
As far as I know Dan doesn't read this blog anymore. I haven't heard from him in a couple of weeks. Remember? "Dust, dust".
Funny thing, though. When people disagree, here's what it boils down to: "Did God say ...?"
I wish our president could read what you wrote today, Stan.
Best line: "I tell you what ... you tell Him that."
He might be President of The United States of America but (like all of us) he is someday going to have to stand before Almighty God and, among other things, try to tell Him how "unenlightened" and wrong He has been about homosexuality. Good luck with that, Mr. President.
How nice that we sometimes know better than God Himself. We're more progressive, more tolerant, and loving than He is, I guess. We humans, in all our wisdom, sometimes just know what's best! We don't even know what is going to transpire in the next few minutes, but we DO know what's best for us in some situations.
Has anyone heard if our president and his family have found a new home church yet? If so, what is it? Who is their pastor? That is someone for whom we can all be praying, someone whose admonishments our president and his wife might esteem and heed. Do the Obamas even go to church anymore? (Not that church attendance gives you personal relationship with God, but it's at least indicative of people being willing to stop the frenzy and give God one measly hour of their busy weeks.)
Wonder if our president ever cracks open his Bible mid-week or if he takes time to seek God and HIS wisdom in prayer at the beginning of each day?
This guy (in his position) NEEDS HELP in a major way and hopefully he takes time to cry out to God for it. I hope he has not gotten so terribly busy and so "powerful" that he has forgotten to recognize God's presence.
Hmmm...sounds like someone else we know:
Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say"...
Hmmm...if people are talking like that ("Did God really say?") does that reveal whose kingdom they are operating under?
Sorry, sometimes it takes me a while, so I end up pointing out the obvious!
Sherry, a lot of (Christian) dissenters to our president forget that we are not commanded to correct the political structures of our nation, but we are commanded to pray for those in charge. I think there's surely a lot we can pray for on behalf of our president.
starflyer, if pointing out the obvious wasn't originally so obvious, I'd guess that it needed pointing out. Good job.
C'mon, it's Friday! He'll be nice this time?! (I'm only half kidding...I do enjoy some of the old banter)
So, I happen by today and what do I see? Someone wishing for something besides vanilla agreement.
Talking things over with someone with another opinion can help make life interesting.
One can take only so many, "Yeah, I wholly agree with you... again..." on a blog before it gets tiring.
Diversity brightens up our lives.
When I was a child living on a rarely traveled dirt road, it occurred to me one day that I actually didn't have to worry about cars running me down if I walked out in front of them; that the people driving them would simply drive around me. The next time I heard a car coming I commanded all my siblings to observe as I stood in the middle of the road. Sure enough the car simply drove around me. Funny, I can still remember the ghastly expressions on the women through the glare of the side windows of their car as drove on past.
This is also one of the reasons I could never completely take issue with (the title anyway) Hillary Clinton's book "It Takes A Village"; at least not when village actually means village. This is one of my first tastes of that concept and would introduce to me the soon reaffirmed idea that my Dad's eyes were everywhere. I will never forget my father's words, which are apropos for your post today: Son, you're gettin to big for your britches. Then he exercised his God given obligation to set my rear end on a different and more humble path. Perhaps that can explain what happened to my IQ.
Actually, starflyer was just expecting that you'd disagree (another statement of the obvious since you've already disagreed on some of the points I listed).
Yes, I would disagree in part.
NOT that God is omniscient, I would not disagree with that, of course.
Just that you and I are omniscient enough to ably speak on behalf of an omniscient God and say with certainty, "God approves of spanking," when God has never said that or "God disapproves of gay marriage," when God has never said that.
It's not God's omniscience I would take issue with, in other words. It's yours/ours.
Dan Trabue: "Just that you and I are omniscient enough to ably speak on behalf of an omniscient God."
The argument, then, seems to be either "The Bible is not clear enough to speak with any certainty about what God was actually saying" or, as more would suggest, "The Bible isn't reliable enough to speak with any certainty about what God thinks." And we're back to my opinion versus your opinion and nothing real to stand on. Or to put it another way, as I said earlier, you're back to "Did God say?"
Dan: "I commanded all my siblings to observe as I stood in the middle of the road."
Seriously? You did that? Or was that a (quite good) illustrative story?
And we're back to my opinion versus your opinion and nothing real to stand on. Or to put it another way, as I said earlier, you're back to "Did God say?"
Yes. You think God said "Gay marriage is bad." Even though God has not said that. You think God said "Spanking is good," even though God did not say that.
It always returns back to what do we think God says.
But that is the point. We're not (at least you and I) to the point of one of us saying "God says do this BUT I want to do that." We just disagree on what it is God is saying to us.
The difference is, I admit it comes down to that. You seem to wish to cling to the illusion that you and you alone hold the One True Word (TM) from God.
It would seem that is why you say, "I'll try to conform my thinking to His rather than vice versa," to suggest that you and those who agree with you are merely holding the One True Position that God has authorized and others are merely trying to remake God in their image.
In truth, I and my brothers and sisters in the faith ARE seeking God's will on marriage and spanking and on each and every corner of our lives. And sometimes, we sincerely come to a different position than you do.
Such is life in our fallen, flawed human world. We disagree and that's okay. It happens and we can't really get around it, right?
Dan Trabue: "You seem to wish to cling to the illusion that you and you alone hold the One True Word (TM) from God."
Starflyer proved himself wrong when he said, "He'll be nice this time?!" It's not about opinions. It's about "Stan's an idiot who thinks that he might understand the Bible."
Look, Dan, for the umpteenth time, it's not about me or my special knowledge. I don't hold views that are simply my own. I read my Bible and see what it says. I see what others have concluded and see if my conclusions are out of line. I look at the historic understanding of the passage and see if I'm in or out of that. Oh, and when I read God's opinion that a man lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination, I assume that when a man lies with a man as with a woman it's an abomination. You're not so sure.
You complained that I cannot know if I'm saved. Similarly, you cannot know if you're right in your understanding of Scripture. Indeed, you seem to highly value the lack of certainty. I want to conform my thinking to God's thinking and your view is no one can really know what God is thinking is, so just go with your opinion and don't worry about it. It is folly for me to think I understand.
Okay, so why not just go with your opinion, since it would be folly to assert that your opinion is right (You don't want to cling to the illusion that you and you alone hold the One True Word (TM) from God, do you?) and mine is wrong. I'll stick with my understanding of the plain text supported by many others who understand the text the same way and underlined by the historic understanding of the same texts and you run with your opinion. Why won't that work? Why do you feel the need to disagree with me? (Rhetorical questions.)
Stan, I guess I was thinking of my own interest in the "entertainment value" of this...and not the impact it may have on you. Oops, sorry! Well, when you come out in November you can slap me upside the head!
Dan, Stan (and many others who responded to you in this forum) are correct about one thing: you do have the ability of taking Scripture(s) that are QUITE clear and arguing that they are not.
I suspect the reason is that you are trying desparately to defend lifestyle choices and positions that you either participate in or condone that you know are wrong...but are unwilling to give up your support of them.
Trying to talk your way around the clear Scriptures is not going to absolve you from taking responsibility for your positions.
I really don't mean that to sound harsh, but it may come across that way. I do actually pray for you, that God will truly open your eyes on some of these matters. And I say that in all sincerity, I hope you take it that way.
You don't sound harsh, Starflyer, just mistaken.
You said...
Dan, Stan (and many others who responded to you in this forum) are correct about one thing: you do have the ability of taking Scripture(s) that are QUITE clear and arguing that they are not.
You realize, of course, that I think the same thing of some of your (generic "you," in the sense of some traditionalists/religious folk) positions?
You also said...
I suspect the reason is that you are trying desparately to defend lifestyle choices and positions that you either participate in or condone that you know are wrong...but are unwilling to give up your support of them.
Well, I support gay marriage, but do not participate in them nor do I think they are wrong, at all, in the least. I think they are a good and blessed thing. I didn't USED to think that way, I used to think as you do on gay marriage. Bible study and prayer and reflection led me to change my mind. Not because I'm gay (I'm not - not that there's anything wrong with that), not because I have family members that are gay (I don't that I know of) and not because I had gay friends at the time and I wanted to be "nice" to them (I DID have gay friends, but I didn't know about it - given my harsh attitude about homosexuality, no one would "out" themselves to me in my more conservative days).
No, this is where you are mistaken. On gay marriage and any other number of positions that you disagree with me about, I have changed my mind not because I wanted an abortion or because I was trying to dodge the draft or any reason other than seeking God's will.
And again, this is my point: Sometimes Christians of good will and deep sincerity come to a difference of opinion on matters that we may think are quite important. All that indicates is that we are human and have the capacity to be wrong, as I think you all are clearly wrong on some positions and you think I'm wrong on some positions.
And I may be. But it's only in ignorance that I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, because I've honestly sought God's will and came to a wrong conclusion. And that can happen with me, seeing as how I'm fallible.
I suspect it can happen with you all, too.
Thanks for asking about me, SF.
Stan said...
Starflyer proved himself wrong when he said, "He'll be nice this time?!" It's not about opinions. It's about "Stan's an idiot who thinks that he might understand the Bible."
I AM sorry if that's the way it sounded. It was not my intent, but I apologize for coming across that way.
Stan said...
I don't hold views that are simply my own. I read my Bible and see what it says. I see what others have concluded and see if my conclusions are out of line. I look at the historic understanding of the passage and see if I'm in or out of that.
Me, too. That was my point. That we BOTH approach this in the same manner. We BOTH seek for God's will. We BOTH look to the Bible to strive to better understand God's Will. We BOTH look at historic understandings of passages to see how that informs us. We BOTH (I believe) recognize that human tradition could be mistaken and weigh tradition accordingly. We BOTH recognize (I think - you tell me) that we could be wrong on any given subject, that we're not infallible.
Given all of that similarity of approach, I was merely striving to point this out. That it's not a matter of some who wish to follow God's will and some who wish to remake the Bible and God into something that pleases us more.
So, when you say, "I think I'll try to conform my thinking to His rather than vice versa," I was merely pointing out that this is what we all do (or at least your faith community and my faith community in general) and that we would be mistaken to suggest that anyone is deliberately changing our opinions in direct opposition to God. That I - or you - could be wrong.
It's not that I "highly value the lack of certainty" - just that I value humility and the recognition of my own lack of genius and perfection.
Dan Trabue,
I wonder if you could help me out here. You said, "You think God said 'Gay marriage is bad.' Even though God has not said that. You think God said 'Spanking is good,' even though God did not say that." So, here's my dilemma. I've looked at everything I've ever written about "gay marriage" and I cannot find anywhere that I said, "God said 'Gay marriage is bad.'" In fact, I have my labels listed over on the side there and you can look at all I've written on "same-sex marriage". I don't think you'll find anywhere that I said that. So, you are attributing to me words I never said. Indeed, I never suggested or even thought it. On the other hand, it is written quite clearly and unequivocally "The LORD ... scourges every son whom He receives." So without evidence you accuse me of saying something I never said or thought and despite the evidence you assume God has no preference on discipline. How is that reasonable?
Stan said...
I've looked at everything I've ever written about "gay marriage" and I cannot find anywhere that I said, "God said 'Gay marriage is bad.'"
No, you have not written that. It is your belief (correct me if I'm wrong) that God does not approve of gay marriage - that there is no such thing as gay marriage and those who claim that it's a good thing do so contrary to God's will.
Is that not your position? If so, I was just summarizing your position by stating it the way I did. If that wrongly encapsulates your opinion on the matter, I am sorry for misrepresenting you.
On the other hand, it is written quite clearly and unequivocally "The LORD ... scourges every son whom He receives."
Yes, the Bible DOES say "the Lord scourges..." but that does not say that God endorses spanking. You have taken a metaphor for discipline (a good thing which no one opposes) and applied it to spanking (which I think studies suggest are not an especially effective method of discipline).
So without evidence you accuse me of saying something I never said or thought and despite the evidence you assume God has no preference on discipline. How is that reasonable?
I have not said that "God has no preference on discipline." I've said that the Bible does not say God endorses spanking.
As noted, I think discipline is a great thing, and I think the Bible teaches this.
So how is that reasonable that you assumed incorrectly something I don't believe and yet seem to have a problem with me paraphrasing something I THINK you DO believe?
"A metaphor for discipline", eh? "Scourge" simply means "teaches what's right and wrong", right? No pain involved. No "corporal punishment" even hinted at. What a ridiculous notion! How could you think such a thing, Stan?
So things like Prov 23:13-14 ("Do not hold back discipline from the child; although you strike him with the rod, he will not die. You shall strike him with the rod and rescue his soul from Sheol.") either made it in by accident or it is presented as "good" but God doesn't approve or "strike him with a rod" does NOT mean corporal punishment. Which is it? And in what sense am I taking any of this out of context? God didn't approve when Solomon wrote "He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently" (Prov 13:24). And the demonstrated effectiveness over the centuries is meaningless to modern science who has determined that God's "scourging" and Solomon's "rod" are all metaphors because they know so much better now ...
Or, as the post claimed, we're so much smarter now than God was back then.
Dan Trabue: "It is your belief (correct me if I'm wrong) that God does not approve of gay marriage."
No, it is my belief that God does not approve of "gay marriage" in the same way that He does not approve of square circles. You like to tell me that the Bible doesn't define marriage. True. No one can find an entry that says, "Marriage: the union of a man and a woman." But, despite the fact that there are hundreds of references to husbands and wives, there isn't a single reference to "husband and husband", "wife and wife". Nor can you suggest any way to tell two husbands what the commands to husbands and wives mean, since all references and commands regarding marriage are to husbands and wives. Does God not approve? No, God doesn't recognize it. The only way you can make sense of it is to assume that God didn't intend any instructions to husbands and husbands (or wives and wives).
And when you dismiss "scourge" and "rod" as metaphor for "training", you give not one single reason in the text to suggest that it means anything but "scourge" and "rod". The text offers nothing but confirmation that this kind of "training" includes genuine pain, but you reject it out of hand. Why? Because "I think studies suggest [corporal punishment is] not an especially effective method of discipline." Or ... you reinterpret the Word based on modern studies, not on the text ... which demonstrates what the post is about.
Dan T, since the Bible doesn't directly say Gay marriage is wrong (even though it says man being sexual with a man like he would a woman is wrong) and doesn't directly endorse spanking (though scourging sounds much harsher than discipline), would you say the Trinity is a false concept since Scripture never directly mentions it? And, you really are much happier not being certain we can know anything about God, than being secure in the Truths presented in Scripture, so yes, you do "highly value the lack of certainty."
The text offers nothing but confirmation that this kind of "training" includes genuine pain, but you reject it out of hand. Why?
1. We have a text that uses the word "scourge" when referencing God's discipline for us.
2. We know in fact that God does not literally scourge us - clearly that is a metaphor. We have never had God bring down a scourge on our backs, therefore it is a metaphor, not a literal thing that happens.
3. Do we agree on that much?
Continuing, then:
4.We have a text that uses the word "rod" in reference to disciplining children.
5. Using our God-given reasoning, we can see that beating a child with an actual rod would not lead to good discipline - it would lead to worse behavior.
6. Seeing that other biblical texts that talk about physical beatings-as-discipline are metaphorical AND given that it is not reasonably effective AND if our goal is effective discipline, why would I presume it to be literal?
That would be my line of exegesis and reasoning.
God has given us reasoning - creating us in God's image with the ability to size up right and wrong and logically reach conclusions - for a reason. I look at the biblical text, use standard orthodox standards for interpreting the Bible and this is the conclusion I reach.
So, no, in fact, I do NOT interpret the Word based on modern studies, I interpret the Word based on standard orthodox biblical exegesis.
You mistakenly assume that I do. Which demonstrates what my comment was about - our own fallibility (again, another standard orthodox view).
Stan said...
No, it is my belief that God does not approve of "gay marriage" in the same way that He does not approve of square circles.
It seems you are playing with semantics to avoid saying that you think gay marriage is wrong.
Look, there is no such thing as unicorns, but if someone wants to believe in unicorns, it's no sweat to me. Let them believe. If you're merely saying that there's no such thing as gay marriage, then why do you care if some people are engaged in gay marriage.
On the other hand, "Just War" is a contradiction in terms - there can be no such thing, seems to me. BUT, if someone wishes to advocate for "Just War" - and I know that there are people out there who do so - I WILL disagree with them because anyone trying to implement such thinking is morally wrong, in my estimation. In other words, it is my understanding of God that God would think that anyone suggesting anything like the notion of Just War would be wrong to do so.
THIS latter meaning is probably your feeling about gay marriage. So, while you think that there's no such thing as gay marriage, you ARE opposed to people who engage in what they call gay marriage because you believe God would be opposed to such an idea.
Is that not the case? So, if that is the case, then why are you objecting to my suggestion that you think God opposes such a thing as gay marriage?
Dan Trabue: "We can see that beating a child with an actual rod would not lead to good discipline - it would lead to worse behavior."
You can see, I guess. Everyone I have known who was raised by parents who loved them and used corporal punishment disagree. Prior to the latter half of the 20th century, all children were raised with some corporal punishment. My personal experience, evidence from people I've known, and historical data all indicate that you're argument is faulty. But it doesn't matter. You see, the premise for assuming that "scourge" and "rod" are not intended to mean "corporal punishment" is the presumption that modern science knows things that the Bible never knew and, therefore, trumps any lame literal reading of the text.
So, help me out here. Assuming that "scourge" simply means "training" without inflicting any pain, in what sense is it all that unpleasant? Why in the world would Solomon try to calm the fears of parents by saying that "although you strike him with the rod, he will not die"? I'm willing to agree that "scourge" and "rod" are not necessarily literal (God doesn't actually use a cat-o'-nine-tails) but the leap from "scourge" and "rod" to "training" without pain isn't a rational metaphor. It makes no sense metaphorically. It would be like using the metaphor "I shot him" to mean "I tapped his shoulder". There is no correlation between "scourge" and "training without inflicting pain". So, your metaphor doesn't work and the text begs to differ. In other words, going by what I read, I have to assume that your primary assumption, the assumption you use to deny any literal sense of corporal punishment -- "an actual rod would not lead to good discipline" -- is not a valid assumption. The text disagrees. History disagrees. Personal experience disagrees. And you're asking it to say something that doesn't make sense by any measure.
Dan Trabue: "Look, there is no such thing as unicorns, but if someone wants to believe in unicorns, it's no sweat to me."
Nor me. But there is such a thing as marriage and there is a meaning for the word "gay" and thus far the effect has been to hijack these words to mean something different. I can no longer use the term "gay" to mean "happy" because a tiny minority of people have stolen the term to mean something different. Okay. I can live with that. But marriage isn't something we can afford to lose. "How will that change your marriage?" is a foolish dodge (not yours, but I've heard it too many times) because the effect is much farther reaching than me. It will change how my children and my children's children see "marriage". It will crush any sense in Scripture of "marriage". It will eliminate God's commands to husbands and wives because the terms become meaningless.
I am saying, then, that God favors marriage as, in fact, one of His very first creations and God designed marriage for a purpose and God uses marriage for illustration of truth. Using the term for something else without giving us another term that means "marriage" is wrong.
Stan, do you want me to field these questions or are they too far afield from the topic? I'll answer and you can decide.
David asked...
Dan T, since the Bible doesn't directly say Gay marriage is wrong... and doesn't directly endorse spanking... would you say the Trinity is a false concept since Scripture never directly mentions it?
I think we can reasonably come to the conclusion - outside of what the Bible directly says, but there by inference - that God can be described as having a triune nature. I don't think we can reasonably conclude the same about gay marriage or about spanking.
And, you really are much happier not being certain we can know anything about God, than being secure in the Truths presented in Scripture, so yes, you do "highly value the lack of certainty."
I'm not quite clear on what you're saying/asking here. I, like Paul, strive to be content in all circumstances. I find my joy in God and God's community and in God's creation. I strive (and fail most often) to be humble in what I claim to know and don't know. I strive to not speak for God inappropriately. I find, when I succeed, that humility does lead to joy and confidence in God.
I would not call my position as "highly valuing" a lack of certainty. Instead, I highly value humility and circumspection and the knowledge that God is God and being God, above my complete understanding.
Do I come across as a person that lacks certainty or values the same? It seems to me that my fairly certain positions on many topics trouble you all, so it seems my certainty - not lack thereof - is what troubles you.
Stan said...
Everyone I have known who was raised by parents who loved them and used corporal punishment disagree.
I was raised with corporal punishment. My peers who also value disciplinary methods other than spanking were all raised with corporal punishment. We don't find it, anecdotally, to have been an especially effective method of discipline.
Now, I'm not one to condemn all spanking as child abuse. I just find it less-than-effective and counter-productive.
Since my main concern is EFFECTIVE discipline, then I embrace the methods I believe to be most effective. If the Bible contained an outline for Effective Discipline, I would use that, likely. It does not, though. What the Bible does, rather, is endorse discipline in general and we are expected to use our own God-given reasoning to figure out how to do that.
That's a good thing. Do you find using your own God-given reasoning to be a failed way of deciding how to interpret "strike him with the rod"? A rod, biblical scholars tell us, was like a stick, like a walking stick. Do you literally strike your children and/or stepchildren with a walking stick? Or, do you strike with something else? If so, on what basis would you do that? Is it the case that you decided that even though GOD said to strike children with walking sticks, that a belt or a little switch would do better?
If that is the case, are you not doing the exact same thing that you accuse me of? That is, are you not using your own wisdom rather than a literal interpretation of a passage from the Bible?
Stan said...
Prior to the latter half of the 20th century, all children were raised with some corporal punishment.
1. I rather doubt that you could prove this ("ALL children?") as I don't think it's the case;
2. Prior to the last 100 years, people held slaves, women and black folk couldn't vote or hold just any job in the US, mentally ill people were subjected to shock treatments, lobotomies and other tortures and imprisonments, etc, etc. "It's the way we've always done it" is not a moral justification.
3. The question then is, NOT "Do we discipline?" - no one is advocating that we don't. The question is, "How do we best discipline?" I don't think you have much in the way of evidence to support spanking. On the other hand, I'm not saying it is wholly the wrong way to discipline, just that it is questionably efficacious.
Stan said...
You see, the premise for assuming that "scourge" and "rod" are not intended to mean "corporal punishment" is the presumption that modern science knows things that the Bible never knew and, therefore, trumps any lame literal reading of the text.
Again, I would have to ask you if you literally strike your child with a rod? If not, then you are doing the same thing you accuse me of - using your own reasoning to decide how best to discipline. And that's a good thing. I encourage you to use your reason and use it well. There's nothing wrong with that.
So, help me out here. Assuming that "scourge" simply means "training" without inflicting any pain, in what sense is it all that unpleasant?
I'm not sure what you're asking? Are you suggesting that time-outs and groundings and other disciplinary actions are not unpleasant? My children would disagree.
Are you saying that you think that the only effective way to train and discipline is through physically painful punishment?
I can't believe that you would suggest that. Such reasoning sounds more like the Marquis de Sade, not Jesus and therefore, I doubt that this is your position, but you tell me.
Why in the world would Solomon try to calm the fears of parents by saying that "although you strike him with the rod, he will not die"? I'm willing to agree that "scourge" and "rod" are not necessarily literal (God doesn't actually use a cat-o'-nine-tails) but the leap from "scourge" and "rod" to "training" without pain isn't a rational metaphor.
I guess it may seem that irrational to you. It seems incredibly rational to me.
Do you know the most painful, well-learned discipline I ever received from my mother? It wasn't the switchings with a stick from the tree out back. It was when I was caught smoking and she confronted me on it and I was waiting for the spanking, but it never came. Instead, she simply told me that I had disappointed her greatly and had the saddest, near-tears look on her face. Oh! That was agony and I never smoked again and would not do anything again to make my mom say that to me.
Discipline need not involve physical pain and I can't imagine you would disagree with me on that point.
Stan said...
I am saying, then, that God favors marriage as, in fact, one of His very first creations and God designed marriage for a purpose and God uses marriage for illustration of truth. Using the term for something else without giving us another term that means "marriage" is wrong.
That was my point. You think to talk of gay marriage is morally wrong. I presume you think this because you think this is what God would think. And it's a fine guess, but I don't think you can support that hunch biblically nor logically nor morally. You're welcome to it - it's a position I held for a long time - but I disagree with that interpretation of the Bible.
I hope you don't mind terribly.
Dan Trabue: "You think to talk of gay marriage is morally wrong."
Sigh. Let the circle be unbroken ...
If you are going to refuse to take into account what I say, the conversation is pointless. If you are unable to understand what I say, the conversation is pointless.
Marriage has a definition. "Gay" does not fit into that definition. "Gay marriage", on the other hand, redefines "marriage" for everyone. So ... here ... let me try this. You go ahead and take the word "marriage". You can make it mean whatever you want. Just give me another word that means "marriage". I'll be glad to get all the Bibles changed. We'll alleviate this nasty communication gap. Oh, wait, we tried this already, didn't we? California substituted the word "union" for "marriage" to leave marriage intact, and that wasn't good enough.
Dan, it's not a moral issue. It's an issue of nonsense.
Dan Trabue: "I'm not sure what you're asking? Are you suggesting that time-outs and groundings and other disciplinary actions are not unpleasant?"
Yeah, Solomon, thanks a lot. I was scared to death that time outs and groundings might kill my kids, but you assured me that it wouldn't. Whew! What a relief!
Look, Dan, we're finished here (again). I said it wasn't that God objected to "gay marriage", but that the term was not real. You end up with, "See? You say God doesn't approve." I said, "I'm willing to agree that 'scourge' and 'rod' are not necessarily literal (God doesn't actually use a cat-o'-nine-tails) ..." and you keep asking me if I use an actual rod on kids. You won't accept what I say and we can't agree on what God says and your starting premises seem to be "studies show". No common language. No common source. No common understanding. We're done here.
No common language. No common source. No common understanding. We're done here.
Your call. I'm using English, I'm using the Bible, I'm using my reasoning and realize you are using yours. I'm not sure what we have not in common except that your using your reasoning and I'm using mine, but that's how it works for everyone. David is using HIS reasoning, not yours. SF is not using your reasoning, but his own. we all use our own reasoning to come to our understandings. As a result, sometimes we have differences of opinion. It's just the way it is.
Why does this trouble you so?
Studies show that Dan T thinks God doesn't want us to clearly and plainly know Him through His Holy Scripture. They go on to show that Stan believes that God can be clearly seen in not only Scripture as it has been breathed from God, but also His manifest power and holiness in nature.
Studies also show that Dan ALSO believes that God can be clearly seen in Scripture and in all of creation (just not perfectly clear - remember that the Scriptures tell us that now we see through a glass, darkly).
Studies have now confirmed common ground between Dan, David and Stan!
See, Dan? Two people separated by a common language. I told you specifically where the disconnect is to which you respond, "I'm not sure what we have not in common." I told you.
Nonetheless (trying to keep things on point), my post was that people will too often read the obvious words of Scripture and say, "That's not what it means because we know today that ..." and reference a study or a modern perspective or an unrelated error (such as "Prior to the last 100 years, people held slaves ...). It clearly meant it then, but we know better now. What a relief! You've demonstrated my point.
But since you know that this is my position, I don't know why it is so important to you. I haven't initiated a conversation with you; I've only replied. You have taken the initiative to visit this poor heretical soul's website and comment again when you said you wouldn't be back. It must be very important to you. Why?
As I have said often: I believe in conversation. I believe in dialog. Especially when it feels like people are having a hard time communicating.
And, since SF was asking about me, I thought I'd take the chance to give it a try.
What's the harm?
And I don't believe I ever called you a heretic - it was the other way around, as I recall. I "wiped the dust from my feet" mainly to signal that I was giving up trying to communicate with someone who did not appear to be interested in trying. I recognize that you have posted a great deal of my questions to you, but you have seem long convinced that we are "separated by a common language."
I disagree - not even sure what that means. We speak English. We can clarify what we mean by specific definitions if there's a difficulty. I don't think it's that hard, especially if people are interested in trying. I became convinced that you weren't especially interested in trying, that's why I left.
For instance, I can clarify where you said:
my post was that people will too often read the obvious words of Scripture and say, "That's not what it means because we know today that ..." and reference a study or a modern perspective or an unrelated error (such as "Prior to the last 100 years, people held slaves ...). It clearly meant it then, but we know better now. What a relief! You've demonstrated my point.
That I was merely clarifying that you, too were inserting your own modern perspective ("When God said 'don't spare the rod,' it indicated spanking, as we know it today, is part of what discipline means and anyone who disagrees is obviously trying to outsmart God..." or words to that effect), not unlike others you seem to think are trying to outsmart God.
I was merely pointing out that we ALL have to use our reasoning to strive to understand what a given passage means for us today. You do this, I do it, we all do it.
Just because we all (you and I and everyone else) use our reasoning to try to discern what God's will is, is not an indication that we think we are smarter than God.
I don't see where there is any failure to communicate or understand in that. I'm passing on another reasoned, Christian opinion, one that I would think would be hard to disagree with.
But you seem to want to not agree with me and to assume that we can't even communicate. What does that say about our Christianity if we can't communicate our ideas, even amongst ourselves (or, since you don't think I'm a Christian - what does it say that you can't communicate your meaning to this heathen)?
Dan Trabue: "I don't see where there is any failure to communicate or understand in that."
Dear Dan;
When I say, "I am not saying that God considers gay marriage immoral; I'm saying it doesn't exist" and you reply, "See? You believe that God considers gay marriage immoral", we have a failure to communicate. When I say, "I don't take the 'scourge' and the 'rod' as literal, but they indeed mean corporal punishment" and you reply, "So, do you beat your kids with a rod?", we have a failure to communicate. When I say, "All the text seems to indicate this and none of the text indicates anything else" and you say, "Studies show that this isn't the best" and conclude, "We're both using our own logic", we have a failure to communicate. And when I say "Two people separated by a common language", I mean "We're both using English, but we're not understanding each other." For instance, when you say "marriage" and when I say "marriage", we're using the same word, but both mean something quite different. We have a failure to communicate.
Dan Trabue: "I don't believe I ever called you a heretic."
I didn't say you did. However, you are correct. You never called me a heretic. You called me a gossip, a liar, a coward, a hypocrite, a Pharisee, and a blemish on Christianity, but never a heretic. I had forgotten how kind you were. Forgive me.
(Of course, when you told me you were going to shake the dust off your feet, you likely didn't know that it was a biblical curse. Jesus told His disciples that when they did that "it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town." I might be better off as a heretic.)
Dan Trabue is a real twister of words. He claims a desire for clarification, but doesn't really. If a statement can be misconstrued with the least effort, he'll make that effort if it means dimishing his opponent's argument. This is how his dishonesty manifests. I try not to any longer worry myself with whether or not it is intentional on his part. But it does suggest that his so-called God-given reason is faulty beyond that of the average human being. Just feel lucky if he hasn't tried the "if God said we should rape puppies" bit.
His bit about the trinity is rich. He says, more or less, that the text suggests a Trinity. Yet, he purposely and willfully denies the suggestion of a specific plan for human sexuality and marriage, as well as the sinfulness for sexual behavior that is outside those parameters. Indeed, a case could easily be made that such is far more clear than the argument for a Trinity. Dan consciously and willfully ignores this in favor of the pathetic man-serving interpretations that favor homosex unions over the true and obvious God-serving interpretations that actually condemn such behavior. He is the poster child for the "Not Too Bright God" crowd.
He has been dodging an in depth conversation with a guy named Bubba at another blog. This has prohibited him from engaging with me at my blog on this issue of homosexuality and the Bible which I'd like to continue, as he has not come close to offering anything resembling a convincing argument. He'll at first seem willing to engage on such topics until he finds the going too tough, then he finds a reason to bail. My challenge is still on and he can rejoin the battle with a comment on my most recent post. All are invited to observe should he ever deign to continue.
Mr. Art (Dr. Art?),
I've seen from Dan what you describe. It's interesting, completely on the side, that while he argues for the Trinity, his description is of a belief that was long ago classified as heretical ... not the biblical Trinity.
"Art" will suffice, as it's my name. "Marshall Art" is my handle, my "nom de plume" as it were.
Dan's act is tiresome, but that he continues to return suggests he's not as solid in his supposed left turn as he would have us believe. How could he? His arguments are so weak. I don't believe his right to left conversion story and I don't believe he wasn't infuenced by homosexual enabling psuedo-Christians. I do believe he enjoys the fantasy of living in a world he thinks exists, or can exist, but doesn't and never will.
Sorry, Art. I know I should be more careful throwing humor at new people. I assumed "Marshall Art" was a nom de plume, and the whole "Mr. Art (Dr. Art?)" thing was intended purely as humor.
Hey, Stan:
I'm the "Bubba" that Art mentioned, and I've been lurking around here since Dan began quoting you at his blog and (on my request) providing a link to what he quoted.
You have a great blog, with essays that really demand one's full attention.
Your writing about corporal punishment has gotten me to rethink my likely policy on the subject for when I have kids: I've always believed in corporal punishment at least for dishonesty -- which undermines the foundation of the parent-child relationship -- but I may end up being more flexible about its use.
And your writing about free will reminds me a bit of my pastor's son whose graduate-work focus is on theology: the subject is certainly in the deepest waters we can swim, but like him (and his favorite modern theologian Bonhoeffer) you seem committed to deferring to revelation through Scripture, and that committment is bracing.
(I'm heading there myself, but through the long-way-round. A Christian since late grade-school, I only grew in my understanding of the faith in starts and spurts until college and my discovery of C.S. Lewis. His approach to apologetics -- if not faith -- begins with reason rather than revelation, but I'm now moving closer to a dependence on God's written word directly, primarily through using IVP's Bible Speaks Today commentary to prepare for the college-and-career Bible study I lead. Through those commentaries, especially John Stott's entries in the series, from the Sermon on the Mount to I & II Thessalonians and especially Romans -- to say nothing of his book, The Cross of Christ -- I'm coming to understand more of what the Bible teaches than ever before, and to internalize those teachings as the honest-to-God truth.)
I'll be sure to stick around, and I'll comment when I can.
--
In the meantime, I hope you don't mind the links (and the multiple comments), but I suspect you and I have reached similar conclusions about Dan Trabue.
The dialogue that Art referenced is truly massive -- it's hard to overstate its length -- and the main thread can be found across three different blog entries, two at Art's and a third elsewhere, in a thread dedicated to my dialogue with Dan:
http://marshallart.blogspot.com/2009/06/got-milk.html (esp. beginning with the June 8, 10:21 AM comment)
http://marshallart.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-love-who-truly.html (esp. beginning with the comment on June 30th, 11:05 AM; one highlight is my argument for "compulsory charity," to parallel Dan's argument for "gay marriage")
http://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2009/07/bubba-v-dan.html
The discussion is found across multiple threads because Dan has a habit of finding excuses for leaving before providing clear and coherent answers to some very serious questions.
[continued]
[continued]
Following the whole thing may be like chasing the white rabbit, as I provided numerous links to earlier, important conversations over the past couple years.
What becomes clear through the whole thing is Dan's hypocrisy. He says he cares a great deal about substantiating contentious claims, but he never backs up his own claims about, for instance, the dishonesty of conservatives. He finds partisan sources of information less-than-credible, except when he cites Media Matters. And he rails against slander and incivility, but he has no trouble accusing us of being "rageoholics" for opposing Obama and practicioners of a "digital lynching" in our criticism of Obama's racist, conspiracy-mongering former pastor and mentor.
More than this is what appears to be an effort at sheer subversion.
Arguments are supposed to have a rational and consistent basis, but Dan's arguments are, well, consistently inconsistent: the burden of proof for his opponents' position is always impossibly high, but he frequently roots his own position in arguments from what is at best silence, and what is at worst outright contradiction of the Scripture he claims to revere oh-so very highly.
The purpose of language is to reveal and clarify, but he consistently conceals and obscures those important matters that would likely reveal just how radically he deviates from the Bible and from orthodoxy: ask him a hard question, and he'll respond, but he won't actually answer the question. Instead, he'll answer a question that wasn't asked, on a topic that's related but not revealing.
And all of this is in the service of an agenda that clearly has only a passing resemblance to what the Bible teaches, while it aligns quite perfectly with the radical collectivism of his "progressive" political philopshy.
[continued]
[continued]
I don't think we'll ever know the full extent of what Dan really believes, but what I know is deeply troubling, far beyond his position on "gay marriage."
Dan seems to disbelieve the historicity of the account of even the Passover -- a central event of Judaism, which has been celebrated yearly for some three or four millennia, and the even through which we understand the Crucifixion, the central event of Christianity. Earlier he tended to dismiss much of the Old Testament as "less than perfect" revelation -- and as a record of man's experience of God, rather than God's revelation to man. Now, he tends to say that the passages he finds difficult must interpreted figuratively, as parable or allegory, but he never provides a detailed figurative interpretation, much less a plausible one that can actually be justified by the text. The end result is that there are passages that he simply doesn't account for in any real detail: passages for which he surely feels no strong obligation to study and integrate into his worldview.
Meanwhile, he believes that it's "doubtless" that Paul was a bigot and/or a homophobe, and so presumably he believes that some of the New Testament -- which the Apostles themselves called "Scripture" and from which they taught with Christ's authority -- reflects these human prejudices rather than divine revelation.
Though he earlier seemed to retract the belief, he still seems to think that the Virgin Birth is an extra-biblical claim.
And, at the other end of the Christ's story, he's not sure that Christ will return literally and bodily.
In between His birth from a virgin and His return to judge the living and the dead are the central events of Christian faith and, indeed, all of history: the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.
Recently, at his own blog, Dan responded to your list, Stan, of the essentials of Christianity.
His list doesn't include the Trinity, so -- even though he assures others of his Christian faith by pointing to his adherence to the minimalist standards of early creeds -- it's not clear that he would reject as heretical those who affirm modalism or (like the Mormons) outright polytheism.
His list also does not allude at all to the cross or the empty tomb.
Despite the clear, consistent, and emphatic teaching of the New Testament, Dan does not believe that Christ really did die for our sins. He believes the Atonement is mere imagery, one image among many for explaining why Christ died: he rips other passages out of their immediate context to present them as other images. He assures us that he believes the Atonement is still "valid" imagery, but he never explains how, nor does he ground his belief in Scripture. He doesn't account for the penalty of sin -- how does God forgive us? "He just does" -- and Dan doesn't account for those aspects of the Gospel accounts that are confounded by anything other than the Atonement, such as Christ's agony in Gethsemane and His cry of dereliction on the cross.
And while he assures us that he personally believes in the historical and bodily Resurrection -- a doctrine that he says is "essential" but never explains how -- he apparently believes that the bodily and historical Resurrection is a "little fact" about which reasonable Christians can disagree: it's not one of the "Big Truths."
Stan, I believe you have explicitly questioned whether Dan's a Christian. One thing that I think is abundantly clear is that he isn't a faithful Christian, but he desperately wants to be seen as such while he advances a belief system that is thoroughly un-Christian and even anti-Christian in many significant ways.
His behavior is treacherous and treasonous.
Bubba,
If you don't have any strong opinion on the matter, why even say anything? (That's a joke.)
Yes, based on the same things you've noted, I've questioned Dan's salvation, and it made him so happy. (Again, a joke.)
I'm glad to have you come around and read as often as you can and I hope to challenge you ... even when I'm wrong. ;)
Thanks, Stan, and thanks for approving my novella. Those other threads show -- and anyone who knows me in the "real world" can tell ya -- I have a habit of being more thorough than precise, but I'll try to keep that tendency down to a minimum here, unless it's actually necessary.
And don't worry about humor in your writing: humor without being able to use the inflection of one's voice can be hard, but I can prove the bona fides of my wit with four simple words.
I read Mark Steyn. :)
Stan,
Bubba's visits are highlights for me whether at my blog or elsewhere. If he ever starts his own, I might retire and just enjoy. But I echo his sentiments about yours and as I also am a new visitor, I consider your thoughts to be well worth regular visits so expect me to be reading even if not commenting. Just tell me where the toilet is.
Be it known I was in no way offended by your Mr/Dr comments in the least. I just thought you were wondering how best to address me. I'm so informal that I prefer "homo" to the full "homosexual", but as it turns out, some people take it badly for some reason.
Marshall,
I've been enjoying Bubba's comments as well. So ... why doesn't he blog?
Nice to have you visiting, with or without comments. The restroom is down the hall to the left. Please be sure to put the lid down, as we have ladies who regularly visit as well.
His behavior is treacherous and treasonous.
But talking about him (repeatedly speaking for him, twisting his words and views with a gleeful malevolence) in a public forum is perfectly fine and not treacherous or treasonous...
They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Careful, brothers.
"...twisting his words and views with a gleeful malevolence"?
Really, Dan. What other conclusions can be offered based on the routine evasiveness of your responses over all this time? The sentiments expressed by Bubba are not in the least bit unique and similar criticisms have been made by others. All we've ever requested was straightforward answers and explanations. It would seem to me that if you were truly convicted in your positions, articulating them should be quite simple a task. Yet, nothing you offer satisfies. Indeed, you've been more likely to further cloud the issue. It then further seems clear that you recognize your position is weak but refuse to give it up or reconsider it in light of your opponent's more logical criticisms (that is, relative to the lack of logic in your defense). Are you afraid to be wrong? You've made the claim that the possibility exists, but your evasiveness and obfuscation suggests arrogance on your own part in refusing to truly consider it. It's simple. A solid position does not require complex defense; only a weak position does. We simply point it out and point out your penchant for poor form in engaging in debate. No arrogance there, no malice, deceit or slander and certainly no "gleeful malevolence". There's some slander for ya.
It's clear you desire to be cool both spiritually and socially. I don't think that Bubba or anyone else would deny that. But your positions are weak and your inability to defend them is evidence that your positions are unsound. Yes. You're unable to defend them. The fault is not in us, that we're incapable of understanding. The conclusions we draw are the only conclusions possible based on your "clarifications". It is YOU who needs to take care, both in what you believe and how you justify those beliefs.
Post a Comment