Wednesday, December 19, 2012

USS Marriage

Recently the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases on the question of marriage. One is about California's Prop 8. Do Californians have the right to vote to define marriage? The second is the case on DOMA -- the Defense of Marriage Act. Is defending marriage constitutional? We'll find out. I suspect, as has happened too often of late, we'll find out that the nation believes that marriage is not worth defending. No, not right. That defending marriage is unconstitutional.

There are some odd things in this line of thinking. For instance, what does the government have to do with marriage? The concept was established from the beginning, long before governments were established. What does the government have to do with it? Beyond that, I'm pretty sure I haven't read anything at all in the Constitution about marriage laws. What does the Supreme Court have to do with it? Odd.

Some have suggested that Christians are hung up on abortion and "same-sex marriage". To some extent there is some truth to it. When there is a war, you fight where the enemy is attacking. Currently the enemy is attacking at the legal killing of babies and the primary social structure of marriage. That's where you fight.

I would suggest, however, that we're coming a little late to the party. Remember the story of Custer? His hardy little band of soldiers stood against all the Indians in the world and died. His reinforcements arrived ... two days later. Too late. That's us. We're rushing in to stave off the attack and save the day too late. Think about it. This "same-sex marriage" assault on marriage isn't new. It isn't even fresh. Marriage has been under assault for more than a century in America.

In 1914, Margaret Sanger (yes, that Margaret Sanger) pushed social reform to make contraception more available. You see, the society at that time thought contraception was a bad idea. They -- silly people -- thought that having children was a good thing (you know, like it says in the Bible) and that contraception would encourage promiscuity. It wasn't really until 1930's that the laws began to change. Planned Parenthood was formed in the 1940's. But it wasn't until 1965 that the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the government to prevent married couples (Get that? Married couples) from using contraception. Say farewell to "Be fruitful and multiply" and say hello to childbearing as part of marriage as an option rather than an expectation. And in the same stroke, given the ready availability of contraception, say farewell to a good reason to get married at all -- "It is better to marry than to burn with lust."

Feminism has been around a long time. At the start of the 20th century, feminism was largely concerned about the vote. It wasn't until the mid to late '60's that the so-called "Second Wave" hit. We called it "Women's Liberation". This was the point at which women started burning bras, getting out of the homes, and calling good wives "prostitutes" because they had sex with their husbands for reward. It hasn't eased up today. It has primarily just been institutionalized, ingrained, so that suggesting anything else would be considered barbaric and, of course, chauvinistic. Say farewell to the good wife of Proverbs 31 and the submissive wife of Ephesians 5 and say hello to the new "partnership", where two do not become one, but remain "equal partners" who can opt out when they're not satisfied with their cut.

Have you ever seen that old 1934 Ginger Rogers/Fred Astaire movie, The Gay Divorcee? (It included zero homosexual behavior. See how language has changed?) Ginger Rogers wanted to divorce her husband. To accomplish this, she needed to have a reason. So she hired a man to spend the night with her (without actually being with her) so that adultery could be named on the divorce petition. Oh, we've come a long way, baby. In 1970 California inaugurated the "no-fault divorce". Prior to that, "We don't love each other anymore" or "irreconcilable differences" were irrelevant. Marriage was permanent and wasn't allowed to die without a fight. By 1983 every state but two had no-fault laws. In the 1800's the divorce rates were as high as 7%. By the 1930's they were up to 16%. By 1970 it hit 33% and exceeded 50% in the late 70's. We're no better now. Say farewell to "What God has joined together let no man separate" and "'til death do us part" and say hello to the temporary marriage -- "'til love do us part."

Today? Well, we've pretty much gone along to get along. Today the Church doesn't much care about contraception. How could I even ask such a thing? Of course it's a good thing! Today most of the Church believes that a wife should not submit to her husband. Mutual submission. That's the ticket. Two heads are better than one, you see ... unless the two heads are one living organism. And while the Church is not pleased with the divorce rates, we're not too agitated about them either. Divorce isn't optimum, we suppose, but it's to be expected. And, look, all that stuff about "for sexual immorality only" is certainly too restrictive. Adultery, sure, but also if he makes you feel bad or if she doesn't meet your sexual wishes (read "needs") or if he insults you or, hey, really whatever makes you feel better. We won't say anything. It's okay.

So now comes the last straw -- "same-sex marriage". We rise up and say, "No more!" Like the battleship USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, the marriage boat is in flames and floundering from multiple hits and we want to go to court and stop this travesty! Yes, it is a travesty. Yes, marriage is worth defending. Yes, it is wrong. But where were we when those first hits came in? And why do we think that now, having stripped marriage of just about every biblical definition it has, we can save it at this point? Having ingested rather than rejected every other attack along the way, why is this different? I'll still protest. I'll still raise the flag. I'll still stand. But if it weren't for the fact that marriage is God's institution, I'd say we're looking at the end of anything God had in mind for marriage. On the other hand, since it is His, I'm equally sure that God will retain some who remain married as He intended regardless of any public vote or ruling from the Supreme Court. I won't be counting on the government to defend God's institution. But I'll remain disappointed that some who consider themselves friends of Christ continue to fight against it.

25 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

As always, until you come up with polite, rational, moral-sounding reasons for your positions, you will continue losing this argument because you sound irrational and immoral.

But pointing that out to folk like you only causes you to argue all the more irrationally and immorally.

"You MUST listen to us because WE KNOW what God wants. Our religious biases are right and, to heck with any logical or moral inconsistencies in our positions! We won't even discuss it with you! Agree with us or go to hell..."

These are losing arguments. Sorry.

You'd think if you truly cared about making your case, you'd learn to, well, make your case like an adult, not a spoiled child.

Tough luck, but maybe you can use this as a learning tool for yourselves.

Stan said...

I suppose if you had an argument you would have presented it. Thanks for playing.

Bryan said...

Leviticus 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Romans 1:26-27 - "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Genesis 2:24 - "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Ephesians 5:31 - "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Matthew 19:4,5 - "And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?"

These are just a few of the scriptures that I believe back up one man and one woman marriage. Old Testament, New Testament, and also our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ speaking.

Stan said...

Bryan, you are absolutely right. Unfortunately, for Dan plain biblical references constitute an "irrational and immoral" argument. The facts are: 1) all biblical references to marriage are in terms of male and female, 2) all biblical references to homosexual behavior are in terms of sin, 3) no biblical references allow for anything besides "male and female" or provide a basis for homosexual sex as moral, and 4) it is impossible to understand the many biblical instructions to married people without a "male and female" filter. (That is, marriage commands in the Bible are to "the husband" and "the wife" and they are different commands to each.) But to Dan none of these are any reason to think otherwise and any call to biblical reasoning is making your case like "a spoiled child".

starflyer said...

Ugh. That's my only reaction when Dan T. posts...Bryan, you must be new. Welcome. Stay tuned...you will be floored how Dan has the ability to ignore what Scripture clearly teaches you and tries to make you look like a bigot/immoral/intolerant, etc. It will FLOOR you. But it makes for interesting reading.

David said...

Dan T., please give one shred of biblical evidence (ie a direct passage) that says God approves of homosexuality, or that marriage involves ANYTHING besides a man and a woman, as a good thing. You accuse Stan of hunches and irrationality. He gives direct biblical quotes. You give, "God is love. He wants love, and only love." You want to talk about a hunch and irrationality? Look in the mirror. In ALL the time you've been arguing with Stan and others about the holiness of homosexuality you have NEVER once given a chapter and verse that agrees with your belief. You've given emotional plea after emotional plea, but emotion is almost always the opposite of reason. If you could give a single passage you would be able to argue your point, but you can't. All you have ever done is deny that clear Scripture passage say what they clearly say. There is no ambiguity or "reading into" that needs to happen in any of the verses Bryan listed, and yet you refute that they say exactly what they say. Please, please, PLEASE stop trolling. You've exposed yourself as the obvious troll you are. I am honestly amazed that Stan allows your troll comments to show up, because no rationally thinking person with the background you claim could believe what you claim to believe. And the fact that you almost NEVER agree with Stan and yet still continue to follow his blog means you are merely looking to rile people up simply because you have the anonymity of the internet, which by all internet definitions is a TROLL. Go back to your bridge and "love" your homosexual "brethren" all you like. But until you can give a coherent, biblically founded argument, you will continue to merely be a troll.

Bryan said...

Sorry, I am somewhat new - been reading his blog for a few months. My wife always reminds me to use God's word itself instead of trying to put it in my words.


Isaiah 55:11 - "So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it."


God's word does not return void. So I figured I would put some verses out there. I think Mr. Trabue believes something, I just want him to show - Biblically - why he believes.

Bubba said...

I was under the impression that Dan Trabue only criticizes others for their behavior, not their beliefs.

"I have no problem at all (again, you could discern this if you'd read my actual words) with disagreeing with behaviors and saying 'THIS BEHAVIOR is not in keeping with Christ's teachings...' But there's a world of difference between calling out BEHAVIORS (biblical, rational, moral) and calling sincerely mistaken people NOT CHRISTIAN (not biblical, not rational, not moral)." -- Dan Trabue, December 7th

Dan gave the impression that criticism of another's beliefs is close-minded and arrogant, but that was when the discussion concerned the question of people who describe themselves as Christians but whose beliefs include THE DENIAL OF THE REALITY OF GOD HIMSELF.

Affirm atheism, and Dan Trabue CANNOT speak out against that belief as incompatible with Christianity, writing, "while I can gladly affirm the non-theist 'christian' isn't a Christian in the orthodox sense, I can not affirm that he is not a 'Christ-ian,' - one who is following Christ - and I can not and will not affirm that he is not saved."

But affirm CHRIST'S OWN TEACHING REGARDING MARRIAGE, that God made us male and female so that a man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female), and Dan does not hesitate to denounce your belief as irrational and immoral.

Whatever happened to the importance of the possibility that people could be merely and simply mistaken for holding beliefs different from one's own?

I cannot conceive of a rational and coherent Christian worldview that requires speaking boldly for an androgynous definition of marriage while simultaneously prohibiting a similarly bold defense for the existence of God.

Stan said...

Bryan, you stick with Scripture. Can't go wrong. God's Word does not return void. Dan T doesn't believe what you believe about Scripture, but it's still good to put it out there for everyone to see.

Anonymous said...

Troll is an apt word, but, personally I've been thinking of Dan T. as The Strife Monger for years now. Within my first week of reading Stan's blog about 5 years back, I was already thinking, "Who IS this guy? He seems to just thrive on strife! He's like some kind of a monger." Stan has had the patience of a saint with him and yet he STILL has the audacity to say "until you come up with polite, rational, moral-sounding reasons for your positions". Like Stan hasn't been doing JUST THAT over and over and over again for years now? Incredible. Well, incredible except that the Bible does speak in both the OT and NT of a rebellious and foolish people who have ears that do not hear and eyes that do not see.

Of all the many, many wonderful and worthy causes, as a supposed follower of a holy God, a father and a husband, Dan T. couldn't find a more noble cause to fight for than sexual deviancy? He's a champion of sodomy, as long as it's "loving, committed, healthy" sodomy. "Healthy" sodomy?

Right before my favorite cousin died young after a long battle with HIV and AIDS, without any prompting whatsoever, he said loud enough for everyone in the hospital room to hear, "I always knew it was wrong." When he was asked what was wrong, he said, "Homosexuality". Everyone was shocked to hear this from him. This was a man who had marched in gay pride parades and fought for the cause for years. Apparently this was not because deep down he thought it was right what he had been doing, but because he wanted to be liked and have his ways seen as acceptable.

Stan said...

Anonymous, thanks for the input. "Troll" was David's word. I can see where you might think "strife monger".

As it is clear that the weight of Scripture and the weight of Church history are nothing to Dan, I can't imagine why biblical or moral or rational arguments, including your appropriate example of your cousin, would matter. If it is not in agreement with Dan, he has two options. Admitting he is wrong will not be the one he will choose.

David said...

I think "Strife Monger" is the long-hand word for "Troll". Trolls post comments merely to incite a negative effect(strife), without any intention of meaningful conversation. Strife Monger and Troll are to names for the same type of person.

Bryan said...

You know, I once heard a former homosexual (he got saved and turned from his sin) comment that 90% of homosexual males were sexually abused at some point in their life, while the other 10% had terrible relationships with their dad. Homosexual females are flopped the opposite way - and it is the relationship with them mom that wasn't good. Regardless of our reasons why, ultimately it is a person choosing to give in and embrace the sin in their lives.

Proverbs 14:12 - "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death."


Men (and women) may think it is right/ok/good - but it ain't. I know of several people who fight their tendancies towards same-sex attraction because they know it is wrong - just like someone's tendancies towards lust, alcohol, drugs, lying, theft, etc. It always makes me sad to see people wholeheartedly embracing a sinful lifestyle.

John 3:19 - "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil."

Stan said...

I can't imagine anyone actually floating the justification that "my actions are right" simply based on "I want to". That is the only justification you'll get for this particular biblical violation. They will not allow that same justification for other acts.

Dan Trabue said...

My, so much false witness, so little truth...

Bubba...

Dan gave the impression that criticism of another's beliefs is close-minded and arrogant

If you read and understand MY ACTUAL WORDS, you will know that I have a longstanding SUPPORT of disagreeing with others when you think they are mistaken. To be utterly clear:

I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CRITIQUES OF IDEAS.

Not all ideas and beliefs are created equal. I have no problem with someone saying, "I don't believe that is a valid conclusion."

My ACTUAL disagreement is with the WAY people disagree, not with disagreement. (And there we are back to behaviors, by the way.)

Here, I was only offering the reasonable statement: IF you offer only "I think this is True" or even "My tradition thinks this is True..." but have no logical or moral arguments to support your hunches or your traditional opinions, then you won't convince anyone. Indeed, if your arguments SOUND like they are quite immoral or unjust and not of God, love or peace, then people will find your argument to be immoral and unjust.

That's all I was saying. And, as you can see, it is a disagreement with an opinion, which I have never had a problem with.

I am sorry if you so completely misunderstood my actual position.

David...

Dan T., please give one shred of biblical evidence (ie a direct passage) that says God approves of homosexuality, or that marriage involves ANYTHING besides a man and a woman, as a good thing.

We've done this before, you typically ignore and don't address any of my actual arguments, what would be different this time, David?

I wasn't making the case about how wrong your all's opinions sound - how immoral and illogical they sound. I was only pointing out that you will continue to lose this argument so long as you continue to sound so strongly opposed to morality and justice.

If you truly would like to engage in a two way conversation, David, I always welcome emails on the topic. I rather doubt that you seriously want to engage in an adult conversation with me on it, though and shan't be expecting an email from you any time soon.

"anonymous" bravely said...

"Who IS this guy? He seems to just thrive on strife! He's like some kind of a monger."

Since when is respectful disagreement with others "thriving on strife..."? People disagree. I try to do it respectfully and without hiding behind anonymous "names." Who is the strife monger here and who is the troll?

Stan...

As it is clear that the weight of Scripture and the weight of Church history are nothing to Dan

Since clearly, observably, I hold to, respect and love Scripture as I understand it and Church history in its proper place, this is demonstrably false, Stan. Apparently, then, "Truth" and "reality" are nothing to you, is that fair?

And even though we've had some disagreements, my dear brothers, and even though I may rebuke or correct your mistaken notions, I wish you and yours a Holy Holiday, peace, good will to you and yours in the name of Christ our Lord.

Stan said...

It is, in fact, demonstrably true, Dan. Do I need to go through past comments to show it?

- All Scripture on the subject of marriage is in terms of male and female. Jesus concurred. Even the homosexual community recognizes this fact.
- All Scripture on the subject of homosexual behavior considers it sin. This is found both in the Old and New Testaments. Even the homosexual community recognizes this fact.
- No Scripture can be found that promotes "marriage equity", "same-sex marriage", or "loving sexual relationships of the same gender".

The total effect? All Scripture agrees with me and disagrees with you. The total effect on you? You disregard it. (The biblical term for this, by the way, is to "despise" it.)

Beyond all of Scripture on both marriage and homosexual relationships, all of Church history since the beginning has agreed on both topics. That should be a bit stunning considering that there is so much on which there has been disagreement. These are not among them. Complete agreement. Except, of course, for Dan.

The conclusion? It is clear that the weight of Scripture and the weight of Church history are nothing to Dan. At least on these topics.

Anonymous said...

I think Dan T. and his ilk eventually WILL get their way and all the rest of the world that has never believed homosexuality to be a good and right thing to be promoted will finally just give in to their constant, in-our-face bombardment of it. If people whine and fuss long and loudly enough, they usually finally get what they want just because people are sick of listening to them and want them to just shut up and go away.

I must admit, lately I feel my own self beginning to think things like, "Fine! Just let them do whatever they want! Let them determine what's right and wrong for themselves. They want it, so let 'em have it. Then they can suffer the consequences of their ungodly choices and demands."

The problem with this is that I have children growing up in this new atmosphere of "anything goes", this atmosphere with tolerance of everyone and everything being THE SUPREME STANDARD. Day after day, our kids and grandkids are being taught that what has always been wrong is now right and right is wrong and don't you kids DARE say otherwise or you'll be called mean names! They are being taught to just go with the flow and PEOPLE WILL LIKE YOU BETTER. And THAT's what's most important, right? To please people over pleasing God.

Who cares what HE says. On TV, in movies, magazines, and in school, our kids are now taught to be accepting of all people and all their ways. My kids now have friends who are homosexuals, bisexuals, and pansexuals. They have teenage, female friends who have cut off their long hair, wear binders on their chests to flatten any bumps they might have, and are taking hormones to become boys. Why? Because, like an increasing number of kids these days, they have "gender issues". We parents have been instructed to refer to those once-cute girls with male pronouns now and use their new boy's names.

If my teenage son and daughter have good friends or acquaintances who they recognize as being very attractive both in personality and physically, they are now encouraged to (at least consider) try out both sexes before they someday settle down and marry or cohabitate with and commit to someone, whereas, in the past, kids would NEVER EVEN THINK TO entertain the thought of having sex with their friends of the same gender, no matter HOW attractive those friends were! (I had several very pretty girlfriends who I loved dearly while growing up, but never once did I even think about HAVING SEX with any of them!!!) But that seed of thought, that idea was planted in our kids' heads and it has been watered and nourished over and over and over again via the media and people like Dan Trabue.

Thanks, Dan. Putting that idea into their heads sure was "healthy", wasn't it?

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

It is clear that the weight of Scripture and the weight of Church history are nothing to Dan.:j

What is clear is that Stan can not differentiate between those who disagree with STAN's interpretation of things and those who disagree with the Bible.

FACTUALLY SPEAKING, I can tell you with a great deal of authority (because we are speaking of MY opinion, the one thing I am an expert upon and you have repeatedly demonstrated you are nearly ignorant of) that I DO love the Bible and I treat both the Bible and Church history with a great deal of respect. That is a FACT (and again, since we are speaking of my opinion, I am the ONLY one in this conversation who can say for sure).

As always, that I disagree with YOU and your traditions is not the same as the Bible or Church history being "nothing" to me. That is simply factually mistaken.

You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Merry Christmas, Stan.

Embrace the grace brought and demonstrated by Jesus, the reason for the season.

Stan said...

Just one other note, Dan.

David: "Dan T., please give one shred of biblical evidence"

Dan T: "We've done this before, you typically ignore and don't address any of my actual arguments."

In fact, you have not offered any biblical evidence that supports your theories of marriage or homosexual relations. What you have done is given your reasons for denying the longstanding, historical, orthodox views on these two subjects. You have not offered a biblical argument that supports your view. Telling us why you think ours is wrong is not the same as telling us how the Bible supports yours.

Anonymous said...

Over the years, I have shook my head in wonder over Dan's frequent use of the word "healthy" in part of his description of the perfect gay or lesbian relationship. Apparently he has a pretty loose definition of "healthy" and must look the other way when it comes to some of the very real and less-charming aspects of gay life, like anal lesions, anal cancers, HIV, AIDS, and the depression that can accompany living out one's homosexual desires. (But of course the depression is usually always blamed on all of US who DON'T embrace homosexuality as a perfectly good thing and not ever seen as the result of any of the homosexual persons' choices themselves.)

My lesbian sister-in-law (who I love) has used a lot of drugs and alcohol to help numb her pain over the years. On the outside she's jolly and she laughs, but not very far underneath she is a tortured soul, if I ever met one. She left her husband and young sons who loved her to pursue women, and overall her life of lesbianism has not worked out so well for her. She had a very poor relationship with her mom and was raped and sodomized when she was young. I think I can understand how that might make it VERY hard for some such young women to ever again feel good and 100% right toward men and/or to crave the attention of women, if they never got it from their moms. (Would I want a man to ever touch ME again if I'd been sexually abused by one???) I have great compassion for women who were neglected or abused as children! But, the thing is, my sis-in-law's succession of girlfriends haven't met her deep needs for happiness and contentment either! If anything, her lesbianism seems to have only made matters worse. I have met some of her female friends and they're such tough chicks with such awful, foul mouths that they're almost scary! But there's a reason they're that way. I think they have probably all been wounded and are just trying hard not to look or act at all like the victims they once were.

She has been lonely a lot of her last few decades and her outward appearance as a men's-clothes-wearing, spikey-haired dyke has probably not helped any in her efforts to make friends. (She calls herself a dyke so this is not a put-down on my part.) I will not give up on my sister. I have heard that she used to sing beautiful duets with others in church as a girl. She knows about our God and sometimes asks others of us who follow Him to please talk to Him on her behalf and for others. She knows where the power lies! But, sadly, I think she just feels unworthy and undeserving of approaching and asking anything of Him herself. So, we just keep on loving her and praying for her to finally come around, to come back to her Father God.

Dan T. can say I should get out and actually MEET and get to know some really nice "gay folk" and then maybe I'll change my tune. Well, sorry; I have had gay folk in my life for decades. I have several I love(d) very much! But I still will not PROMOTE homosexuality like he does. I'm for natural things, Dan, like natural marriage. Two husbands or two wives getting "married" is just so unnatural. That's like putting 2 pepper shakers out on the table, instead of a salt and pepper shaker. It's like pairing a female socket with another female socket, then (just because that generates some sparks) expecting all things to work right. It's like thumbing your nose at God and saying, "Ah just shut up, Old Man! We know what's best! We'll love (AND have sex with!) whoever we want! Because LOVE for OTHER PEOPLE is really what matters most."

Bubba said...

Dan, in that previous thread, you could have quite easily made ENTIRELY clear to all of us that you believe atheism is clearly outside of actual Christianity (and not just its historical or traditional conception), and that therefore a person cannot be a Christian if he denies God's existence.

You did anything but that, you did EVERYTHING but that. Perhaps that's one reason I keep misunderstanding you: your habit of obfuscation.

Stan said...

At some point, Dan, you'll have to face the truth. It won't likely be because you've talked to me. It probably won't be because you've seen the light. It clearly won't be the overpowering truth of Scripture or the weight of Church history. But at some point you will have to stop lying. Maybe not to me.

I have not offered "Stan's opinion" or hunches or silly meanderings. I've offered the Scriptures. I have not given you my view of Church history. I've given you the facts. The position you need to refute is not Stan's view, but Scripture and history. Indeed, your startling notion that "all of Church history prior to Dan's arrival on the subject has been in agreement and mistaken" is not a humble, biblical, rational, or moral position. It is the height of arrogance. The simple fact that you cannot refute any of the points I've made about Scripture or the fact that all Church history agrees and the fact that you can't offer a single solitary supporting text for your position doesn't sway you. And you have the audacity to talk to me about "you are not entitled to your own facts." Does it hurt being so double-tongued?

It's not my opinion you're disagreeing with. You keep telling yourself that, but it's not. And some day that will come home to roost.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Stan, Stan, Stan,
You don't understand Dan at all.

It's your INTERPRETATION of the Scripture and church history that he disagrees with. You know, it just depends on what your definition of IS is.

Of course that means your interpretation of 2+2=4 can't be correct either, because it agrees with reality, as does your interpretation of the Scripture and church history. Reality doesn't count.

Bryan said...

Mr. Trabue, you still have not responded with any scripture to back up what you are saying. We have to go by scripture, otherwise our discussions are just what I say/think vs. what you say/think. You and I both cannot be right - things don't work that way. That is why I am thankful for God's unchanging word. He is and has always been the same. Men change with the wind, and our world continues to change and move more towards embracing the sinful nature of man.

Malachi 3:6a "For I am the LORD, I do not change;"

Marshall Art said...

As long as one can maintain the focus of discussion on "interpretation", one can then cling to one's preferred "interpretation" while dismissing opposing arguments as only an alternative interpretation, regardless of how accurate a restatement of the text that alternative truly is. "Sure, it says 'thou shalt not', but that it means 'thou shalt not' is only your hunch."