Listen for the cheering at about the one minute mark after Wolf asks his follow up question.
Must be a whole bunch of voices in my head!
41 comments:
Haplo9
said...
1. I think it's funny how you still don't understand what was meant by "voices in your head." 2. How dare the crowd be annoyed at Wolf's attempt to pull a heart tugging hypothetical gotcha. Fortunately, Paul was smart enough to throw it back in his face - are we a nation of people who take responsibility for our own actions, or are we a nation of children, squalling for help from mama government when our choices have negative consequences?
Actually, I found Paul's comments to be thoughtful but terribly naive and temporally out of touch. The church will now take care of people? With what money?
He was speaking of a time when health care costs were manageable. They aren't now but of course that's the fault of the evil government...not the captains of the health care industry who sprinkle their magical job beans on all of us.
I can't pry your irrational fear about government from your cold, dead mind, Hap.
I don't know why you bother. He simply doesn't understand us. At all. Even worse, he thinks he does, therefore he doesn't bother even checking whether his assumptions are valid or not. And that despite the constant attempts to point out that his assumptions are so wrong that he's not even in the same time zone.
This post just happens to be a perfect demonstration of his terminal case of "Does. Not. Get. It." syndrome.
What part of "healthy young man with a good job and good income who chooses not to buy insurance" did you not hear or ignore, Mark? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? He shirked his,and then expects us to be responsible for him. Well, why shouldn't he? We've been in the business of protecting people from the negative results of their own (often predictable) bad decisions to the point that if something bad happens to someone, it's widely assumed to be da gubmint's job to make it all better. In essence, we've been subsidizing stupidity, poor judgement and functional helplessness in large parts of society.
I think that Mark does get you guys and that's the problem. He was pointing out the cheering, Larry, not the poor choice. You have been exposed for what you are. Now the country gets to see and hear what the Tea Party is all about. This also validates Alan Grayson, though: Republican health care=Don't get sick and if you do, die quickly.
>He was speaking of a time when health care costs were manageable.
Nonsense. Certain health care costs are not manageable without insurance, and never were. That's why this thing called "insurance" was invented. You may have heard of it. We often use "insurance" to manage the risk of unlikely things that would otherwise be too costly to handle alone. Like house fires, liability lawsuits, even mortgage default. In the case of this hypothetical kid, he's going to have a debt to pay back that he would have largely avoided if he had kept his insurance. So hopefully he'd learn a lesson too.
Wait a darn second! That sounds totally similar to what would happen to me if my house burned down when I had foregone fire insurance! It's almost like the mechanism is the same!
" how you still don't understand what was meant by "voices in your head.""
Let's see. You morons accuse Mark of having a fight with a straw man right winger that exists only in his mind. You say that no such animal exists and Mark yells at him for no reason. You also hilariously assert that none of you are in any way like this voice in his head. Mark then proceeds to give example after example that fully proves and justifies his statements. Click on the "Voices In My Head" Tag and you will see many examples.
In the hypothetical situation, he made the choice to not have insurance. The headline of the video is an example of voices int he head. Nobody said the guy should not be treated and left to die. The debate was about who should pay for the bill.
I don't fault Ron Paul for anything he said and know that he certainly would not leave anyone to die. I'm talking about the crowd who cheered right after Blitzer asked if he should be left to die. Someone shouts out "Yeah" and then others cheer. So, yes someone did say that the guy should be not be treated and left to die...several someones in the audience.
Whoever was the one who did cheer will be the first one to beg for care if they didn't buy insurance, though. In other words, they are completely full of shit. Surprise, surprise.
Whoever was the one who did cheer will be the first one to beg for care if they didn't buy insurance, though. In other words, they are completely full of shit. Surprise, surprise.
With mind-reading skills like these, you could be the next Amazing Kreskin. Or maybe, just maybe, that's just another fantasy pulled out of your hindmost nether regions because I think it's safe to say that you know nothing whatsoever about that young man except for what your own bigotry and prejudice leads you to imagine about him.
A. Noni, he didn't answer before the cheering. The crowd answered "Yeah" and then he said no but again (because apparently you have trouble reading)I don't fault Ron Paul for the answer he gave. He's just terribly naive and out of touch. Of course he would say no because his oath as a physician is first, to do no harm.
I think we may be talking about two different points in the debate. I'm talking about the follow up at around one minute when Blizter asked if he would let him die. The crowd yelled out affirmatives and then Paul said no.
I think I'll just start quoting really stupid commenters from DU, TPM, Kaos, etc. and treating that as though every single thing said by them is something M believes in with all his heart and soul.
Who knows, it may even make for a better conversation than I typically get from M.
(Note: This was written before Mark's most recent comment, but could not be posted due to an internet outage.)
that young man
If that's what Mark is thinking about, there's two problems with Mark's argument:
1. His original posting did not include such an argument, thus letting the title on the video clip be the argument: "Tea Party Audience Cheers Idea Of Leaving A Sick Uninsured Man To Die". This argument is a straw man, which is why I keep challenging the posse to look at what prompted the cheering. That title obviously misstates what caused the cheering, which is the very definition of a straw man. Plain and simple.
By now arguing that it's the single person who yelled out "Yeah", he's clearly moving the goal posts.
2. He's taking that single response and asserting that it applies to all conservatives. That would be either the fallacy of composition or association fallacy, also known as "guilt by association". Both definitions fit. And both are logical fallacies.
Furthermore, when you add in the fact that Mark is now ignoring the much, much larger cheer for what Ron Paul was actually saying, that elevates his new argument to the cherry picking fallacy.
Even given those two problems, Mark's latest argument has several other problems.
First, Blitzer's "question" was also a fallacy, because it was an appeal to pity. It was also the type of question which was phrased as a yes/no question, but cannot be answered as such. (The guy who yelled "Yeah" fell into Blitzer's trap.)
Mark, you've argued with us long enough, and had such a hypothetical case explained to you often enough that you know what the actual conservative case is, and it's not a simple "yes" to Wolf's question. Yet you still pretend that "Yeah" is the answer, thus you are once again arguing with a voice in your head, not with an actual conservative argument.
It has now been 4 full days (96 hours+) since I pointed out the problems with Mark's claims. A full four days, during which neither Mark nor his posse bothered to ask the obvious question. A full 4 days when Mark has written other posts, his posse has posted numerous, frequently fatuous, comments. Yet not one bothered to ask the question, a question which should have just screamed out in the minds of anyone who actually cares about the truth. A question about the grand, gaping hole in my response. A hole so vast, it practically begs for guard rails, flashing warning lights, and maybe even a no-fly zone warning from the FAA.
That simple question is this:
"What is the conservative position here?"
or
"So how would you answer Blitzer's question?"
I didn't explain it. I referred to it, but left it at that. My response was incomplete. There was no need to write a doctoral dissertation. Just fewer than 10 simple words would do. Yet in almost 100 hours, full of activity on this blog, and Mark even venturing over to TSM to pick a fight there, no one bothered to ask that simple, glaringly obvious question.
The complete lack of such a basic query indicates a total lack of curiosity. Mark and his posse clearly don't care what conservatives actually think. The ONLY way to actually understand what is going on in someone else's mind is to ASK THEM. Yet the "oh so intellectual" left, can't even be bothered with basic inquiry—a fundamental skill of critical thinking. Instead, Marky just pretends he can read our minds and throws out dogmatic assertions as if from on high.
This is a perfect demonstration of why Marky winds up arguing with the voices in his head. Because he doesn't even care what real people have to say. And his posse shares that same massive deficiency.
And you are a perfect demonstration of someone who needs to get out more. Clearly you are one of Kevin's posters who has an abnormal obsession with Mark and has trouble separating reality from fiction. Might I suggest a walk if it's nice where you live? Perhaps a chat with a live person?
Gee, more fatuous name calling. Big surprise coming from the "high tone and fancy" crowd, Not.
Are you saying I should give up hope that your crowd will actually demonstrate even a glimmer of understanding and rationality and leave you to simmer in your own "juices"?
You sound awfully worried if you ask me, Mouse. You know full well that it's vital that you keep your nutters on a leash. With so many in your party, that's going to prove difficult.
It's not just that some people cheered when Blitzer asked his question. It's that and the fact that they cheered in the first debated when the statistic was read on executions. It's been two and a half long years of the socialist totalitarian trying to steal your luggage. The blood lust is high and containing it is going to be tough. For if you don't, you can rest assured that those coveted middle votes are going to swing to the president next year and it will be four more years...
It's that and the fact that they cheered in the first debated when the statistic was read on executions.
It's called justice:
Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. — Genesis 9:6
“You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous. “Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you.” — Deuteronomy 16:19–20
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Lovingkindness and truth go before You. — Psalms 89:14
How blessed are those who keep justice, Who practice righteousness at all times! — Psalms 106:3
To do righteousness and justice Is desired by the LORD more than sacrifice. — Proverbs 21:3
The exercise of justice is joy for the righteous, But is terror to the workers of iniquity. — Proverbs 21:15
And one more, especially for you:
Evil men do not understand justice, But those who seek the LORD understand all things. — Proverbs 28:5
And nary a verse from the NT..tsk tsk. The whole bit about Grace is sorta lost on you, hmm? What exactly goes throughout your head when you read Hebrews 8: 6-13
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” — Matthew 23:23
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. — Romans 13:3–4
Do you suppose that swords are designed for rapping knuckles?
As for that Hebrews passage, this is what I think of:
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. — Hebrews 9:22
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” — Luke 22:20
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. — 1 Peter 2:24
The fancy theological term for this is "substitutionary atonement". (Hebrews goes into this in much greater detail in chapters 9 and 10.) Justice is not bypassed or ignored. It is fulfilled by Jesus taking the punishment we deserve onto himself. The new covenant is not an abrogation of justice, it is the satisfaction of justice. (see Matthew 5:17)
Where grace comes in is that he chose to offer himself to be punished in our place with absolutely no requirement that he do so. We deserve punishment. No one in heaven or earth has any right to make such a demand of him. If had chosen not to go through with it, no one could say that he did anything wrong. Yet he chose to do so anyway, of his own free will.
Now that I've answered your red herring, are you actually going to start trying to understand actual conservative arguments and positions?
Oh, and BTW, grace is not an excuse to engage in sin and evil:
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? — Romans 6:1–2
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? — Romans 6:15–16
And as I pointed out above, the rulers are still expected to enforce justice (Romans 13:3-4) even with the New Covenant in place.
It's not a red herring. I'm not the one who brought up the Bible. You did. I simply responded with my Bible quote because it illustrates a very fundamental difference between someone like you and someone like me. Hebrews 8:12 couldn't be any plainer yet you persist in sticking to the "Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God" motif. This is likely the case because without this threat, you wouldn't be able to control yourself. I, however, don't need the threat of hellfire, blood, and damnation by God to prevent myself from sinning. That's not what God is all about now that Jesus has sacrificed himself for us. God is love, peace, serving those less fortunate than ourselves, doing unto others and turning the other cheek. I will admit that I fall short in all of these areas frequently (as do we all) but that's the crux of accepting Jesus as your savior. Sinning is breaking your fellowship with God but not a cause for his punishment. He tried that and it didn't work. Now, it's accept Christ as your savior, as he died for our sins, and strive to be and do the list of items above.
In short, I don't believe in Republican Jesus. You do.
As to understanding conservatives, I simply go on their words and actions. They were quite apparent in the debates. Rick Perry himself admitted shock at the cheering that resulted after the execution comments. That was the ENTIRE audience. Ron Paul also looked stunned when some audience members shouted out in the affirmative to let the man die. Each of these men helped to create a rabid army that is exactly Lofgren's Disease. You can try to make believe that it's not true and dress it up in rugged individualism but our world simply will not function in the bizarre utopia that you imagine.
Interesting how you hang everything on that single verse, but then you ignore Hebrews 9 and 10. What's that called again? Oh, right. Cherry Picking
Note that the context of the verse you've chosen undermines your claim. Right before that it says:
For all will know me, from the least to the greatest of them. — Hebrews 8:11b
Has that come to pass yet? Obviously not. Then how can you claim the next verse as woodenly absolute?
Once again, you're showing that it doesn't matter what the Bible actually says. Only what you WANT to believe matters. And you apply the same approach to "understanding" conservatives.
Notice that you still haven't asked what our position is on Blitzer's question. All you've done is tell everyone what the voices in your head are saying.
Once again:
A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. — Proverbs 18:2
Finally, a couple of things you really need to keep in mind:
Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; … For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? — 1 Peter 4:15, 17
Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. — 1 Corinthians 3:12–15
Even followers of Christ will not escape some form of judgement. Even though what we do has nothing to do with salvation, it still matters.
Oh, what the heck. Let's throw in a little copy and paste:
What was the ultimate cause that led to Christ’s coming to earth and dying for our sins? To find this we must trace the question back to something in the character of God himself. And here Scripture points to two things: the love and justice of God.
The love of God as a cause of the atonement is seen in the most familiar passage in the Bible: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). But the justice of God also required that God find a way that the penalty due to us for our sins would be paid (for he could not accept us into fellowship with himself unless the penalty was paid). Paul explains that this was why God sent Christ to be a “propitiation” (Rom. 3:25 NASB) (that is, a sacrifice that bears God’s wrath so that God becomes “propitious” or favorably disposed toward us): it was “to show God’s righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins” (Rom. 3:25). Here Paul says that God had been forgiving sins in the Old Testament but no penalty had been paid—a fact that would make people wonder whether God was indeed just and ask how he could forgive sins without a penalty. No God who was truly just could do that, could he? Yet when God sent Christ to die and pay the penalty for our sins, “it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26).
Therefore both the love and the justice of God were the ultimate cause of the atonement. It is not helpful for us to ask which is more important, however, because without the love of God, he would never have taken any steps to redeem us, yet without the justice of God, the specific requirement that Christ should earn our salvation by dying for our sins would not have been met. Both the love and the justice of God were equally important.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Bits & Bytes/Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008)
If God’s righteousness is the saving act of God in Christ for man’s salvation, then justification is closely related to our Lord’s atonement. In fact, Christ’s atonement is the grounds for justification. Christ’s person and activity is the justification or reconciliation with God and the basis of all individual justification. It is the only basis upon which God can and does justify the sinner (Rom 3:24; 8:1; 2 Cor 5:18–21). The atonement of Christ answers the question: “How can a just God acquit a sinner; yes, one who remains sinful even after he is justified?” Justification does not mean God “overlooks sin” or acts as if man were not a sinner. The sentimental view which conceives of God as a gracious old “grandfather” who winks at the sins of His “children,” denies the integrity of the true God and destroys any concept of justification. God’s justice and holiness demand payment for sin, and this penalty Christ paid in the atonement on the cross. Thus in justification God devised a plan whereby both His attributes of justice and His love manifested in grace for salvation of sinners are given full meaning.
By making Christ a substitute for man, God preserves His own justice and the same time achieves salvation for the sinner (Rom 3:26). It is un-Biblical, therefore, to speculate whether God could or does forgive without Christ. Sinful men “are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as an expiation by His blood.”
I seriously doubt that anyone here would let a man die. If you are so keen to answer Blitzer's question, go ahead. How am I stopping you? My prediction is that it will lie somewhere between "He made his choice so too bad" and "Private organizations can take care of him." But, see, this is where we get into fantasy. One way or another, WE (as in all of us) will be paying for him...in real dollars and in the eyes of God who has tasked us to serve the infirm and poor.
Regarding your verses, you can throw out as much stuff about sin and blood as you want but Hebrews 8 (the entire chapter) is clear. Juxtapose this with Romans 10: 9-10 and the subject of sin is settled.
But if you are going to bring it up anywhere, then you have to abide by it everywhere.
And I didn't bring up capital punishment. That was your distraction from the primary topic.
But, see, this is where we get into fantasy.
So no matter what my answer is, it's fantasy? So why should I bother? Your statement says quite clearly that you don't care what my argument actually is, because your mind is made up. Which is right back to the point I was making:
A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. — Proverbs 18:2
As for your pick and choose approach to the Bible, is that how you intend to make your case before God? Good luck with that.
AllScripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; — 2 Timothy 3:16
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell — and great was its fall.” — Matthew 7:21–27
Sounds like a darn good incentive to make sure I'm not picking and choosing or otherwise twisting "these words of Mine" to "be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15) If you want to be cavalier about it, that's your choice, and your responsibility.
41 comments:
1. I think it's funny how you still don't understand what was meant by "voices in your head."
2. How dare the crowd be annoyed at Wolf's attempt to pull a heart tugging hypothetical gotcha. Fortunately, Paul was smart enough to throw it back in his face - are we a nation of people who take responsibility for our own actions, or are we a nation of children, squalling for help from mama government when our choices have negative consequences?
Actually, I found Paul's comments to be thoughtful but terribly naive and temporally out of touch. The church will now take care of people? With what money?
He was speaking of a time when health care costs were manageable. They aren't now but of course that's the fault of the evil government...not the captains of the health care industry who sprinkle their magical job beans on all of us.
I can't pry your irrational fear about government from your cold, dead mind, Hap.
Hap,
I don't know why you bother. He simply doesn't understand us. At all. Even worse, he thinks he does, therefore he doesn't bother even checking whether his assumptions are valid or not. And that despite the constant attempts to point out that his assumptions are so wrong that he's not even in the same time zone.
This post just happens to be a perfect demonstration of his terminal case of "Does. Not. Get. It." syndrome.
What part of "healthy young man with a good job and good income who chooses not to buy insurance" did you not hear or ignore, Mark? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? He shirked his,and then expects us to be responsible for him. Well, why shouldn't he? We've been in the business of protecting people from the negative results of their own (often predictable) bad decisions to the point that if something bad happens to someone, it's widely assumed to be da gubmint's job to make it all better. In essence, we've been subsidizing stupidity, poor judgement and functional helplessness in large parts of society.
I think that Mark does get you guys and that's the problem. He was pointing out the cheering, Larry, not the poor choice. You have been exposed for what you are. Now the country gets to see and hear what the Tea Party is all about. This also validates Alan Grayson, though: Republican health care=Don't get sick and if you do, die quickly.
Santa,
What were the exact words Ron Paul said immediately prior to when the cheering started?
>He was speaking of a time when health care costs were manageable.
Nonsense. Certain health care costs are not manageable without insurance, and never were. That's why this thing called "insurance" was invented. You may have heard of it. We often use "insurance" to manage the risk of unlikely things that would otherwise be too costly to handle alone. Like house fires, liability lawsuits, even mortgage default. In the case of this hypothetical kid, he's going to have a debt to pay back that he would have largely avoided if he had kept his insurance. So hopefully he'd learn a lesson too.
Wait a darn second! That sounds totally similar to what would happen to me if my house burned down when I had foregone fire insurance! It's almost like the mechanism is the same!
I think that Mark does get you guys and that's the problem.
So sayeth the yippee dog posse.
I find it funny how much you trumpet evolution and then do your best to short circuit the natural selection process. ;)
" how you still don't understand what was meant by "voices in your head.""
Let's see. You morons accuse Mark of having a fight with a straw man right winger that exists only in his mind. You say that no such animal exists and Mark yells at him for no reason. You also hilariously assert that none of you are in any way like this voice in his head. Mark then proceeds to give example after example that fully proves and justifies his statements. Click on the "Voices In My Head" Tag and you will see many examples.
You then taunt him and play games.
Sounds about right.
sasquatch,
You need to answer the same question as Santa:
What were the exact words Ron Paul said immediately prior to when the cheering started?
I second Larry's comments.
In the hypothetical situation, he made the choice to not have insurance. The headline of the video is an example of voices int he head. Nobody said the guy should not be treated and left to die. The debate was about who should pay for the bill.
I don't fault Ron Paul for anything he said and know that he certainly would not leave anyone to die. I'm talking about the crowd who cheered right after Blitzer asked if he should be left to die. Someone shouts out "Yeah" and then others cheer. So, yes someone did say that the guy should be not be treated and left to die...several someones in the audience.
Whoever was the one who did cheer will be the first one to beg for care if they didn't buy insurance, though. In other words, they are completely full of shit. Surprise, surprise.
Mark, you too:
What were the exact words Ron Paul said immediately prior to when the cheering started?
Whoever was the one who did cheer will be the first one to beg for care if they didn't buy insurance, though. In other words, they are completely full of shit. Surprise, surprise.
With mind-reading skills like these, you could be the next Amazing Kreskin. Or maybe, just maybe, that's just another fantasy pulled out of your hindmost nether regions because I think it's safe to say that you know nothing whatsoever about that young man except for what your own bigotry and prejudice leads you to imagine about him.
A. Noni, he didn't answer before the cheering. The crowd answered "Yeah" and then he said no but again (because apparently you have trouble reading)I don't fault Ron Paul for the answer he gave. He's just terribly naive and out of touch. Of course he would say no because his oath as a physician is first, to do no harm.
I think we may be talking about two different points in the debate. I'm talking about the follow up at around one minute when Blizter asked if he would let him die. The crowd yelled out affirmatives and then Paul said no.
I think I'll just start quoting really stupid commenters from DU, TPM, Kaos, etc. and treating that as though every single thing said by them is something M believes in with all his heart and soul.
Who knows, it may even make for a better conversation than I typically get from M.
(Note: This was written before Mark's most recent comment, but could not be posted due to an internet outage.)
that young man
If that's what Mark is thinking about, there's two problems with Mark's argument:
1. His original posting did not include such an argument, thus letting the title on the video clip be the argument: "Tea Party Audience Cheers Idea Of Leaving A Sick Uninsured Man To Die". This argument is a straw man, which is why I keep challenging the posse to look at what prompted the cheering. That title obviously misstates what caused the cheering, which is the very definition of a straw man. Plain and simple.
By now arguing that it's the single person who yelled out "Yeah", he's clearly moving the goal posts.
2. He's taking that single response and asserting that it applies to all conservatives. That would be either the fallacy of composition or association fallacy, also known as "guilt by association". Both definitions fit. And both are logical fallacies.
Furthermore, when you add in the fact that Mark is now ignoring the much, much larger cheer for what Ron Paul was actually saying, that elevates his new argument to the cherry picking fallacy.
Even given those two problems, Mark's latest argument has several other problems.
First, Blitzer's "question" was also a fallacy, because it was an appeal to pity. It was also the type of question which was phrased as a yes/no question, but cannot be answered as such. (The guy who yelled "Yeah" fell into Blitzer's trap.)
Mark, you've argued with us long enough, and had such a hypothetical case explained to you often enough that you know what the actual conservative case is, and it's not a simple "yes" to Wolf's question. Yet you still pretend that "Yeah" is the answer, thus you are once again arguing with a voice in your head, not with an actual conservative argument.
The crowd answered "Yeah"
Really?!? The entire crowd?!? Or even a significant percentage?!? Or was that just the voices in your head?
>You morons
Wait - i thought you guys like to delude yourselves into believing you are above all this personal insult stuff. What gives? I'm so hurt.
>You say that no such animal exists and Mark yells at him for no reason.
Bzzt! Wrong. Probably just in the same way that Mark doesn't understand it.
That's two days…
Two days that you have been having your period now, Ed?
Oh puhlease. A playground insult? Grow up.
Who's Ed?
Now that's more than 3 days.
And that's one day of you not answering my question.
It has now been 4 full days (96 hours+) since I pointed out the problems with Mark's claims. A full four days, during which neither Mark nor his posse bothered to ask the obvious question. A full 4 days when Mark has written other posts, his posse has posted numerous, frequently fatuous, comments. Yet not one bothered to ask the question, a question which should have just screamed out in the minds of anyone who actually cares about the truth. A question about the grand, gaping hole in my response. A hole so vast, it practically begs for guard rails, flashing warning lights, and maybe even a no-fly zone warning from the FAA.
That simple question is this:
"What is the conservative position here?"
or
"So how would you answer Blitzer's question?"
I didn't explain it. I referred to it, but left it at that. My response was incomplete. There was no need to write a doctoral dissertation. Just fewer than 10 simple words would do. Yet in almost 100 hours, full of activity on this blog, and Mark even venturing over to TSM to pick a fight there, no one bothered to ask that simple, glaringly obvious question.
The complete lack of such a basic query indicates a total lack of curiosity. Mark and his posse clearly don't care what conservatives actually think. The ONLY way to actually understand what is going on in someone else's mind is to ASK THEM. Yet the "oh so intellectual" left, can't even be bothered with basic inquiry—a fundamental skill of critical thinking. Instead, Marky just pretends he can read our minds and throws out dogmatic assertions as if from on high.
This is a perfect demonstration of why Marky winds up arguing with the voices in his head. Because he doesn't even care what real people have to say. And his posse shares that same massive deficiency.
And you are a perfect demonstration of someone who needs to get out more. Clearly you are one of Kevin's posters who has an abnormal obsession with Mark and has trouble separating reality from fiction. Might I suggest a walk if it's nice where you live? Perhaps a chat with a live person?
Gee, more fatuous name calling. Big surprise coming from the "high tone and fancy" crowd, Not.
Are you saying I should give up hope that your crowd will actually demonstrate even a glimmer of understanding and rationality and leave you to simmer in your own "juices"?
You sound awfully worried if you ask me, Mouse. You know full well that it's vital that you keep your nutters on a leash. With so many in your party, that's going to prove difficult.
It's not just that some people cheered when Blitzer asked his question. It's that and the fact that they cheered in the first debated when the statistic was read on executions. It's been two and a half long years of the socialist totalitarian trying to steal your luggage. The blood lust is high and containing it is going to be tough. For if you don't, you can rest assured that those coveted middle votes are going to swing to the president next year and it will be four more years...
Still trying to tell us what we think, instead of making any effort to understand.
Fail.
It's that and the fact that they cheered in the first debated when the statistic was read on executions.
It's called justice:
Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man.
— Genesis 9:6
“You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous. “Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you.”
— Deuteronomy 16:19–20
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;
Lovingkindness and truth go before You.
— Psalms 89:14
How blessed are those who keep justice,
Who practice righteousness at all times!
— Psalms 106:3
To do righteousness and justice
Is desired by the LORD more than sacrifice.
— Proverbs 21:3
The exercise of justice is joy for the righteous,
But is terror to the workers of iniquity.
— Proverbs 21:15
And one more, especially for you:
Evil men do not understand justice,
But those who seek the LORD understand all things.
— Proverbs 28:5
And nary a verse from the NT..tsk tsk. The whole bit about Grace is sorta lost on you, hmm? What exactly goes throughout your head when you read Hebrews 8: 6-13
New Testament? Sure.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”
— Matthew 23:23
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
— Romans 13:3–4
Do you suppose that swords are designed for rapping knuckles?
As for that Hebrews passage, this is what I think of:
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
— Hebrews 9:22
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
— Luke 22:20
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
— 1 Peter 2:24
The fancy theological term for this is "substitutionary atonement". (Hebrews goes into this in much greater detail in chapters 9 and 10.) Justice is not bypassed or ignored. It is fulfilled by Jesus taking the punishment we deserve onto himself. The new covenant is not an abrogation of justice, it is the satisfaction of justice. (see Matthew 5:17)
Where grace comes in is that he chose to offer himself to be punished in our place with absolutely no requirement that he do so. We deserve punishment. No one in heaven or earth has any right to make such a demand of him. If had chosen not to go through with it, no one could say that he did anything wrong. Yet he chose to do so anyway, of his own free will.
Now that I've answered your red herring, are you actually going to start trying to understand actual conservative arguments and positions?
Oh, and BTW, grace is not an excuse to engage in sin and evil:
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
— Romans 6:1–2
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
— Romans 6:15–16
And as I pointed out above, the rulers are still expected to enforce justice (Romans 13:3-4) even with the New Covenant in place.
It's not a red herring. I'm not the one who brought up the Bible. You did. I simply responded with my Bible quote because it illustrates a very fundamental difference between someone like you and someone like me. Hebrews 8:12 couldn't be any plainer yet you persist in sticking to the "Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God" motif. This is likely the case because without this threat, you wouldn't be able to control yourself. I, however, don't need the threat of hellfire, blood, and damnation by God to prevent myself from sinning. That's not what God is all about now that Jesus has sacrificed himself for us. God is love, peace, serving those less fortunate than ourselves, doing unto others and turning the other cheek. I will admit that I fall short in all of these areas frequently (as do we all) but that's the crux of accepting Jesus as your savior. Sinning is breaking your fellowship with God but not a cause for his punishment. He tried that and it didn't work. Now, it's accept Christ as your savior, as he died for our sins, and strive to be and do the list of items above.
In short, I don't believe in Republican Jesus. You do.
As to understanding conservatives, I simply go on their words and actions. They were quite apparent in the debates. Rick Perry himself admitted shock at the cheering that resulted after the execution comments. That was the ENTIRE audience. Ron Paul also looked stunned when some audience members shouted out in the affirmative to let the man die. Each of these men helped to create a rabid army that is exactly Lofgren's Disease. You can try to make believe that it's not true and dress it up in rugged individualism but our world simply will not function in the bizarre utopia that you imagine.
'm not the one who brought up the Bible. You did.
Yes, you did. Here
Hebrews 8:12 couldn't be any plainer
Interesting how you hang everything on that single verse, but then you ignore Hebrews 9 and 10. What's that called again? Oh, right. Cherry Picking
Note that the context of the verse you've chosen undermines your claim. Right before that it says:
For all will know me,
from the least to the greatest of them.
— Hebrews 8:11b
Has that come to pass yet? Obviously not. Then how can you claim the next verse as woodenly absolute?
Once again, you're showing that it doesn't matter what the Bible actually says. Only what you WANT to believe matters. And you apply the same approach to "understanding" conservatives.
Notice that you still haven't asked what our position is on Blitzer's question. All you've done is tell everyone what the voices in your head are saying.
Once again:
A fool does not delight in understanding,
But only in revealing his own mind.
— Proverbs 18:2
Finally, a couple of things you really need to keep in mind:
Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; … For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
— 1 Peter 4:15, 17
Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
— 1 Corinthians 3:12–15
Even followers of Christ will not escape some form of judgement. Even though what we do has nothing to do with salvation, it still matters.
Just curious, how do you explain away Hebrews 9:22?
"without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."
Oh, what the heck. Let's throw in a little copy and paste:
What was the ultimate cause that led to Christ’s coming to earth and dying for our sins? To find this we must trace the question back to something in the character of God himself. And here Scripture points to two things: the love and justice of God.
The love of God as a cause of the atonement is seen in the most familiar passage in the Bible: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). But the justice of God also required that God find a way that the penalty due to us for our sins would be paid (for he could not accept us into fellowship with himself unless the penalty was paid). Paul explains that this was why God sent Christ to be a “propitiation” (Rom. 3:25 NASB) (that is, a sacrifice that bears God’s wrath so that God becomes “propitious” or favorably disposed toward us): it was “to show God’s righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins” (Rom. 3:25). Here Paul says that God had been forgiving sins in the Old Testament but no penalty had been paid—a fact that would make people wonder whether God was indeed just and ask how he could forgive sins without a penalty. No God who was truly just could do that, could he? Yet when God sent Christ to die and pay the penalty for our sins, “it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26).
Therefore both the love and the justice of God were the ultimate cause of the atonement. It is not helpful for us to ask which is more important, however, because without the love of God, he would never have taken any steps to redeem us, yet without the justice of God, the specific requirement that Christ should earn our salvation by dying for our sins would not have been met. Both the love and the justice of God were equally important.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Bits & Bytes/Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008)
If God’s righteousness is the saving act of God in Christ for man’s salvation, then justification is closely related to our Lord’s atonement. In fact, Christ’s atonement is the grounds for justification. Christ’s person and activity is the justification or reconciliation with God and the basis of all individual justification. It is the only basis upon which God can and does justify the sinner (Rom 3:24; 8:1; 2 Cor 5:18–21). The atonement of Christ answers the question: “How can a just God acquit a sinner; yes, one who remains sinful even after he is justified?” Justification does not mean God “overlooks sin” or acts as if man were not a sinner. The sentimental view which conceives of God as a gracious old “grandfather” who winks at the sins of His “children,” denies the integrity of the true God and destroys any concept of justification. God’s justice and holiness demand payment for sin, and this penalty Christ paid in the atonement on the cross. Thus in justification God devised a plan whereby both His attributes of justice and His love manifested in grace for salvation of sinners are given full meaning.
By making Christ a substitute for man, God preserves His own justice and the same time achieves salvation for the sinner (Rom 3:26). It is un-Biblical, therefore, to speculate whether God could or does forgive without Christ. Sinful men “are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as an expiation by His blood.”
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible
But I didn't bring it up in this thread.
I seriously doubt that anyone here would let a man die. If you are so keen to answer Blitzer's question, go ahead. How am I stopping you? My prediction is that it will lie somewhere between "He made his choice so too bad" and "Private organizations can take care of him." But, see, this is where we get into fantasy. One way or another, WE (as in all of us) will be paying for him...in real dollars and in the eyes of God who has tasked us to serve the infirm and poor.
Regarding your verses, you can throw out as much stuff about sin and blood as you want but Hebrews 8 (the entire chapter) is clear. Juxtapose this with Romans 10: 9-10 and the subject of sin is settled.
But I didn't bring it up in this thread.
But if you are going to bring it up anywhere, then you have to abide by it everywhere.
And I didn't bring up capital punishment. That was your distraction from the primary topic.
But, see, this is where we get into fantasy.
So no matter what my answer is, it's fantasy? So why should I bother? Your statement says quite clearly that you don't care what my argument actually is, because your mind is made up. Which is right back to the point I was making:
A fool does not delight in understanding,
But only in revealing his own mind.
— Proverbs 18:2
As for your pick and choose approach to the Bible, is that how you intend to make your case before God? Good luck with that.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
— 2 Timothy 3:16
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell — and great was its fall.”
— Matthew 7:21–27
Sounds like a darn good incentive to make sure I'm not picking and choosing or otherwise twisting "these words of Mine" to "be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15) If you want to be cavalier about it, that's your choice, and your responsibility.
Post a Comment