Contributors

Monday, October 10, 2011

So True!


68 comments:

A. Noni Mouse said...

Oh Marky, You just can't stop listening to those voices in your head, can you?

Pay attention, folks. Mark doesn't use his blog to argue for why his ideas are better. 99% of the time, all he is doing is to demonize and dehumanize his opponents. Furthermore, he LIES to accomplish that goal.* This cartoon is a perfect example of such lies.

( * To see the truth of my claim, all you have to do is scroll down the page. "Republicans this" and "Republicans that.")

Serial Thrilla said...

I guess I'll be the first one to state the obvious. This wasn't his idea. Unless Mark has become a cartoonist and not told anyone.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Note the title Mark put on this post. It was not someone else, and certainly not the cartoonist; Mark did it all by his lonesome.

"So True!"

In other words, he completely agrees with the numerous LIES in the cartoon. He has certainly said exactly the same things in his writings. Furthermore, he is repeating those LIES as if they are true.

He. Is. LYING!!!

Mark Ward said...

Wow...touchy:)

How exactly is this not true, A. Noni? Healing the sick and feeding the poor aren't banners I see on a regular basis at conservative rallies. Here are the ones I do see

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/sets/72157622225596987/show/

In fact, when either topic is brought up, here is a typical response:

there is no way to solve that 15% unemployment problem, not till a lot of people take responsibility for themselves and their families.

It's always the fault of the victim, right? How very Chrisitan...That's from this blog, btw

Here's another classic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_PX5L_v_7I&feature=mr_meh&list=FLfNHS_6BXeZaS88Gj5P-o4g&playnext=0

Real nice.

Rick Perry is running around saying that creationism is taught in Texas and the House just decided to fund the DOMA. So where is the lying again? Sounds to me like (yawn) once again people are having problems admitting their ugliness.

Juris Imprudent said...

Healing the sick and feeding the poor aren't banners I see on a regular basis at conservative rallies.

Doesn't feature very prominently on its own on this blog either!

A. Noni Mouse said...

When you LIE about people like that, damn straight I'm touchy!

How exactly is this not true, A. Noni?

Let's start with the basic lie; that conservatives want a theocracy.

A) Most conservatives are not Christians. You've been over at The Smallest Minority. How many commenters over there are Christians? A significant minority. The rest are atheists. And I would say that TSM actually has a high percentage of Christians posting there. So even if every conservative Christian wanted a theocracy, that would still be a minority of conservatives.

B) Christians are not calling for a theocracy. I pay a lot of attention to what is going on among Christians and I don't know any who are calling for a theocracy. That doesn't mean there aren't a handful way out on the fringe somewhere, but that's almost certainly less than 1% of Christians.

I agree with James Madison, who argued that creating an official state church is a really, REALLY bad idea. Given the obvious history of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England, you will find that most Christians in this country who have thought it through will argue against a theocracy.

(Actually, a theocracy—at least as compared to the theocracy Israel had, and especially this cartoon's silly version—is not even possible for this country. It could only be a "churchocracy", which is what the RCC and COE are.)

So, the basic premise of the cartoon that all conservatives want a theocracy is a LIE when compared to the reality that, at best, only a tiny fringe fraction of a fraction of conservatives even consider that basic idea doable, while the vast majority actively opposes the idea.

And that's just the start of the lies in this cartoon.

That you even have to ask that question demonstrates how blind you are to the vast difference between the voices in your head and reality.

Mark Ward said...

Good grief that was not the point of the cartoon. But it is obvious that the base wants close to a theocracy and a Christian one at that. This is a Christian nation, right? I mean that's what the right says all the time.

A. Noni Mouse said...

It's "not the point" but it's still true anyway?

Sheesh! Just how deep are your fingers in your ears anyway? Elbow deep?

Did you even bother to read James Madison's argument? Especially points 1 and 7?

Do try to think here. What is a "theocracy"? Did the Founding Fathers establish a "theocracy"? Or even, in your words, "close to" one?

One more question: Could this cartoon have even existed without the theocracy basis?

Mark Ward said...

The message from this cartoonist had little to do with theocracies and more to do with willful ignorance of large swaths of the Bible. Healing the sick and feeding the poor are central to Christ's teachings yet you don't hear much from the GOP...the more "Christian" of the two parties...about either one.

In addition to accepting Christ as our savior and the son of God, God will ultimately judge us on how we serve the least among us. Sadly, the more "Christian" party believes it's all about sin. As I have pointed out to you many times, that's completely inconsistent to the conclusion we see after Christ dies for our sins.

I think you need to ask yourself this: based on Christ's words, what ideology today do you suppose he would espouse? Be honest.

Don said...

Didn't Jesus ask people to do that by charity? Did he want a central government compelling people to do that? Healing the sick can be done through medical innovations but you want to tax medical innovators.

juris imprudent said...

Man, didn't you read the Gospels - you know, the part where Jesus rants about how bad the Roman govt is? It isn't taking care of the people and all that shit. Jesus knew that is why God put govts in place - you can't expect PEOPLE to actually do all that.

A. Noni Mouse said...

(part 1 of 2)

The message from this cartoonist had little to do with theocracies…

The answer to my last question is "No. This cartoon could not have existed without its basis in setting up a theocracy."

It's an interesting method of arguing that you have Marky. Instead of just admitting that specific part of the cartoon is lie, you simply argue—and disingenuously, I might add—that the lie doesn't matter. It's still a LIE. At least have the integrity to admit it to yourself.

…more to do with willful ignorance of large swaths of the Bible.

It's a good thing for you that I wasn't drinking anything this time. I can't afford to keep replacing keyboards.

You are definitely the last person to be talking about Biblical ignorance when you are the one constantly arguing that vast swaths of scripture SHOULD. BE. IGNORED!!!!!

And now we get to one of the other huge LIES in the cartoon…

Healing the sick and feeding the poor are central to Christ's teachings…

Wrong. The center of Christ's teachings are salvation and the kingdom of God.

He did teaching about taking care of each other, but those teachings were not central. Furthermore, WHO did Christ teach was to take care of others?

When Christ pointed out the second greatest commandment (notice that it was not the first), Jesus was challenged to "define 'my neighbor'". He responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In that story, the good Samaritan saw the poor robbery victim, then immediately ran to the nearest Roman guard post and led the soldiers to the priest and the Levite who ignored the poor victim so the soldiers could take all the money those rich snobs had. Then he led the soldiers to where the poor victim was laying so the soldiers could take him to the nearest government house of healing which was paid for with the money taken from the rich jerks. Then he went on his way greatly justified in Jesus' eyes.

Oh wait. That must be the version in your Bible. That is what you argue for.

If we're so "ignorant" Marxy, point out the passages were Jesus went to Herod and demanded that he raise taxes to feed the poor. What's the chapter and verse on Jesus going to Pontius Pilate and having him send his soldiers out to force the people into healing the sick?

Heck, the same people who are to "love your neighbor as yourself" are also to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." So if you are saying the government is to perform the second commandment, then you are also saying that the government is to obey the first, which would make it a theocracy.

A. Noni Mouse said...

(part 2 of 2)

…yet you don't hear much from the GOP…

You mean like Ron Paul did in that debate not too long ago? Where you crapped on him for saying exactly what you're saying the GOP doesn't say? Double-standard much Marxy? (I know, I know, only all the time.)

There are two very good reasons for this. Large numbers of people caring for someone else one on one (or two or three) is not nearly as visible as a large organization.

Secondly, for conservative Christians, there's an important commandment given by Jesus himself, one of those "large swaths of the Bible" which are you apparently still ignorant of, despite my best efforts:

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

— Matthew 6:1–4

Gee, which side is best described as launching a PR campaign when they give to the needy? You just pointed out that it is not conservatives.

And in the cherry picking evidence domain (you know, one of those things you project onto conservatives) I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have been pointed to studies that show that conservative Christians outgive leftists by a wide margin. Yet somehow, you keep forgetting this. I wonder why…? (No not really. It's pretty obvious.)

You have argued numerous times that people need to be FORCED to give and take care of the needy. That was the basis of your dump on Ron Paul. You've even said that in just so many words.

So tell me, if God would make sure the following verse is in scripture, what the hell makes you think he would implement government centered social programs paid for by compulsory taxes?

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
— 2 Corinthians 9:7

So that's actually two more LIES in this cartoon that you've endorsed:

1) That conservatives don't care about taking care of the sick and needy.

2) That God would implement compulsive giving.

based on Christ's words, what ideology today do you suppose he would espouse?

Lesson finished. Do you understand the answer to that question yet?

Be honest.

Still waiting on that from you.

Mark Ward said...

Don, private charities lack the muscle and infrastructure that is more characteristic of government programs. For example, the DoD is one of the leading innovators and researchers with breast cancer. There are many ways that the government is more effective at handling health care needs. I don't expect you to grok this because of your obvious bias and ideology.

A Noni, well, that's the beauty of art...everyone has their own interpretation:)

We already have salvation if we accept Christ as our savior. After that, it's Matthew 5...all of it...not just the parts about sinning which I'm fairly certain you are abnormally focused on...why is that? As I have told you many times, Hebrews 8 is fairly clear. I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding it.

The Bible is a progression towards Christ. If you want to wallow in sinners in the hands of an angry God, fine...whatever you need to prevent you from sinning. I don't need that threat and find the clarity of how God will ultimately judge us (healing the sick and feeding the hungry) to be more of a motivator.

You have argued numerous times that people need to be FORCED to give and take care of the needy.

Hmmm...man is inherently evil in you eyes, right? So, if they are not "forced" to give, then will they? The way you guys look at all of this is really bullshit when you sit back and think about it for a moment. You have this fantasy in your mind of lazy people spooning off your hard earned labor when the reality is that ALL of us share in making a better society. Remember the anti-socialist pledge? When you look at things in that context, it's obvious that we're all needy and that you idea of a rugged individualist culture is sheer fantasy.

But none of these things are the real reason why you are pissed about the cartoon. You're ticked because the truth hurts. I don't think you want a theocracy but you sure as shit don't want government doing the Christian thing and help people. Why, that would mean that you would be proved wrong regarding your paranoid delusions about government and lose the argument? Horror of horrors!

Juris Imprudent said...

So, if they are not "forced" to give, then will they?

So you would force them - for their own good, right? You familiar at all with C.S. Lewis (you being Christian and all)?

A. Noni Mouse said...

everyone has their own interpretation

Which word did you have a problem interpreting in 2nd Corinthians 9:7? Was it "not"? How about "reluctantly"? "Under"? I know, it must be "compulsion".

Here's what I just don't get about you Mark. There is no room for "interpretation" as you're doing it. That verse is as crystal clear and unambiguous as a sentence can get. Yet you still insist on the exact opposite when you write:

So, if they are not "forced" to give, then will they?

Your answer to this question has consistently been "no". In fact, you again said "no" in your comment:

private charities lack the muscle and infrastructure

and

the government is more effective at handling health care needs.

and

you sure as shit don't want government doing the Christian thing and help people.

That is compulsion, no if's, and's or but's.

You're ticked because the truth hurts.

How can your claim be "truth" in ANY sense of the word? It is logically impossible for "not compulsion" to EVER equal "compulsion".

You might as well claim that "True = False" or "Black = White" or that you can draw a square circle. It can NEVER be true. You can shout yourself hoarse. You can dance around like a fool and cut yourself with knives. You can beat your head against the mountains until they turn into a pile of slag. You can murder every other person on the planet who knows that directly contradictory statements can never be true. Yet your claim would still not be true. It is flatly impossible. Period. Full Stop. It can ONLY be untrue. And when the one telling it knows it is untrue, it is called a LIE.

Partly, I'm pissed because you apparently think people are so wildly credulous that you tried to pass off a such a blatant and obvious lie as true. Your absurdity, irrationality, and willful ignorance is overwhelming. As for the rest, I refuse to allow your lies to win by default.

I can only come to one conclusion about your willful and repeated contradiction of a simple and unequivocal statement like 2 Corinthians 9:7, nevermind the innumerable lessons of history:

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
— John 8:44

Mark Ward said...

Wow, so now I'm the devil? I guess I should have seen that one coming...

The problem here, A. Noni, is that you are equating compulsion in the 1st Century to compulsion today, hence the reason why I put quote marks around the word. I would hope you would agree that the compulsion of the Roman government was different than the tax system today. I think you equate our government with the autocratic rule of the Roman Empire and that simply isn't the case. You have a vote and, if you dedicate the time, can change tax policy in this country. This was not the case when Paul wrote his letter nearly 2000 years ago.

One could also look at compulsion from a religious point of view as well. God is not a dictator and wants people to give freely and from their heart, not under the threat of burning in hell due to the wrath of God. How we serve the poor and the sick is how God will judge us but it has to be our choice...just like the choice of accepting Christ in your heart. I think that this the meaning of the passage that you quoted. It's not surprising to me, given your fantasies about government, that you have interpreted it in this way. This colors your view of providing for people and the simple fact that you view it as "compulsion" demonstrates the adolescent power fantasy in which you and your ilk are continually engaged.

Many people in this country support Social Security and Medicare. They are not forced to contribute to these programs and they vote in every election to support the continuation of both, thus giving freely, right? The majority of the people in this country have decided that it our country is strengthened by providing these programs. You are in the minority. Sorry, but that's the breaks, kiddo. Perhaps if you put in more time trying to change the tax system and less time posting on my blog (and Kevin's), you'd be happier.

Although, you might want to be careful. Consider this question: Did the United States build itself into an economic superpower, unlike any this world has ever seen, by being a nation of rugged individualist libertarians? Take your time and think about it.

rld said...

The ss taxes taken out of my paycheck are voluntary? I can refuse to pay into the program? Really?

Mark Ward said...

No, but they majority of the people that support this program are cheerfully giving, right?

rld, I want you to sit back and think seriously about what our country would be like without SS. It would be filled with poor, old people. We already treat the elderly in this society like shit and it would be even worse without Social Security. The fantasy world in which all things are only the individual's fault is pure bullshit. Becoming a nation of rugged individualists is a fucking pipe dream in a global economy, dude, but I don't expect you to understand it as you persist in continuing your adolescent power fantasy dreams.

A. Noni Mouse said...

rld: I can refuse to pay into the program? Really?

Markadelphia: No

You got one right! No one has a choice about paying taxes. They are compulsory. Have you look at the definition of that word lately?

1. required; mandatory; obligatory.
2. using compulsion; compelling; constraining.


Did you get that?!? "Using COMPULSION"!!! Your argument that compulsion is somehow not compulsion because of some minor differences in government (remember, ours is based in part on the Roman system) is just plain SILLY! Did your father smell of elderberries or something?

But you did get one other thing right.

God is not a dictator and wants people to give freely and from their heart, not under the threat of burning in hell due to the wrath of God.

Yes, exactly. Nowhere in 2 Corinthians 9:7 does it even hint at any kind of qualification on what kind of compulsion is being discussed. That means that all kinds of compulsion are a problem, and by definition, that includes God not forcing people to give.

But wait a minute. You just said God DOES NOT force people to give to take care of the needy. (We both agree with the Bible on that point.) But you also said that the cartoon is absolutely true. It says—and you are still making the same assertion—that God WOULD force people to give via government. Do you even realize that your directly contradicted yourself when you wrote that?

Mark Ward said...

But are they compulsory? If people have no problem paying them and supporting programs like SS and Medicare, then aren't being forced. We could go round and round about this but there's simply no breaking your adolescent power fantasy, is there?

I'm still wondering if you think that a culture's definition of compulsion 2000 years ago is perfectly matched with the one today. That's the problem with the Bible. It was written thousands of years ago by a different culture in a different language. We have come a long way since then and while there are many fundamentals that clearly are still applicable today, several parts of the Bible are not. For example, I'm not going to let men from thousands of years ago dictate sexual mores today. There's no difference between that and saying that Sharia Law is OK. Unless, of course, you also think that women are property and can be sold into slavery which the Bible also says is OK.

Anonymous said...

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO DECIDE HOW MUCH SOMEONE ELSE HAS "NO PROBLEM" PAYING???

A. Noni Mouse said...

::: sigh :::

I don't really where to begin on such silliness. You have made some thoroughly fantastic claims in the past, but this one takes the bronze, the silver, the gold, and the platinum medals. The only way you could top it is to claim you're a poached egg. Apparently you are so stuck on your little fantasy that you prefer being seen as a complete slack jawed moron incapable of forming a coherent thought than to admit you are wrong.

But for those who prefer truth to self-delusion…

First, "under compulsion" is not a transliteration (straight letter-for-letter conversion between languages) of the actual greek word Paul used. If that were the case, it could be possible for the meaning to have changed, though not necessarily the case.

On the contrary. The words "under compulsion" are a translation—the closest english words which match the concept represented by the original greek word. Thus, the concept hasn't changed, only the word(s) used to represent it.

All words based on the word-stem anank- denote in varying gradations every form of outward or inward pressure which is exerted on men.

The noun
anankeĊ“ can be used in everyday language in place of the vb. to denote compulsion. In Phm. 14 and 2 Cor. 9:7 constraint is contrasted with free will.

“Necessity, Must, Obligation,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

Second, the change in the concept of compulsion is your own private meaning of the word. You've asserted that paying taxes is not compulsion because "we can afford to pay them" or whatever lame excuse you can come up with. Yet here is the definition of compulsion used by the rest of the english speaking world:

com·pul·sion
noun
1.
the act of compelling; constraint; coercion.
2. the state or condition of being compelled.
3. Psychology . a strong, usually irresistible impulse to perform an act, especially one that is irrational or contrary to one's will.

Definitions which use variations of the word being defined are not very helpful. But this one says that "coercion" is a synonym. So let's look at that definition:

co·er·cion
noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Did you get that, Mark? The ability (or lack thereof) to give up money has absolutely nothing to do with whether or tax paying is compulsion. The removal of choice due via the government's power to use force to collect taxes is the very definition of "compulsion."

I'll say it again because you are so damned dead set on ignoring the truth.

The removal of choice due via the government's power to use force to collect taxes is the VERY. DEFINITION OF COMPULSION!!!

You do not get to make up your own private meanings for words.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Third, you've claimed that God has made some fundamental changes over the last 2,000 years. And as usual, you offer ZERO evidence to back that up. But according to the Bible, God does not change like that.

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
— James 1:17

“I the LORD do not change.”
— Malachi 3:6a

But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever,
the purposes of his heart through all generations.

— Psalms 33:11

God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

— Numbers 23:19

Bottom line: The cartoon claimed that God would have the government take taxes to take care of the poor and needy. You have asserted exactly the same thing in this thread.

However, the Bible states that it is our personal responsibility to take care of the poor. It never states that it is a government responsibility to take care of the poor. In fact, it explicitly states that taking care of the poor is to be via our own free will, and not forced upon us.

When challenged to show any scriptural support for your assertion that it's the government's responibility, you have never produced any; not even in previous debates.

The basic contradiction is simple: You claim God would have the government force people to take care of the needy because… well… because… well… because you say so. Period. The Bible says each person should take care of the needy of their own free will.

Who to believe about what God would do?

You? The Bible?

…there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
— Galatians 1:7–9

All Scripture is breathed out by God…
— 2 Timothy 3:16

There is absolutely NO good reason to accept your totally unsupported and contrary claim when it directly contradicts what God Himself has to say. In a head to head battle between you and God, it's laughable to even consider betting on you for a fraction of a second. (The ultimate example of a fool's bet.)

A. Noni Mouse said...

BTW, given your own private definition of words, I think it is absolutely fair to ask you this question:

Do you speak English?

A. Noni Mouse said...

I can't believe I forgot this verse:

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
— Hebrews 13:8

Juris Imprudent said...

but they majority of the people that support this program are cheerfully giving

Refresh my memory, are you giving ("cheerfully" or not) from your wages to SS/MC?

sw said...

Keep it coming fellas

Mark Ward said...

, you've claimed that God has made some fundamental changes over the last 2,000 years.

No, but man certainly has. What goes through your head when you reflect on the following words of Christ:

He who puts his faith in me will do the very works which I do, and he will do greater things than these

Sit back and think about this verse. Do you think that Jesus and God want us to remain as we were 2,000 years ago? Or would they, like all parents, want to see something greater in their children?

are you giving ("cheerfully" or not) from your wages to SS/MC?

Well, if you vote for someone who insures that SS/MC continue to take money out of your check, then you are saying that it's OK that they do it, right? My point, which has clearly exploded a head above, is that if you support these programs, you are cheerful giver and it's not compulsive. If you don't support these programs, then it is compulsive. But here we get into the fervent anti tax mouth foaming so things become less rational...just like a teenager rebelling against his parents because they aren't looking honestly at the larger picture.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Or would they, like all parents, want to see something greater in their children?

You mean like going from giving freely to needing to be forced to give?

Or going from sins being completely unacceptable to sinning freely?

Neither one strikes me as actual progress. In fact, you seem to be using the appeal to novelty fallacy.

The appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem) is a fallacy in which someone prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, exclusively because it is new and modern. In a controversy between status quo and new inventions, an appeal to novelty argument isn't in itself a valid argument. The fallacy may take two forms: overestimating the new and modern, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be best-case, or underestimating status quo, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be worst-case.

Again, what BIBLICAL evidence do you have for such fundamental shifts? You're still making assertions based on "Because I say so."

Do you think that Jesus and God want us to remain as we were 2,000 years ago?

The Bible consistently teaches that God wants us to become more like Him. Acting more immorally (or more irrationally) is actually less like Him.

If you don't support these programs, then it is compulsive.

Let's look at that verse again:

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
— 2 Corinthians 9:7

That's the ESV translation. Let's look at a few others:

Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
— NIV

Each person should do as he has decided in his heart—not reluctantly or out of necessity, for God loves a cheerful giver.
— HCSB

Each one of you should give just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, because God loves a cheerful giver.
— NET

Let each man give according as he has determined in his heart; not grudgingly, or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.
— WEB

Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
— KJV

Do you get it yet? Each individual has to decide for themselves how much to give. If anyone is forced to give more than they choose, even for just one paycheck (sometimes there are extra expenses in life), then the principle has been violated. Forcing people as a group violates the principle of individual choice.

Mark Ward said...

So, let me see if I understand you correctly here. Human civilization has not advanced at all in the last 2000 years on any sort of level...culturally, sexually, religiously, economically, politically...and everything that is written in the Bible (by men, not women) applies to today. Everything. Is that accurate?

Do you get it yet?

Oh, I get what you are trying to say. I just think you are wrong. First of all, I think Paul was talking more about an individual's relationship with God, not government. In other words, not feeling forced by God. I've heard this line used many times in other conversations and methinks a great deal of hijacking to suit one's irrationality about government is going on. Second, Paul had now knowledge of Social Security or Medicare at the time. It's childishly dishonest to compare his words 2000 years ago to a program today that is quite literally helped millions of people live better lives. But that's the problem with all of this: it's a government program that is popular and works. That's akin to someone flinging a pile of shit at you so it's understandable that you react the way you do.

Of course, this does't even begin to address the fact that this is Paul saying all of this and not Christ. But that's a debate for another day perhaps...

Again, what BIBLICAL evidence do you have for such fundamental shifts?

I offer the quote above which you ignored. Here it is again.

He who puts his faith in me will do the very works which I do, and he will do greater things than these

A. Noni Mouse said...

Everything. Is that accurate?

Of course not. That's just another of your straw men. (Burn, baby, burn!)

We have advanced technologically. Otherwise, history has been littered with societies which either grew closer or farther from God's standards, both on a personal and a societal level.

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
— Matthew 6:33

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
— Romans 13:3–4

Where is your support for the claim that "his righteousness" (which simply means God's definition of right and wrong) has changed?!? I've already shown you numerous passages which clearly state that God and his standards do not change. And yes, you are still arguing that your standard is "good" because it's "modern".

In other words, not feeling forced by God.

And yet, you claim God would force us. Which is right back to the LIE of the cartoon and you directly contradicting yourself to avoid admitting that you are wrong. (You should look up the Biblical definition of "repentance" sometime.)

He who puts his faith in me will do the very works which I do, and he will do greater things than these

Where in that passage does it say that GOVERNMENT should take care of the needy? It doesn't. Which is why I ignored it the first time. That is also why you still have provided no Biblical backing for that baseless claim.

C'mon Mark. You claim widespread ignorance of the scriptures (which, unfortunately, is mostly true) and by extension, that you understand scriptures far better than conservatives. Yet I am the one putting out passage after unambiguous passage, all clearly contradicting you. And all you've managed is a single verse that has nothing to do with government taking care of the needy, but of his followers following his example. In fact, that verse is vague enough that Christians have been wrestling with just what it means for nearly 2,000 years. That is not superior knowledge of the scriptures.

So man up. Show those passages that prove God would do what you claim he would do. Put up or shut up.

juris imprudent said...

Well, if you vote for someone who insures that SS/MC continue to take money out of your check, then you are saying that it's OK that they do it, right?

I asked you a simple question. Do you give SS/MC out of your wages? That really is a yes or no question. I don't know for sure, but I believe MN teachers are exempt from paying into SS - so that is why I ask.

We can move onto other questions when you answer that one. Is that okay?

Mark Ward said...

Actually, the more important question is where in YOUR passage does it say anything about government? I don't think that's what Paul is talking about and I suspect that you have hijacked (as others have) that passage to allegedly support anti government views.

You claim widespread ignorance of the scriptures

Whenever I hear this, it always means the same thing: interpret the Bible the way I do, otherwise you are wrong. This is why I don't believe in Republican Jesus. That's not what God or Jesus is about at all which is why I put up the passage I did. If you think about it, it has everything to do with what I am talking about.

If we are tasked by Christ to do his works and greater than these, wouldn't that mean a systemic effort, using all available tools including the government, to help the sick and needy? Isn't that Social Security as it has reduced poverty in the elderly by 40 percent?

The problem here, Noni, is that you are a hypocrite. Since you are a conservative you no doubt think this is the greatest country on the planet...a beacon of freedom in the world...a place of exceptionalism, right? I certainly do. Yet, you have a massive distrust of government...the very government that provides this freedom and good will in the world. Indeed, our country was based on the basic Christian principles laid out in the beattitudes. The cartoon we have been discussing is a perfect illustration of how you guys shit all over that with your government paranoia.

I guess I would urge you to think outside of the box on the passage I put up. That's exactly what Christ is saying in it...why won't you listen?

Mark Ward said...

Do you give SS/MC out of your wages? That really is a yes or no question.

And we're back to the Rigid World of the Right. No, it's not a yes or no question. I am exempt from SS now but when I worked in the private sector, I voted for people who supported the continual withdrawal of money out of my paycheck for these progams. Because of this vote, I'm not having it forcibly taken out. I've paid quite a bit in over the years and happily so, not just for myself, but for others who need it. One might say I am cheerful about it because it makes our society a better place.

It's clear that you don't like it. Oh well. Your side continually loses that vote and, since not winning is the end of the fucking universe for you, you piss and moan like a teenager for being forced (based on massively inflated fears about the government) to do something you don't like.

Grow up. You're helping people.

Juris Imprudent said...

And we're back to the Rigid World of the Right. No, it's not a yes or no question.

Wow, you're awfully touchy. Did I hit a nerve?

I've paid quite a bit in over the years and happily so, not just for myself

You paid in to pay for others, and when you collect benefits it will be from the "contributions" of those who are working at that time. There is nothing that was put aside for you. Never has been, never will be. You seem to have a problem with that.

It's clear that you don't like it.

Thank you Carnack the Magnificent!

I do find your continual resort to "spoiled children" and "rebellious teenagers" to be a more reliable indication of your state of mind then mine.

Grow up.

The beam in thy eye.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Mark,

"DO YOU SPEAKA THE ENGLISH?"

"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMIN' OUTA MY MOUTH?!?"

Really!! To see you argue, one would think you don't speak a word of English. You just mimic the forms like a brute ape.

where in YOUR passage does it say anything about government?

Already answered. The time on that comment says 9:46 PM (20th comment). If you actually understand English, why are you asking about something I already answered?

Given that I have already answered that days ago, I'm still waiting. Where are the passages that say it is the government's role to take care of the sick and needy? There are plenty that say it is our personal responsibility, but NOT ONE that says it is the government's responsibility.

Whenever I hear this, it always means the same thing

What kind of stupid is this?!? I was talking about a claim YOU made! In fact, this is exactly what YOU said!!

more to do with willful ignorance of large swaths of the Bible.
— Time on post: 3:02 PM, 9th comment

If you are going to claim superior knowledge which backs up your claim, then you need to demonstrate that knowledge, or admit that what you claim to know is actually wrong.

Try forgetting the government for the moment. Just try. Because government was only the indirect claim of the cartoon. (And again, we've gone over this so many frikken' times that I wonder what language you actually speak.)

A) The cartoon's claim which we are addressing is simple: GOD would force people to give to the sick and needy. Yes, via the government, but God is the originator of that force. You have agreed with, and continue to argue in favor of, this claim.

B) The Bible says that God does NOT force people to give to the sick and needy. You have also agreed to this.

The point is dead simple: A and B DIRECTLY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER!!!. Period.

It's irrational to claim both as you do.

A. Noni Mouse said...

This is why I don't believe in Republican Jesus.

Apparently, "Republican Jesus" means believing the entire Bible. Your alternative is picking and choosing only the parts you like and making the rest up as you go along.

ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
— 2 Timothy 3:16–17

If it pisses you off that I accept the entire Bible as true, too bad. I answer to God, not you.

I'm reminded of someone else that liked to pick and choose scripture:

And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written,

“‘He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,’

and

“‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”

— Luke 4:9–11

Remember:

For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, will multiply teachers for themselves because they have an itch to hear something new. They will turn away from hearing the truth and will turn aside to myths.
— 2 Timothy 4:3–4

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
— Galatians 1:8–9

We both have to face God. I choose to face him having done my best to pursue God on his terms. What about you? Will you face him on his terms? Or your own?

If you think about it, it has everything to do with what I am talking about.

The only sense I can make of how you apply this verse is that it somehow gives you carte blanche to do whatever the hell you want. Not sure how, though.

Take a look at what Jesus said just three verses later:

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
— John 14:15

This is so important that he repeated himself several times:

Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me.
— John 14:21

“If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.”
— John 14:23–24

And what Jesus' commandments? That would be the whole Bible.

And if you are disobeying parts of the Bible or ignoring some of his words, even with John 14:12 as "cover", how can you claim to actually love Jesus?

A. Noni Mouse said...

No, it's not a yes or no question.

Yes it is, because…

I am exempt from SS now

The question was, since it is not required for you to pay SS, are you currently paying it anyway?

You are either paying it voluntarily, or you are not. There is no third option. That makes it a yes or no question.

Mark Ward said...

Wow, you're awfully touchy. Did I hit a nerve?

Not touchy, just frustrated that you live in such a black and white world.

Your alternative is picking and choosing only the parts you like and making the rest up as you go along.

#3-Projection/Flipping

And if you are disobeying parts of the Bible or ignoring some of his words, even with John 14:12 as "cover", how can you claim to actually love Jesus?

Well, you just admitted above that not everything in the Bible is accurate so I guess that puts you in the same boat, eh? And "disobey?" I thought we were supposed to come to God willingly without coercion. Which is it? This is the problem with folks like you, A Noni. You can't reconcile your need for sinners in the hands of an angry God and the grace of Jesus Christ.

Yes it is, because…

...I have to use weasel questions to WIN THE ARGUMENT.

Juris Imprudent said...

Not touchy, just frustrated that you live in such a black and white world.

Projection M, pure projection. I just asked a question that perhaps you didn't like the implications of - because of how it impacted your views/statements. I guess this is just like your put-downs about non-adult behavior.

You constantly cast things in terms of black-white, good-evil and then you accuse me of doing so when I am clearly making a more nuanced point. That is about as fucking childish and dishonest as a human being can be. That is when I wonder why the hell I bother with you - and think why in the hell would any parent let you anywhere near their children.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Well, you just admitted above that not everything in the Bible is accurate so I guess that puts you in the same boat, eh?

WTF?!?!?!? What are you smoking? Where?

I have to use weasel questions to WIN THE ARGUMENT.

Yes you do. Juris was testing your actions against your words. Your obvious dodging of the question suggests one word:

Hypocrite
noun

1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

#3-Projection/Flipping

Asserted without evidence. (As usual.) Here are some of YOUR statements which prompted my conclusion:

while there are many fundamentals that clearly are still applicable today, several parts of the Bible are not. For example, I'm not going to let men from thousands of years ago dictate sexual mores today.

First of all, I think Paul was talking more about…

It's childishly dishonest to compare his words 2000 years ago to…

And in our last debate on justice, you focused on a single verse in Hebrewas 8, AND TOTALLY DISREGARDED HEBREWS 9 because it disagreed with your a priori conclusions.

Gee, what possible reason could I have for thinking that you pick and choose scripture, other than you SAYING and DOING precisely that?

(So who is doing the projection/flipping here? Again, the answer is obvious. You've been doing exactly that for so long that it's #9 in the list of your standard responses.)

A. Noni Mouse said...

That is when I wonder why the hell I bother with you

Probably for the same reason(s) I keep getting sucked in.

1) His insanity cannot be permitted to win by default.

2) The (admittedly futile) hope that he might show some glimmer of actually thinking things through.

Mark Ward said...

and think why in the hell would any parent let you anywhere near their children.

Well, that's a ridiculous comment...gee whiz! It's not part of the job description of an instructor to spout opinions. It's his or her job to encourage opinions. Let's end the hyperbolic ad hominem, for pete's sake.

WTF?!?!?!? What are you smoking? Where?

I said:

So, let me see if I understand you correctly here. Human civilization has not advanced at all in the last 2000 years on any sort of level...culturally, sexually, religiously, economically, politically...and everything that is written in the Bible (by men, not women) applies to today. Everything. Is that accurate?

Then you responded

Of course not. That's just another of your straw men. (Burn, baby, burn!)

I would hope that your elaboration on "of course not" would include the following list of things that aren't accurate in the Bible and don't apply to today.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

(cont'd)

Mark Ward said...

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Should I call the police? Or the nearest Bush supporter?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear glasses and contact lenses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Do I need to plunk down the dough for lassic surgery?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? Perhaps a boiling pit of sewage only with the rest of the homosexuals and fornicators.

9. I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Should I go on?

Mark Ward said...

1) His insanity cannot be permitted to win by default.

Win at what exactly? I'm confident that no one other than us is paying any attention to this exchange. And I only get a couple hundred readers per post, most of whom read and never look at comments.

2) The (admittedly futile) hope that he might show some glimmer of actually thinking things through.

Well, that's my hope for you guys as well. So far, no movement nor attention to the complexities in life. Frankly, I don't understand how you can have the same explanation (government=bad) for everything in life. It seems awfully limiting in a world that constantly changes.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Interesting that all of your quotes are from Leviticus and Exodus. They are all only "inaccuracies" when ripped free of their context. Of course, ripping stuff out of context is yet another example of picking and choosing what to pay attention to. Why is it supposedly my fault when you distort what the Bible says and try to beat me up with your distortion?

My answer is really quite simple:

Who were these laws given to? Be specific. Hint, the answer is also in the Bible. (You know: part of that pay attention to the whole Bible thing.)

BTW, before you get too far down the rabbit trail, time to go back the main topic…

A) The cartoon's claim which we are addressing is simple: GOD would force people to give to the sick and needy. Yes, via the government, but God is the originator of that force. You have agreed with, and continue to argue in favor of, this claim.

B) The Bible says that God does NOT force people to give to the sick and needy. You have also agreed to this.

The point is dead simple: A and B DIRECTLY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER!!! Period.

What say you?

A. Noni Mouse said...

One more quick note:

(government=bad)

Straw man, and you know it.

juris imprudent said...

Let's end the hyperbolic ad hominem, for pete's sake.

Let me see, this is coming from the same person who just said

And we're back to the Rigid World of the Right.

and

not winning is the end of the fucking universe for you, you piss and moan like a teenager for being forced

Take your own fucking advice. Live it before you preach it you miserable hypocrite. I'm done with coddling you!

A. Noni Mouse said...

BTW, for evidence that "(government=bad)" is a straw man, simply scroll up 16 comments to my comment time stamped 6:12 PM.

I didn't say what government's appropriate job is in my own words, I used a quotation.

Mark Ward said...

Noni, the central problem that we have here is that you are attempting (and failing massively) to insert yourself between me and Jesus. People that have your mind set do this often. How can I possibly not see the Bible the way you do? (the right and ONLY way)? And now I'm taking things out of context and the words don't actually mean what they actually mean? Sheesh...

People telling me to believe in Republican Jesus turned me off from Christianity for years until I realized that what other people thought didn't matter. All that mattered was my own, personal relationship with the Lord. I'm not insecure as to want to force people to believe a certain way or else.

For whatever reason, you need to have Jesus and God defined in a a a very specific way. In my opinion, you have taken this cue from men (not God) who were not nearly as advanced as we are today. But if that what works for you, I don't really care.

What's odd about this, though, is that it's the complete opposite of what you espouse politically-rugged individualism. For faith, I guess, everyone has to think the same way. How sad...

A. Noni Mouse said...

Still hopping down that bunny trail Marxy?

Get back on subject! I will go back to your bunny trail only if you answer my question on the main topic:

A) The cartoon's claim which we are addressing is simple: GOD would force people to give to the sick and needy. Yes, via the government, but God is the originator of that force. You have agreed with, and continue to argue in favor of, this claim.

B) The Bible says that God does NOT force people to give to the sick and needy. You have also agreed to this.

The point is dead simple: A and B DIRECTLY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER!!! Period.

What say you?

A. Noni Mouse said...

Hello? Brave Sir Marxy?

Mark Ward said...

I'm not sure where else we can go here. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you have no interest in opening up your mind at all. You've married your theology with civil religion in an extremely warped fashion, sadly a common occurrence these days (see: Lofgren's Syndrome). So, unless you demonstrate some willingness to be more open minded, there's not much more point to this conversation.

A. Noni Mouse said...

It's just simple logic. When you find yourself faced with a logical contradiction which you cannot get past, it means that something is wrong with your thinking. It's telling that you prefer the contradiction.

"Opening up your mind" is not the same thing as accepting the illogical. True critical thinking requires filtering out the illogical.

In a seminal study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser defines critical thinking as follows “The ability to think critically, as conceived in this volume, involves three things: ( 1 ) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skill in applying those methods.

Perhaps you've heard the phrase about "being so open minded that your brains run out"? Sorry, I simply cannot be that "open minded" that I abandon logic and critical thinking.

(see: Lofgren's Syndrome)

What the heck does sarcoidosis have to do with anything? Is this just another demonstration of your thinking skills?

sasquatch said...

Speaking of batshit, do you have a life, A. Noni Mouse?

Mark Ward said...

A. Noni, at this point I'm just legitimizing your ravings by engaging you. Not really my cup of tea. If you can actually follow the advice you give above regarding critical thought, I'd be willing to reconsider.

GuardDuck said...

Ravings?

Heck Mark, A. Noni has a logical point and a legitimate question.

Your argument is inconsistent, illogical and mostly incoherent. That would make you the one who is raving.

A. Noni Mouse said...

ravings

Typical. When you encounter an argument you can't answer but refuse to admit, you just resort to name calling, otherwise known as the ad hominem logical fallacy.

If you can actually follow the advice you give above regarding critical thought

And as usual, another bald assertion without any argument to back it up whatsoever. Also note that this is also an ad hominem fallacy. Thoroughly ironic given your statement. You might want to actually study the rules of logic, starting with the basics. I suggest you begin with the one you're currently having trouble with: the Law of Noncontradiction.

Since we've now reached the "last words" with Mark running off in a huff, I'll shut down his bunny trail now that his answer to the primary point is to stick to the lie come hell or high water.

…you are attempting (and failing massively) to insert yourself between me and Jesus.

I am making the case for what the Bible says. (And my central point is actually one you agree with!!!) So by your standard, every single person who has suggested an interpretation of the Bible has "inserted [themself] between you and Jesus." That includes every person you have accepted teachings from. To get away from that type of "insertion", you need to stop going to church, never listen to any preacher or other teacher, never read a commentary, and only use a Bible with no reference markings or study notes. Ever.

But perhaps you haven't noticed, but I have actually tried to prevent such insertions. That's why I actually copy the passages to read for yourself. That's why I include the references, so you can look those passages up for yourself to check their meaning in their context. And especially, that's WHY I ask you questions like "Who were these laws given to?" with the hint of "the answer is also in the Bible." My goal with such questions are an attempt to get you to look at the Bible, notice the details, and think it through FOR YOURSELF!!! The only reason I wind up stating the answers to those questions (as I'm about to do) is because you actively REFUSE to even address those questions.

A. Noni Mouse said...

How can I possibly not see the Bible the way you do? (the right and ONLY way)?

There is only ONE meaning of what the words in the Bible that matters. That is God's meaning. Not mine. Not yours. God's. That means the only valid method of reading the Bible is to allow the meaning of those words to come from the text to us. There is even a standard of practice for accurately interpreting what someone else has said. The general term for that is Hermeneutics (which actually applies to all forms of communications) and more specifically, Exegesis (which applies specifically to texts).

Here are two good books on Exegesis:

How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth

Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation

When you ignore the plain meanings of words and grammar used in a sentence and use your own non-standard word definitions instead, you are not using exegesis, you're using Eisegesis:

the opposite of exegesis (to draw out) is eisegesis (to draw in), in the sense of an eisegetic commentator "importing" or "drawing in" his or her own purely subjective interpretations in to the text, unsupported by the text itself, instead of "drawing out" a fuller objective meaning of the text. Eisegesis, often used as a derogatory term, implies that the reader is importing his or her own meaning into the text.
— from the entry on Exegesis

To expect to get God's meaning from a sentence when you are replacing that meaning with your own is patently absurd. You may accidentally match part of God's actual meaning from time to time. But the only meaning you can be sure of getting when you practice eisegesis is your own meaning.

I think it's important to note that admitting that the meaning of a particular passage is unclear is not eisegesis. It just means that the results of sound exegesis produces a result which is uncertain. On the other hand, claiming an unclear passage directly conflicts a clear passage from the same source when there is a reasonable interpretation which does not conflict is eisegesis.

Eisegesis is what you do all the time, even to comments by those you disagree with. That's why we constantly slam you for setting up straw man arguments and dishonesty about our arguments. When you read your own meanings into our words, you are practicing eisegesis, not exegesis. In your case, it's even more fundamentally dishonest than reading meanings into the Bible because we actively attempt to correct your distortions, yet you deliberately and aggressively reject those corrections.

…the words don't actually mean what they actually mean?

I posted the dictionary definitions of important words in this debate. Those definitions are what the words "actually mean." You are the one who has been using alternate meanings, which is one of the tactics of eisegesis.

A. Noni Mouse said...

And now I'm taking things out of context…?

Yes you are. My question, "Who were these laws given to?" was an attempt to get you to look at that context. Since you have REFUSED to do so, I will have to do it for you.

Every single one of those laws you quoted was given to one particular group of people, with only one minor variation. And in every case (with one minor exception) who that group is was explicitly stated just prior to each set of laws. So let's look at those references you gave. (Note: I am changing the order of the references you gave to match their order in the Bible.) Can you spot the pattern?:

Exodus 21:7 (selling a daughter)

Context: “Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them:”
— Exodus 21:1

Who is "them"? Check the context: Then the LORD said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,”
— Exodus 20:22

BTW, there are extra details on this one, specifically, the specific meaning of the Hebrew word translated as "female slave":

In Exod 21:7–11 it is clear that the Hebrew father sells his daughter as an hDmDa specifically in order for her to marry her new master or his son.
— New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis

(Oh look, there's that Exegesis word again!)

So once you look at the details and get the meaning from the text, you see that this is not "slavery" as practiced in pre-Civil War America, it is something very different. Once you realize that, the purpose of rest of the context (verses 8-11) becomes clear: these laws were to keep the daughter from being treated as less than a wife acquired through other means.

Exodus 35:2 (Sabbath)

Context: Then Moses assembled all the congregation of the sons of Israel, and said to them, “These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do:”
— Exodus 35:1

Leviticus 1:9 (burnt offerings)

Context: Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them,”
— Leviticus 1:1–2

Leviticus 11:6-8 (eating unclean animals)
and
Leviticus 11:10 (eating shellfish)

Context: The LORD spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying,”
— Leviticus 11:1–2

BTW, you said:

eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.

English translations can hide some of the subtlety of the original language here. But even in English there is a significant clue in understanding the context. Look at the actual verse:

‘But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,’
— Leviticus 11:10

Compare that to the Levitical law against homosexuality:

‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.’
— Leviticus 18:22

Do you see something missing in that description as an "abomination"? Those two little words, "to you," define the scope of who is to apply that definition of "abomination". For shellfish, it limits that definition to "the sons of Israel." There is no such limitation to "abomination" when applied to homosexuality, which makes it a universal judgement.

Also, most English translations use "detestable" in the passage about shellfish. (The KJV and WEB are the only exceptions I found.) This is because the Hebrew word usually translated "detestable" in Leviticus 11:10 & 11 is different than the word usually translated as "abomination" in Leviticus 18:22.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Oh crud. Blogger is eating comments again.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Leviticus 15:19-24 (menstruating woman)

Context: The LORD also spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel, and say to them,”
— Leviticus 15:1–2

Leviticus 19:19 (not mixing two kinds)
and
Leviticus 19:27 (beard trimming)

Context: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying:
“Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them,”

— Leviticus 19:1–2

Leviticus 20:14 (penalties for sexual sins)

Context: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “You shall also say to the sons of Israel:
— Leviticus 20:1–2

Leviticus 21:20 (no defects)

Context: Then the LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them:”
— Leviticus 21:1

This is the exception in who the law applies to, which I mentioned at the beginning. The restrictions given in Leviticus 21 apply to a much more restricted group than all the other laws you mentioned. In this case, it's not "the sons of Israel", but only the priests giving the offerings in the temple.

You said:

Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear glasses and contact lenses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Do I need to plunk down the dough for lassic surgery?

Did you keep reading the context?

‘No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to offer the LORD’S offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God.’
— Leviticus 21:21

Are you a descendent of Aaron who is taking care of butchering and burning the sacrifices prior to Jesus' crucifixion? Then you have a problem.

Leviticus 24:10-16 (the woman who blasphemed)

This is the other exception I mentioned. In this case, the law was given after the incident occurred. In fact, the giving of that law, and it's context was given in the range of verses you referenced:

Context: “You shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying,”
— Leviticus 24:15

Leviticus 25:44 (slaves)

Context: The LORD then spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them,”
— Leviticus 25:1–2

Did you spot the pattern yet? Do you recognize the context? Every single one of these laws was given to the nation of Israel as part of the Mosaic Covenant; with the exception of the one which was for a subset of Israel—the priests. Not one of them was given to anyone outside of that nation, either during that time period, or today. But you are trying (and failing miserably) to rip them out of their context and apply them to Christians today. That's like trying to prosecute someone in Minnesota for violating one of Florida's laws, or one of France's laws.

So heck yeah, you ARE ripping things out of context.

A. Noni Mouse said...

BTW, here is the entry concerning slavery from "Hard Sayings of the Bible" which gives important background info:

Does God Approve of Slavery?

Does God approve of slavery? If not, why do we find so much legislation in the Old Testament on how to treat slaves?

There were basically two types of slaves in the Old Testament: the fellow Hebrew who sold himself in order to raise capital (Lev 25:39–55; Deut 15:12–18) and the foreign prisoner of war. In the postexilic days, during the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, there was a third type known as the
ne tinim. Their origins were probably the same as those Gibeonites of Joshua’s day who became cutters of woods and carriers of water rather than risk losing their lives in further miliary opposition to Israel.

Never, however, did Israel ever enter into the capture and sale of human life as did the Phoenician and Philistine traders and later the European nations. The third class of slaves called the
ne tinim never were real serfs, but instead formed a clerical order attached to the temple with positions ranking just below that of the Levites, who also assisted in the services at the temple.

A fellow Israelite who needed to raise money to pay for debts or the like could not borrow against his property (for that was owned by the Lord according to Leviticus 25:23) but had to sell the only asset he possessed: his labor power. However, there were strict rules that governed his or her treatment during the maximum of six years that such a relationship could be entered into with another Israelite. Should any master mistreat his slave with a rod, leaving an injury, the owner forfeited his whole investment (Ex 21:20–21, 26) and the slave was immediately released, or if the master caused the slave’s death, the master was subject to capital punishment.

What about the status of non-Hebrew slaves? These captives were permanent slaves to the Israelites, but that did not mean that they could treat them as if they were mere chattel. The same rules of Exodus 21:20–21, 26 applied to them as well. One evidence of a mistreatment and they too went free. The foreign slave, along with the Hebrew household, had a day of rest each week (Ex 20:10; Deut 5:14).

A female slave who was married to her captor could not be sold again as a slave. If her master, now her husband, grew to hate her, she had to be liberated and was declared a free person (Deut 21:14).

The laws concerning slavery in the Old Testament appear to function to moderate a practice that worked as a means of loaning money for Jewish people to one another or for handling the problem of the prisoners of war. Nowhere was the institution of slavery as such condemned; but then, neither did it have anything like the connotations it grew to have during the days of those who traded human life as if it were a mere commodity for sale. This type of slavery was voluntary for the Hebrew and the
ne tinim; only the war prisoner was shackled involuntarily. But in all cases the institution was closely watched and divine judgment was declared by the prophets and others for all abuses they spotted.

A. Noni Mouse said...

(reposting without links to the books. I also made a handful of corrections. This was supposed to be between the 6:19 PM and 6:30 PM comments.)

How can I possibly not see the Bible the way you do? (the right and ONLY way)?

There is only ONE meaning of what the words in the Bible mean that matters. That is God's meaning. Not mine. Not yours. God's. That means the only valid method of reading the Bible is to allow the meaning of those words to come from the text to us. There is even a standard of practice for accurately interpreting what someone else has said. The general term for that is Hermeneutics (which actually applies to all forms of communications) and more specifically, Exegesis (which applies specifically to texts).

Here are two good books on Exegesis:

How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart

Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation by Henry Virkler and Karelynne Ayayo

When you ignore the plain meanings of words and grammar used in a sentence and use your own non-standard word definitions instead, you are not using exegesis, you're using Eisegesis:

the opposite of exegesis (to draw out) is eisegesis (to draw in), in the sense of an eisegetic commentator "importing" or "drawing in" his or her own purely subjective interpretations in to the text, unsupported by the text itself, instead of "drawing out" a fuller objective meaning of the text. Eisegesis, often used as a derogatory term, implies that the reader is importing his or her own meaning into the text.
— from the entry on Exegesis

To expect to get God's meaning from a sentence when you are replacing that meaning with your own is patently absurd. You may accidentally match part of God's actual meaning from time to time. But the only meaning you can be sure of getting when you practice eisegesis is your own meaning.

I think it's important to note that admitting that the meaning of a particular passage is unclear is not eisegesis. It could mean that the results of sound exegesis produces a result which is uncertain. On the other hand, claiming that an unclear passage directly contradicts a clear passage from the same source when there is a reasonable interpretation which does not conflict is eisegesis.

Eisegesis is what you do all the time, Mark, including to comments by those you disagree with. That's why we constantly slam you for setting up straw man arguments and dishonesty about our arguments. When you read your own meanings into our words, you are practicing eisegesis, not exegesis. In your case, it's even more fundamentally dishonest than reading meanings into the Bible because we actively attempt to correct your distortions, yet you deliberately and aggressively reject those corrections.

…the words don't actually mean what they actually mean?

I posted the dictionary definitions of important words in this debate. Those definitions are what the words "actually mean." You are the one who has been using alternate meanings, which is one of the tactics of eisegesis.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Oh goody. Blogger also ate the repost of the comment that belonged between 6:19 PM and 6:30 PM. Must have been those $1 words I used.

It's so ironic that you can cuss like a sailor on Blogger and be just fine. But careful arguments that use specific philosophical terms get filtered.

Mark Ward said...

Sorry about the eaten posts, A. Noni. I have cleaned out the Spam bin and posted them. I guess we're back to the arbitrary and bizarre spam selection from blogger again. Drag.

There is only ONE meaning of what the words in the Bible mean that matters. That is God's meaning. Not mine. Not yours. God's

Well, therein lies the problem. First of all, men (and I do mean men) wrote the Bible. It was also written in a different language, in a different culture and translated several times through multiple interpretations. Any serious critical thinker would wonder how much has been lost or changed.

I also think that people come to God and Jesus in many different ways. There isn't one "right" way. By saying there is implies that you are speaking for God and I think that's pretty vain.

There's also nothing "logical" about it. We're talking about faith, here. That's the whole point. All of your writings here are trying to prove something to me (why I really don't know but I have some ideas) that doesn't have to be proven. It's up to me how to receive the word of the Lord. Again, you are inserting yourself between me and God. No one gets to do that.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Sorry about the eaten posts, A. Noni. I have cleaned out the Spam bin and posted them.

Thank you. I do respect that about you.

It was also … translated several times through multiple interpretations.

I'll deal with the other assertions later, but this one is just plain silly. Every modern English translation (except the Roman Catholic Bible, which is translated via Latin) is translated directly from the original languages. Have you forgotten already that when we were arguing about "compulsion" from 2 Corinthians 9:7 that I went back to the original Greek word Paul used? (time stamped 10:32 PM)

Here's more info:

How many translations did your Bible go through?

Answer: One