Contributors

Sunday, September 02, 2012


28 comments:

A. Noni Mouse said...

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

— 1 Corinthians 13:1–13

Funny. I don't see kissing anywhere in there.

There are three words in greek which are translated as love. Eros, which is physical attraction, the basis for our word "erotic". Phileo, which means brotherly love, thus Philadephia, the city of brotherly shove, er, I mean, love. Agape is the word for selfless love. Guess which one 1st Corinthians uses? Guess which one is used to describe God's love for us? Guess which one matches your graphic?

What about this aspect of love?

“Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.”
— Jesus, Revelation 3:19

Or this?

If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.
— John 15:10

Mark Ward said...

You do realize that there are many churches that marry gay couples.

And, again, sometimes the Bible is wrong.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Go back to your home page. Scroll down one post to the pictures of the embryo and starving child.

Now tell me, which kind of love are we supposed to demonstrate to that starving child? Kiss him on the lips and do whatever makes him feel good, up to and including drugging him into submission? Or feed him, thus demonstrating precisely the kind of love the Bible commands when it says "Love [agape] your neighbor as yourself"?

If your claim about the Bible being wrong in this is correct, then we need do nothing for that child. If you're correct that the starving child should be taken care of because of love, then the Bible is right about this kind of love and you're wrong.

GuardDuck said...

Don't forget, the meaning of the word wrong in this usage is not ’factually incorrect’. It is of the moral variety - applied from one set of moral standards to critique another set of moral standards. Which is much like telling someone that liking chocolate ice cream is wrong because strawberry is better.

Mark Ward said...

Noni, you're still operating under the "All or Nothing" assumption with the Bible. I'm saying we can't look to a culture from 2000 years ago that spoke a different language and expect all of it to apply to today. Clearly, slavery was wrong and yet the Bible condones it because it was acceptable at the time.

God's love and Christ's death both mean that sin is no longer a roadblock to heaven.

Anonymous said...

"God" doesn't approve of something you like? Just re-write the Bible!

Or just pick and choose those parts that make you a 'real Christian'.

Easy! We can all go to Heaven!

A. Noni Mouse said...

"God" doesn't approve of something you like? Just re-write the Bible!

Yep. Marxy makes it clear who his god is: Himself!

Mark, I used 1st Corinthians 13 and the other verses because they're the most effective at explaining something that even you recognize: the English word "love" covers wildly divergent emotions/actions which are not the same things. For example, parents who love their children and want the best for them, discipline them when necessary so they will grow into mature adults who can make wise decisions.

But your graphic (and your posting of it) pretends that getting it on is exactly the same as the best, most mature* kinds of love.** And that's the lie.

BTW, The WBC picture does accurately portray hate. But WBC is a fringe group opposed by almost every Christian and conservative because of their hate. Thus (as usual with you) it completely misrepresents most people who oppose homosexual activity.

* The couple--with Bourne doing most of the talking--emphasized one fact.

"A lot of young kids today want everything to be good, blue skies all the time," he said. "But over a lifetime, there's bad times, too, plenty of rain. You have to work through it together."


**"You should be more concerned with the happiness of the other person and your own happiness will follow."

6Kings said...

..and yet the Bible condones it because it was acceptable at the time.

It does nothing of the sort. Go back a read. The Bible, and Jesus, have a focus on God's relationship regardless of circumstance. Just because he didn't speak out against it doesn't mean they were condoning anything. Man institutes these burdens and institutions like taxation and slavery on each other, not God.

Larry said...

Mark is like his prophet, Obama, who in a 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times on his Christian beliefs:

Falsani: Do you believe in sin?

Obama: Yes.

Falsani: What is sin?

Obama: Being out of alignment with my values.

Just ponder that. O_o

A. Noni Mouse said...

The ‘Gay’-Activist Science Deniers

Mark Ward said...

It does nothing of the sort. Go back a read.

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves. 1 Timothy 6: 1-2

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. (Ephesians 6: 5-7)

Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft (Exodus 22:3)

A. Noni Mouse said...

So much for avoiding another one of Marky's rabbit trails. (Standard Response #4)

There are vast differences between slavery as permitted by the Bible (more correctly translated as "bond-servant") and the type of chattel slavery which Christians destroyed.

What God Says About Slavery

While it is clear that the ancient Jews did possess slaves, it is also clear that the reason for their possession, the manner in which they were treated, and the manner in which they could be released is was very different from the institution of slavery that existed in more recent times in Europe and here in America.

When American slave owners used the Bible to support their ownership, they clearly were either ignorant of the true nature of slaves in ancient times, or were willfully denying the truth about New Testament Slavery. These slave owners may have tried to use the Bible to support their position, but by doing so, they clearly twisted the intent and meaning of the scriptures,
[sound like anyone we know?] applying guidelines for one form of servitude to an entirely different form of slavery. It is unfair to say that the God of the Bible supports the institution of slavery that existed in the New World. That version of slavery has little in common with the version of servitude that existed in Biblical times.

Mark Ward said...

I don't get it, Noni. Take out your first line and you actually made a thoughtful comment that might have gone somewhere. Instead, you prefaced your point with personal remark.

Now, I don't mind if you say something like, "Here's where your argument fails or comes apart" and then back it up with evidence. But to say that I'm off topic doesn't make any sense. If you are as concerned about "winning," as you say you are, then stick to facts, evidence, and testimonials. Can you do it?

We're talking about where the Bible gets things wrong and why its view on homosexuality (like its view on slavery, women, ritual, and a whole host of other things) isn't applicable to today. And even if it was , it doesn't matter because of God has forgiven our wickedness and will remember our sins no more. (Hebrews 8:12). Start your next comment by sharing what you think this passage means.

Larry said...

“Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!” Isaiah 5:21

And sometimes the Bible is right. But then Obama's definition of sin sounds a lot more Nietzschean than it is related to anything recognizably Judeo-Christian (and sure as shit not out of the Koran).

A. Noni Mouse said...

Mark,

What does slavery have to do with the topic of what love is? Since when is pointing out your use of a logical fallacy a personal attack? And what does that have to do with whether or not the rest of the comment is valid?

Throwing slavery out like is intended to be a distraction from the point. That's why it is a Red Herring fallacy.

A related concept is that of the red herring, which is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject.

Mark, if you don't like being called out on your irrational garbage, then don't engage in it. It's really that simple.

Mark Ward said...

It has to do with your intimation that gay people kissing isn't really love because it's a sin and the Bible says so. Again, sometimes the Bible is wrong.

A. Noni Mouse said...

gay people kissing isn't really love

How about actors kissing in a movie? Is that love? What about kissing (and more) in a porno movie? Is that love? How about a john kissing a prostitute?

Face it, Mark. What you're calling "love" is mere eroticism. It is not full-blown self-sacrificing, other-focused love that produces everything from fulfilling lifetime marriages to a willingness to give up one's life to protect the one who is loved.

You can have true love without eroticism. For example, between a parent and child, between siblings, between close friends, God for us, etc.

You can have eroticism without love, as in my examples above. (If you pay any kind of attention, such erotism without love almost always has negative consequences.)

There is only one situation where love and eroticism are related (and safe): within a marriage. Even here, eroticism is not really love. It's more like the icing on the cake, but it's not the cake. Truly durable and fulfilling marriages are centered around a loving relationship which endures even when eroticism is not possible. In such a marriage, eroticism is a beautiful addition to the relationship, it is not the relationship itself. It's like a desert after the meal, not the meal itself. Again, it's like the spices used in a meal, but a meal made only of spices is neither nutritious nor truly enjoyable.

What you're passing off as "love" is a counterfeit. It may taste as a good as candy, but in the end it's only empty calories that cannot sustain you.

A. Noni Mouse said...

sometimes the Bible is wrong.

Which is harder? To get someone to write exactly what you want? Or to rise from the dead?

Again, which is harder? Having someone write want you want communicated? Or creating the universe?

Or how about walking on water? Changing water into wine? Raising someone from the dead? Healing someone who's blind, lame, paralyzed, maimed, etc.? How about feeding thousands of people with a couple of fish and a handful of biscuits? What about causing a storm to cease immediately?

Out of this entire list, there is only one thing which any human being can do—getting someone to write what they want written. It's called ghost writing. Not only can mere humans do this, we do it all the time.

A ghost writer is someone who writes a book or articles for someone else. The ghost writer is paid a sum of money to write the material needed and hand it over to the payee. The person who has paid for the work will then assign his name or someone else’s name to claim the work as his own.

Heck, ghost writing is such a well known activity that there was even a recent movie based on the concept.

I've only been able to come up with 3 options under which your claim makes logical sense:

1) God really is unable to do what any mere human can do—get what He wants said put into writing. Such a god is so absolutely pathetic that he's less that human. Such a "god" is like an idol that has to be nailed down to keep it from falling over, or carried around because it doesn't even have he ability to walk. (See Jeremiah 10:3-5)

2) The Bible does accurately reflect God's intentions, but it's still wrong. That makes God imperfect and/or evil. Again, that is not a god worth following. (Allah is such a "god".)

3) The Bible is God's word and it's right. This case reminds me of someone:

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”
— Genesis 3:1b

“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’

— Isaiah 14:12–14

You claim to follow a god who can supposedly do everything I listed. But you also claim that He is unable to do something mere humans do all the time. So which is it, Mark? Is God pathetic? Evil? Or are you putting yourself above God?

A. Noni Mouse said...

And of course, after Marky accuses us of being "pro-slavery", the DNC undermines his assertion with this.

Feel free to bask in the irony.

Mark Ward said...

There is only one situation where love and eroticism are related (and safe): within a marriage.

Safe? What does that mean? Further, how do you know that the people in this photo aren't married?

I do agree that the best relationships are built around love and that sex is much better and healthier in those types of relationships but it certainly is not the desert after the meal. It's part of the meal (no pun intended...well maybe a little:))

Your view here is an extension of the quite narrow minded views of sexuality from 2000 years ago that were largely controlled by men...men who very obviously were flipping out about their feelings for women (and men) of an erotic nature and couldn't cope with them. So, they made up a bunch of rules, said that God said them, and talked themselves into the fact that they were going to go to Hell if they didn't follow them. In some ways, I say, more power to them. If that's what it takes to control themselves, fine. But I don't think it's very healthy and people who think this way invariably end up the same way.

Getting back to the Bible, you still haven't addressed the content of Hebrews 8 yet. Considering that it was God who said it, I would think you would pay heed. Reading through the chapter, God essentially changed his mind, threw out the OC and now we have a NC which centers around grace, forgiveness and love.

So, perhaps you should address your three possibilities to God, not me. It's clear that the things you are asserting are contradicted by God him/herself.

My hope is that will you are doing this, you realize that the Bible contradicts itself which means that not everything in it applies to today. And that this simple fact doesn't negate everything in it or make accepting Christ into your heart impossible.

Mark Ward said...

Oh, and one more thing. There's nothing "logical" about faith. That's why they call it...faith.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Further, how do you know that the people in this photo aren't married?

How do you know that they are? All those pictures show is a physical activity.

you still haven't addressed the content of Hebrews 8 yet.

Why the heck are you wasting my time? You claim the Bible is "wrong" and contradictory. If your claims were true (They're not. Period.) then that would be the equivalent of arguing over the engine plans for the Millennium Falcon. It's simply irrational to base your argument on something YOU claim is a work of fiction. But then again, such irrationality is par for the course from you.

I will say that what you are reading into that passage is wrong. This sentence describes you perfectly:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
— 2 Peter 3:15–16

So let me see if I understand your response to the three options that match your view of the Bible. Yes, yes, and yes. Right?

I'm not sure whether you think God is less capable than a mere human, or merely error prone, capricious, and/or evil. Whichever it is, you obviously see God as flawed, but Markadelphia as perfect. No matter what it is, if it comes down to a conflict between what God says in His Word and what Mark wants to believe, Mark wins every time. This is your consistent pattern. Good luck with that.

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayedthus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
— Jesus, Luke 18:10–14

Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.

— Proverbs 16:18

Mark Ward said...

You can redirect back on me all you want but you're avoiding the issue. You've done a great job of ignoring a very pertinent section of the Bible...one that actually provides you with the answers you seek, not simply about me, but about God, that is the one that we worship now that Christ has died for our sins.

A. Noni Mouse said...

There's nothing "logical" about faith. That's why they call it...faith.

That is your own definition of the word "faith". That is not how the Bible uses the word. It's not even the dictionary definition of the word.

faith

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Notice that is there is not one single definition that states anything about believing something contrary to proven fact.

Jesus did not demand blind trust from his disciples. (That was Mohammad's schtick.)

And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may KNOW that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home.
— Matthew 9:2–7

How did anyone know the paralyzed man's sins were forgiven? Was there an icon that appeared over his head like in a video game? Did the heavens part and streams of light and an angel choir appear? Did the guy immediately start looking for a TV studio to preach the word? No, nothing visible happened. There was no way to prove that his sins were actually forgiven.

The scribes were partially right, only God can forgive sins. But they didn't know the Jesus is God. So how would Jesus show that his sins were actually forgiven? There's no way to do so on this earth. Jesus saying something like, "Really, his sins truly are forgiven. You can trust me" would not do it.

Instead, what Jesus explicitly proved (and said that He was proving) was that He has the authority to forgive sins by giving evidence that He is God. He did something that only God can do, heal the paralytic.

Notice even after that evidence is given, no one can know that his sins were forgiven. What can be known (and Jesus showed them something they can know), is that Jesus is no mere human. You still have to trust Him that the sins were forgiven, but now there is a reason to trust him.

A. Noni Mouse said...

In Biblical example after Biblical example, trust (faith) is tied to evidence. (These only scratch the surface.)

- God gave Moses signs to prove that God had sent him.

- God gave Gideon proof that God was really calling him.

- Prophets were required to have 100% accuracy (not humanly possible), or be put to death for lying about speaking for God.

- Jesus said His resurrection would be the final sign that He was truly who He claimed to be. (Matt 16:4, Luke 11:29)

- When Peter preached on the Day of Pentacost, he didn't preach "blind" or "illogical" faith, he pointed out the events his audience had witnessed with their own eyes.

- When John the Baptist sent messengers to Jesus asking Him if He was the promised Messiah, look at Jesus' response:

And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.”
— Matthew 11:4–5

In other words, "go give him the evidence you've seen with your own eyes."

That is not "illogical", that is thoroughly rational. If you think believing in something because it's illogical/irrational is a virtue, well, that's your problem. It's definitely not what God demands.

A. Noni Mouse said...

You've done a great job of ignoring a very pertinent section of the Bible

YOU claim it cannot be trusted. YOU, not me. YOU!!!

You're basing your argument on something YOU claim is not worth basing anything on.

Please, if you insist on wasting time, then demonstrate why this passage in a book YOU denigrate as "unreliable" can be relied on when nothing else can.

A. Noni Mouse said...

At least there's one thing Mark is being consistent at:

Markadelphia > God's Word

Good luck with that.

juris imprudent said...

You got a problem with your fellow Christians, why don't you drive down to Topeka and straighten them out?