Contributors

Friday, December 20, 2013

Sully Weighs In

Andrew Sullivan has weighed in on the Phil Robertson flap with his usual fantastic insight. This is a fascinating glimpse into the fundamentalist mind.

You’ll notice that, for the fundamentalist, all sin – when it comes down to it - starts with sex. This sexual obsession, as the Pope has rightly diagnosed it, is a mark of neurotic fundamentalism in Islam and Judaism as well as Christianity. And if all sin is rooted in sex, then the homosexual becomes the most depraved and evil individual in the cosmos. So you get this classic statement about sin: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there.”

The reason for this has to do with their own hangups about sex. They are actually the ones obsessed with it, not the ones with which they act as God's personal judges. It makes sense when you think about it because without the threat of hellfire they would lose control of themselves and do God knows what.

This emphasis is absolutely not orthodox Christianity. There is nothing primary about sexual sin as such in Christian doctrine. It sure can be powerfully sinful – but it’s not where sin starts. And to posit gay people as the true source of all moral corruption is to use eliminationist rhetoric and demonizing logic to soften up a small minority of people for exclusion, marginalization and, at some point, violence. 

Indeed. To gauge whether or not this is a valid point, simply read the Bible. Compare what sort of emphasis is given to sex as opposed to helping out your fellow man or loving one another despite human failings. 

He simply assumes that all men must be heterosexual, and that making themselves have sex with another man must be so horrifying it mystifies him. It isn’t logical if it were a choice for a straight guy. But it isn’t. All we’re seeing here is the effect of cultural isolation. The only thing I find objectionable about it – and it is objectionable – is the reduction of gay people and our relationships to sex acts. Mr Robertson would not be happy – indeed, rightly be extremely offended – if I reduced his entire family life and marriage to sex with a vagina.

For the fundamentalist, being gay is all about the sex because that's what they are obsessed with...likely because they themselves desire it so much in some way or another. I wonder how many of them have ever thought about the gay people who live and love together in many other ways besides sex. They probably aren't friends with any gay people so, as is usually the case, they are simply ignorant.


32 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

There is nothing primary about sexual sin as such in Christian doctrine.

LOL - apparently you aren't familiar with St. Paul or St. Augustine. No, no issues with sexuality at all.

Wow.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing primary about sexual sin as such in Christian doctrine.

Hmmmm… Let's check the scoreboard, shall we?

“But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
— Jesus, Matthew 5:32

“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.”
— Jesus, Matthew 15:19

“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
— Jesus, Matthew 19:9

“For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,”
— Jesus, Mark 7:21

but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
— Acts 15:20

“that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
— Acts 15:29

“But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.”
— Acts 21:25

Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy.
— Romans 13:13

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.
— 1 Corinthians 5:1

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
— 1 Corinthians 5:9–11

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
— 1 Corinthians 6:9

“Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
— 1 Corinthians 6:13

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
— 1 Corinthians 6:18

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
— 1 Corinthians 7:2

We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.
— 1 Corinthians 10:8

Anonymous said...

I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced.
— 2 Corinthians 12:21

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,
— Galatians 5:19

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.
— Ephesians 5:3

For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
— Ephesians 5:5

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
— Colossians 3:5

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality;
— 1 Thessalonians 4:3

the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
— 1 Timothy 1:10

that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.
— Hebrews 12:16

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.
— Hebrews 13:4

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
— Jude 1:7

But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.
— Jesus, Revelation 2:14

But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality.
— Jesus, Revelation 2:20–21

nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.
— Revelation 9:21

Another angel, a second, followed, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality.”
— Revelation 14:8

“with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.”
— Revelation 17:2

The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality.
— Revelation 17:4

“For all nations have drunk
the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality,
and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her,
and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living.”

— Revelation 18:3

And the kings of the earth, who committed sexual immorality and lived in luxury with her, will weep and wail over her when they see the smoke of her burning.
— Revelation 18:9

“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
— Revelation 21:8

Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
— Revelation 22:15

Yeah. Clearly the Bible doesn't condemn sexual sin at all.

</sarc>

Mark Ward said...

Now list all the verses that talk about helping the poor and being nice to people. If the center of the Bible was sin and sex, why didn't Jesus make that the Golden Rule? A rule that both you and Robertson utterly fail at in your bile directed at homosexuals.

Anonymous said...

If the center of the Bible was sin…

Other than creating the universe, what is THE most notable thing God did? Why did He do it?

Now look at those verses again. Sexual immorality is highlighted because that's what you made your claim about. But notice that in many cases that isn't the only sin mentioned. It's not just about sexual sin, it's about sin. Period.

Now list all the verses that talk about helping the poor…

I could, but unlike you did, I don't deny them. There would also be a notable hole: there is not even a single verse teaching such in the Gospel of John. If that was THE central issue, how could an entire book about Jesus' time on Earth written by his closest friend and disciple fail to mention such a teaching even once?

…and being nice to people.

There aren't very many of those. There are a lot more about loving people; both that we are to do so, and what that means. Heck, Jesus even pointed out that the entire Old Testament is the "how to manual" on loving God and others:

“On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
— Matthew 22:40

There are also passages that explicitly teach about what love is; First Corinthians 13 be the most notable instance. Notice this part of what true love actually is:

it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.
— 1 Corinthians 13:6

Biblical love is not like a purple dinosaur that pats people on the head and feeds them sugar. True love tells the Truth and does so in a way intended to help the other person:

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
— Galatians 6:1

Oh wait, that's one of those verses on being nice to people! But notice that it's "be nice while telling them the truth."

But Jesus wasn't always nice to people. He sometimes used very harsh language. For example:

“For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.”
— Jesus, Matthew 23:27

Woah! That's harsh! And that's just a sample.

Who was He so harsh to? Religious leaders who pretended to be religious, but actually led people away from God and replaced the teachings of Scripture with their own traditions.

Bottom line on this topic: What caused those religious leaders to crucify Jesus? It's because He told the truth! But they didn't like it. Being "nice" to people isn't what Jesus came for. He came to tell and perform the truth. And that is why some people hated Him.

“And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
— John 3:19–21

Mark Ward said...

How about some verses that discuss the evils of worshipping money and what happens to wealthy or greedy people?

Just an idea, NMN, but if you are trying to prove that sex is not the cornerstone of sin, listing all the verses that have to do with sex and putting them in bold hinders your argument. And you still have key questions to answer

Why are you so obsessed with other people's sex lives?

Why are you so obsessed with sin when Hebrews 8 and Romans 10, 9-10 clearly state that God has forgiven our sins and demands only a belief in Jesus?

Is juris going to hell?

It's been a couple of weeks since I answered all of your questions with nary a response from you. In addition to being wrong in your interpretation of the Bible, you dodge any sort of discussion that could possibly disrupt your ideology.

GuardDuck said...

but if you are trying to prove that sex is not the cornerstone of sin, listing all the verses that have to do with sex and putting them in bold hinders your argument

Really? So tell me, if I were to go looking somewhere to tell me what was the cornerstone of sin - where would I look?

Dianetics? Harry Potter? Art of motorcycle maintenance?

Oh wait - The Bible? And where in the Bible? Verses? And to prove it to you would it be better to quote those verses or just say 'it's in there somewhere, find it yourself?'

Jeez.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Mark. We are all well aware that you are willing to tell any lie necessary to avoid admitting the truth. But there is nothing more irritating than you pulling out a pure, blatantly hard-core #12 Response. I quote:

The "I'm a deliberate fuckwit!" response. When he discovers, yet again, that he cannot counter his opponent's argument, he intentionally mischaracterizes his opponent's argument, reasoning, meaning, and even the plain language of his statements, and then argues against his own mischaracterization as if it shows his opponent to be wrong. He does not care that this shows him to be fundamentally dishonest and/or unable to understand what his opponent actually wrote, but it gives him yet another opportunity to avoid admitting that he is wrong and/or that his opponent is correct. While this response often embodies one or more of his other Standard Responses, overall it is a distinct form that is easily recognized.

So let's review the argument, shall we?

YOU started with this:

(quoting Sullivan) There is nothing primary about sexual sin as such in Christian doctrine.

Markadelphia: Indeed. To gauge whether or not this is a valid point, simply read the Bible.

So I quoted those passages in DIRECT response to YOUR claim. To claim that I'm the one who keeps bringing it up when YOU are the one that did is a FLAT. OUT. LIE!

Then I explicitly pointed out that not all sin is sexual. In fact, explicitly pointing at that all sin is the central point of the Bible, and that sexual immorality is only a subset of sin. I quote:

Sexual immorality is highlighted because that's what you made your claim about. But notice that in many cases that isn't the only sin mentioned. It's not just about sexual sin, it's about sin. Period.

But no, you are so damned hung up on sex that you can't even recognize that I am not allowing you to LIE about what I'm saying.

Why are you so obsessed with other people's sex lives?

YOU are the one who keeps bringing it up. And even when I point out that it's not the sole issue in sin, you insist on hauling the focus back to sex. You're projecting more than a major multiplex movie theater, Mark.

Anonymous said...

…Hebrews 8 and Romans 10, 9-10…

I've answered that so many times that I'm sick of it. It is not my problem that you refuse to even acknowledge that I've answered it, and asked you questions about your interpretation which you refuse to answer.

July 2011

September 2011

August 2012

September 2012

December 2012

July 2013, entire thread starting at this point

September 2013 (and here, and here)

I said it then, and I'll say it again: You are a damned LIAR.

Furthermore, one of those simple questions you claimed you've answered, but didn't (copied into your post but not answered), is related to this point:

So you're claiming that the Jeremiah 31:33-34 prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yahweh as his/her God, even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly? (283 days and counting)

Is juris going to hell?

It's obvious that you're trying to start another fight between Juris and I to try to divert the heat you're feeling. I'm not falling for it. In fact, I'll simply quote him:

So M's claim to Christianity is like his claim to critical thinking - it is a status he desires therefore he claims it even if he possesses/exercises none of the relevant characteristics.

Narcissism squared.

Really puts that constant projective whining about juvenile attitudes in perspective.

Juris Imprudent

you dodge any sort of discussion that could possibly disrupt your ideology.

Aaaand once again, Mark, you're trying to be god by pretending to be a mind reader so you can judge me, while failing miserably. At the time you posted those "answers" I was out of the country doing what you think conservatives don't do. I haven't had time to deal with that post yet. (You threw a huge amount of garbage up against the wall all at once. I suspect you were trying the "overwhelm them with b***s***" tactic.) Don't worry, my responses are coming. Until then, I suggest you ponder this statement by Jesus:

For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
— Matthew 7:2

Mark Ward said...

Y'know, I've never understood why you have to say "we" so much more than "I." You really need to have that herd to feel more secure, don't you? Hence the reason why you won't answer a simple "yes" on the question of juris. Never break ranks at any cost!

My answer to that question, btw, is no, juris is not going to hell because the hell described in the Bible is largely a metaphor for a life without Christ. Or, to put it more simply, being left behind on earth (Hades, in the original Greek). Basically, I'm with Rob Bell (see: Fake Christian, devil worshiper, also going to hell) on this one...Love Wins:) The hell you believe in is something made up by frightened and ignorant men who needed an 8 year old death fantasy to prevent themselves from being too "inappropriately flexible" (Seig Heil!) More and more Christian leaders are thinking my way these days, NMN. The Pope...Rob Bell...the Unitarian Church. No wonder you say "we" as much as you do. On some level, you know that you are just plain wrong in your interpretation of the Bible. All of the other stuff you say is just window dressing for massive failure stemming from your own very fucked up view of the world.

Ah well, at least I take comfort in the fact that I have my answer to this question...

Or will he reject my gift, take it back, psychotically keep asking the questions over and over again, circle jerk for juris, GD, 6Kings and Larry, and pretend that I never answered the questions?

Rejected!

Anonymous said...

Y'know, I've never understood why you have to say "we" so much more than "I."

What the heck? When did I use "we" inappropriately?

Anonymous said...

As for hell:

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
— Jesus, Mark 8:38

“The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.”
— Jesus, John 12:48

Most of what we know about Hell comes from… yep, you guessed it, Jesus:

“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”
— Matthew 5:29–30

“…while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
— Matthew 8:12

“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
— Matthew 10:28

“The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
— Matthew 13:38–42

“So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
— Matthew 13:49–50

“And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.”
— Matthew 18:8–9

“And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
— Matthew 18:34–35

“Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.”
— Matthew 22:13–14

“‘And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”
— Matthew 25:30

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’”
— Matthew 25:41

“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
— Matthew 25:46

Anonymous said...

“And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’”
— Mark 9:43–48

“and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’”
— Luke 16:23–26

“‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.’”
— Revelation 2:11

What was it that Jesus said, again?

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
— Jesus, Mark 8:38

“The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.”
— Jesus, John 12:48

So let me get this straight. Jesus says we have to accept His words to be accepted by Him. His words included teaching on a literal and eternal hell. But you think it's the intelligent thing to do to reject His words on the subject? Hmmmm…

Think about how much you have to deny to deny hell. One of the things you have to reject is the idea that God is both perfect and holy. And you think such an assault on God's character is the intelligent choice? Hmmmm…

One more article from the Tim Challies that I agree with: I Hate Hell

Anonymous said...

Ah well, at least I take comfort in the fact that I have my answer to this question

Here is what you did in your "answers":

Primary Question: Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?

Related Questions: What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? So you're claiming that the Jeremiah 31:33-34 prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yahweh as his/her God, even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly?


Yep, there's the question. Let's look for the answer:

As a writer myself, I say no to the primary question because maybe someone else can dream up something even more wonderful than I intended. Being a reflective person, I welcome it, of course:) Perhaps I could inspire someone to a higher meaning, right? The other day in class I was offering a critique of John Maynard Keynes and a student raised his hand and said, "It seems that you are saying that Keynes' theories are too psychologically based." I hadn't actually said that but he took what I was saying and brought it to a higher level. It was magnificent. But really, it depends on the author. Bob Dylan would say yes. John Lennon would say no. NMN also seems to be lacking here in his understanding of the use of metaphor. Perhaps he doesn't understand symbolism either.

Anyway, the context of this question and the related ones is the Bible and the author's intent. As with all of his Bible, legal, constitutional, and morality related questions, NMN assumes he is the authority on the author's intent and proceeds (as always) with great hubris. He recently intimated that he is a more valid interpreter of the Bible than the pope. Wow, he's smart!

So, the question he lacks the courage to ask is "Am I the authority on Biblical interpretation, constitutional interpretation, and morality in terms of spiritual and civic law?" Or, more briefly, "Do I know what God is thinking?" The answer is no (and it's no for me as well) because he continually makes false assumptions based on emotions and a completely instransigent ideology. The failure is not with the authors but with NMN himself because he misinterprets, either purposefully, through ignorance or both, the author's intent. And, as I have mentioned far too many times, he also purposefully misinterprets what I say and turns my writings into gotcha questions (so, how long have you been beating your wife?) in order to go for the win and show off for the TSM people that read his comments. Does he know any other way? Thus far, the answer is no.


Short version: "Inserting my own meaning into someone else's words is just fine. NMN is an idiot who thinks he knows stuff but doesn't."

Not one word of that so-called "answer" had anything whatsoever to do with the words, descriptions, prophesies, conditions, or anything else having to do with the text of Jeremiah 31. You listed the question, then ignored it. Period. In fact, you did that with BOTH questions you listed as "related".

You did answer one, and only one question here, the first one. I will deal with it when I have belgian waffles, er, time.

Here's a hint, Mark: QUOTING a question and ANSWERING a question are two very different things.

Mark Ward said...

Look, NMN, it's been pointed out to me that you lack attention in your life and this is your social outlet. I also think that it's likely you had a pretty crappy relationship with one or both of your parents. That's true of most conservatives. Whether it's religion or politics, I can't imagine you have very many friends with the views you have so, again, it makes sense you post here.So, I don't mind entertaining these discussions from time to time because I understand what you get out of it.

It seems to me that you'd be better served losing the all the hate, judgement, anger and especially the fear you have that administers your life ideology. People who walk the path that Christ wanted us to walk have none of these things. You'll probably be a much happier person.

Anonymous said...

Sad, really.

Are you finished yet? Is it time for me to point out what it means when libel is the only argument made?

While I wait for your answer, here's something to chew on:

Every time you make a personal attack like this, it tells me that may be worried that I may know what I am talking about here and that you...well...may not. I'm not saying that this is a fact but it sure seems that way when you don't refute my points with evidence. So, please, rather than rip me, let's hear your evidence to the contrary.
— Markadelphia

Mark Ward said...

“So you have not received a spirit that makes you fearful slaves. Instead, you received God’s Spirit when he adopted you as his own children. Now we call him, “Abba, Father.” For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God’s children. And since we are his children, we are his heirs. In fact, together with Christ we are heirs of God’s glory.”
Romans 8: 15 – 17

"…And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below— indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.”Romans 8: 31-34,38,39

GuardDuck said...

Are you unable to read for context Mark.

The preface for those verses state that you must live through the spirit of God. Do you really believe that you can do that by denying God's words? Do you really believe that you can ignore 95% of what God has said and just pick and choose a few choice verses and you are 'living through the spirit of God'?

Hubris. Narcissism. Heresy.

Mark Ward said...

Considering you just denied God's word here, your questions have no foundation in reality. Of course, both you and NMN deny the power of the cross constantly given your obsessiveness with sin so it's not really surprising.

Both of you should read this.

http://escapetoreality.org/2011/01/14/12-reasons-why-christians-don%E2%80%99t-need-to-confess-to-be-forgiven/

GuardDuck said...

Only you Mark, would tell someone who is telling you to listen to ALL the words said rather than picking just a few of them - that they are the ones denying those words.

Mark Ward said...

What does Hebrews 8 mean to you, Guard Duck?

Anonymous said...

GuardDuck is spot on.

Reading ALL the words to arrive at a conclusion of what the author is saying is like doing a math problem: Point A + Point B = Conclusion C. If you ignore Point A or B, then your Conclusion about what the author is saying—even if it includes Point B or A—will be wrong.

It's like the oath given to witnesses, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Drawing a conclusion based on phrases and sentences stripped of important context is just a half-truth (at best). And a half-truth is just another way of saying "lie".

I find it fascinating that Mark quoted Romans 8 starting at version 15 so he can claim that everyone is justified. But why not start at verse 14 or even verse 13?

For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear…
— Romans 8:13–15a

Wait-a-minit! There are two categories of people that Paul is talking about here! Those who "live according to the flesh" and who are "led by the Spirit of God". If there are two different categories, and only those in the latter category get to claim the promises of verses 15-17 (plus the others Mark quoted). That's not "everyone", which is why Mark is the one actually denying God's Word, the very accusation he is attempting to project on GD (and me).

So what does Paul mean by these two categories? He explains the difference between the two leading up to those verses:

For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
— Romans 7:5–6

Paul then goes on to explain how the law alerts us to what sin is and that even when we have become followers of Christ, we still wage a daily battle against giving in to sin. Note that unlike Mark keeps saying, the definition of sin does not change, but changes in our behavior in that we become more able to avoid doing sinful things.

Then he clarifies the two states: flesh minded and sin centered vs. Christ centered.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.

— Romans 8:5–12

(Also see the definition of "repentence" I quoted in this comment for more on how both Jesus and Paul describe turning to God.)

When you look at how Paul defines these two categories and compare them to how Mark is directly and unequivocally contradicting God's word, the category that Mark fits into seems unavoidable. I would love to see Mark switch categories.

Anonymous said...

What does Hebrews 8 mean to you

I've addressed this with you before:

March 2013

September 2013

Here is what it says leading up to verse 12 (the one you're hanging your hat on):

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”

— Hebrews 8:10–12

These are the questions I asked back in March:

----------

So you're claiming that this prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yawheh as his/her God (previous verse), even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly?

----------

Strangely enough (not really, given that the writer of Hebrews is quoting Jeremiah), that sounds very much like another question Mark is continuing to dodge:

So you're claiming that the Jeremiah 31:33-34 prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yahweh as his/her God, even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly? (285 days and counting)

The answer to those questions are blindingly obvious to me. But I'm convinced that Mark is running away from these questions because he doesn't want to admit the truth; which is that these prophesies have not yet come to pass.

I also note, with some irony, who these prophecies are given to: "the house of Israel".

Anonymous said...

I've addressed what Hebrews 8 means for today, Mark. Now it's my turn:

What does Hebrews 10 mean to you, specifically this passage:

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
— Hebrews 10:26–31

GuardDuck said...

What does Hebrews 8 mean to you, Guard Duck?

NMN pretty much answered it, but I'll go.

Whatever it means to me is taken in the context of ALL the verses both before and after it. To take one single passage of anything while ignoring the rest is pretty stupid.

That'd kinda be like trying to say that Tom Saywer is a book about whitewashing fences, Harry Potter is a story about private schools, or Romeo and Juliet is primarily about suicide.....

Context means a lot. Reading for comprehension is required. You should try it sometime.

Mark Ward said...

Well, you are telling me to do two different things here. Look at the entire Bible and now analyze a passage. Which is it?

Either way, it doesn't really matter because your obsession with sin had led you to essentially negate the power of the cross. I look at passages like yours above and compare them to the other ones where we see clearly that Christ died for our sins and recognize that the Bible is filled with contradictions because men are flawed. We're talking about people over 2,000 years ago who lived in a different culture, spoke a different language and were not as advanced as we are today. They were trying to sort out what God and Jesus meant to them and they failed at some points...just like we all fail today, including me and you.

I think your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, NMN. You fail to accout for even the simplest of examinations. For example, the original Greek of the Bible uses the word "homologeo" which is then translated into "confess." But that word, in English, means acknowledge, not go through some song and dance because you mistakenly believe God is double-minded, unforgiving, quick to anger, and grudge holding. That's not what God is like anymore thanks to Jesus.

As I have pointed out many times, we no longer have a direct relationship with God any longer. That's OT thinking. We have a relationship with Jesus who is our advocate to God. All sin is forgiven if we simple believe in Him.

Mark Ward said...

1 John 2

2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

GuardDuck said...

Followed IMMEDIATELY by this:

"3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked."

Mark Ward said...

I never said anything about not keeping His commandments. Somehow you are under the false assumption that confessing is a commandment. It's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

Where is the part about confessing?

You should take look at the link I put up today and we can continue this discussion there. The SAB does fulfill your request about looking at the whole Bible, right?

GuardDuck said...

Where is the part I said about confessing? Somehow you are under the false assumption that you get to make up shit that I didn't say.

You are the one saying that the ONLY thing you need is to believe in Jesus. That means you are leaving out the NOT sinning part. You are also deciding to ignore parts of the Bible that you find inconvenient. If the Bible considers those parts you choose to ignore to be sins - what am I to infer?

Mark Ward said...

Romans 4

13 Clearly, God’s promise to give the whole earth to Abraham and his descendants was based not on his obedience to God’s law, but on a right relationship with God that comes by faith. 14 If God’s promise is only for those who obey the law, then faith is not necessary and the promise is pointless. 15 For the law always brings punishment on those who try to obey it. (The only way to avoid breaking the law is to have no law to break!)

16 So the promise is received by faith. It is given as a free gift. And we are all certain to receive it, whether or not we live according to the law of Moses, if we have faith like Abraham’s.

Juris Imprudent said...

Somehow you are under the false assumption that you get to make up shit that I didn't say.

Classic M - take something you did not say and demand that you either retract it or defend it.

That of course can only be done over the Internet because doing that face to face would likely result in a broken nose.