Since you always have some folks who pretend that Scripture doesn't condemn homosexuality, or try to play divide-and-conquer games with Scripture, here are some exegetical studies on the subject: here (PDF); here; here; and here.
Thanks for proving you have no substance yet again. It's clear you cannot win an intellectual debate since that would require, you know, thinking and stuff.
Just stick to your talking points. They'll help you sleep at night.
Peter, what in particular about the video do you object to?
Their premise is that God can manifest His wrath on a disobedient through natural disasters and other similar forms of punishment. Believing they are among His elect, they take pleasure in what they believe are His righteous judgments.
I think you find them crude and a bit over-the-top and perhaps you find it embarrassing to be associated with what appears to be an inarticulate bunch (their writings are actually much more sophisticated and reasoned but no less vitriolic).
Westboro is in no way associated with me, James. And it is quite clear what you're doing is trying to tar and feather with ad hominem. This blog has consistently denounced Phelps. And you're fully aware of that.
Of course, your behavior is not at all surprising, as everyone can tell why you're banned (and what character you show continuing to post anyway! What great courage you have, what conviction, what passion, what dedication! It would be an obsession if you actually stopped occasionally; but this is something else.)
Tell you what. From now on, I'm going to associate you with a feces throwing monkey locked in a cage. Surely you may think that's crude and over the top, and monkeys really are slightly more articulate than you are. Yet, it follows your premise that you are just a distant relative of said feces throwing monkey. So, what could possibly be "the beef" with that?
Thanks for your demonstration of Christian love, Peter. And as far as winning an intellectual debate goes, I don't have a dog in that fight: I'm more interested in improving the world for my kids and yours too. And part of that improvement is chucking this outmoded idea that homosexuality is "sinful".
Cheers from rainy Vienna, and lunch is still on me if you're in town.
Zilch said: --- Thanks for your demonstration of Christian love, Peter. ---
But all I did was hold a mirror up to James. Surely you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to hold me to a standard you don't hold him to, would you?
You said: --- And as far as winning an intellectual debate goes, I don't have a dog in that fight: I'm more interested in improving the world for my kids and yours too. And part of that improvement is chucking this outmoded idea that homosexuality is "sinful". ---
This begs the question that A) homosexuality is not sinful and B) that it would be an improvement to get rid of the idea that it is a sin; both of which you need to actually argue for.
But both of which also miss the point. My response was to what James posted. I responded in kind as an illustration of what he had just done. This illustration was obviously spot on; yet you only get offended by one side of this.
If you were fair minded, you would have seen that James's original response was heinous; instead, you lauded it. It took you getting it slapped back in your own face to realize how offensive it was in the first place.
So if you want to "improve the world" how about you start by not promoting anti-Christian bigotry?
Yeah, I can speak the lingo just as well as you can.
I don't hate the Phelps family. On the contrary, I respect their honesty in terms of the Bible. They are not kooks, and I've said that before.
How is this "anti-Christian bigotry"?
What I'm trying to get you to see is that they ARE the face of Calvinism: God doesn't love everybody. God hates the reprobate. God's sending many, if not most, people to Hell and they can do nothing about their condition. God's judgments are ALWAYS righteous and He wills and decrees all, whether it's the death of a soldier or someone dying of cancer. Why not rejoice over His righteous decisions? Who are you, o man?
Just because you don't like the facts doesn't deny the validity of the conclusions. Quit trying to make your theology appear rosy and beautiful. It's not.
By the way, I never said I subscribed to Darwinian evolution.
That would be more believable, James, if you hadn't already been interacted with on this very subject. You've been corrected numerous times, yet continue your slander. It was for that kind of behavior that you were banned in the first place.
Again, you have no intention of engaging in an actual discussion. You only want to demonize a position you disagree with by pretending it's equivalent to another position that adherent to the first position have repeatedly denounced. If you could actually argue against Calvinism, you wouldn't have to pretend that Phelps is a Calvinist. He's not. And again, we've denounced him continously on this blog. You're barking up the wrong tree, as usual.
But you don't care about that because you're a dishonest blowhard. As I said in my original comment to you here: you just keep sticking to those talking points so you can get sleep at night.
"On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with making fun of homosexuals. It is a good thing to stigmatize sin, to make sin an object of shame and ridicule, as a deterrent to others." - http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/07/too-hot-to-handle-2.html
"Arminians complain that Calvinism reduces men to puppets. Although this is a caricature, the fact of the matter is that Scripture does present Pharaoh (and Nebuchadnezzar) as a puppet king, with God as the puppeteer." - http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/jacob-have-i-loved-1.html
"So let us, once and for all time, drop all the mock sentiment, all the false piety, all the perfunctory and hypocritical cant about how hard it is to stomach the doctrine of hell ... But we should never act as though we were in the wrong to be favored by God when others were passed by. A Christian is a trophy of God’s grace." - http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/12/alls-well-that-ends-well-1.html
"Mt 5:44-45 doesn’t say that God loves everyone. Rather, the point of Mt 5:44-45, like the parable of the wheat and the tares (note the same agricultural setting), is that God dispenses common grace to all as a way of dispensing special grace to the elect." - http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/12/alls-well-that-ends-well-2.html
Given this, you're a liar who has no grounds to dismiss Phelps. I see no substantive difference in your beliefs. Sorry.
"I see no substantive difference in your beliefs."
Cherry picking quotes out of context tends to blind people, James. That's why you can't see quotes like:
--- (ii) Fred Phelps is a hateful, spiteful cult-leader who speaks for no one except his cult following at Westboro Baptist Church. There are one-time homosexuals, saved by the grace of God, who will look down from heaven as he rots in hell with many of the same people he consigns to hell.
--- I certainly would not want to be held "guilt by association" to many so called Christian organizations whether they are terrorists or not. An example would be Fred Phelps and his group who protest at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. My Christianity is not the Christianity that they claim to have.
--- What in the world does this really mean? If it means that wacko professing pseudo-Christians that are hateful, rude, and downright obscene and vulgar in their denunciation of sinful activities, like the group from "Westboro Baptist Church" (which is actually a cult), then no wonder they feel rejected.
Now, even if you're dumb enough to think that we are equivelent to the Westboro scum, obviously we've stated many times our opinion of Phelps. The above, mind you, were written by three different T-Bloggers. Plainly, any attempt you make trying to link us to Westboro flies in the face of all the evidence that you could find as easily as you cherry picked random quotes already.
So yes, James, you are, have been, and apparently always will be a liar.
BTW, this doesn't even address the slander of your cherry-picked comments yet. For instance, your first quote somehow missed the preceding sentence which was:
--- On the one had, a Christian should avoid demeaning homosexuals as subhuman, of indulging in self-righteous pride, or resorting to obscenity. ---
Further, you missed the next sentence, which was:
--- Christians ought to avoid obscene slang, but not all slang is obscene. ---
Gee, wonder why you "forgot" to quote all that....
Here's a much better analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAPBao4SVhQ
ReplyDeleteIt's also a real toe-tapper!
Thanks, James! That really is catchy!
ReplyDeleteThanks for proving you have no substance yet again. It's clear you cannot win an intellectual debate since that would require, you know, thinking and stuff.
ReplyDeleteJust stick to your talking points. They'll help you sleep at night.
Peter, what in particular about the video do you object to?
ReplyDeleteTheir premise is that God can manifest His wrath on a disobedient through natural disasters and other similar forms of punishment. Believing they are among His elect, they take pleasure in what they believe are His righteous judgments.
I think you find them crude and a bit over-the-top and perhaps you find it embarrassing to be associated with what appears to be an inarticulate bunch (their writings are actually much more sophisticated and reasoned but no less vitriolic).
So what's your beef?
Westboro is in no way associated with me, James. And it is quite clear what you're doing is trying to tar and feather with ad hominem. This blog has consistently denounced Phelps. And you're fully aware of that.
ReplyDeleteOf course, your behavior is not at all surprising, as everyone can tell why you're banned (and what character you show continuing to post anyway! What great courage you have, what conviction, what passion, what dedication! It would be an obsession if you actually stopped occasionally; but this is something else.)
Tell you what. From now on, I'm going to associate you with a feces throwing monkey locked in a cage. Surely you may think that's crude and over the top, and monkeys really are slightly more articulate than you are. Yet, it follows your premise that you are just a distant relative of said feces throwing monkey. So, what could possibly be "the beef" with that?
Hey, watch as James manufactures another argument, puts it in his hand, and ingests it so he can share it with everyone later!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM7Rpf1x7RU
(BTW, don't watch it if you just ate or are about to eat... fair warning 'n all.)
Thanks for your demonstration of Christian love, Peter. And as far as winning an intellectual debate goes, I don't have a dog in that fight: I'm more interested in improving the world for my kids and yours too. And part of that improvement is chucking this outmoded idea that homosexuality is "sinful".
ReplyDeleteCheers from rainy Vienna, and lunch is still on me if you're in town.
Zilch said:
ReplyDelete---
Thanks for your demonstration of Christian love, Peter.
---
But all I did was hold a mirror up to James. Surely you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to hold me to a standard you don't hold him to, would you?
You said:
---
And as far as winning an intellectual debate goes, I don't have a dog in that fight: I'm more interested in improving the world for my kids and yours too. And part of that improvement is chucking this outmoded idea that homosexuality is "sinful".
---
This begs the question that A) homosexuality is not sinful and B) that it would be an improvement to get rid of the idea that it is a sin; both of which you need to actually argue for.
But both of which also miss the point. My response was to what James posted. I responded in kind as an illustration of what he had just done. This illustration was obviously spot on; yet you only get offended by one side of this.
If you were fair minded, you would have seen that James's original response was heinous; instead, you lauded it. It took you getting it slapped back in your own face to realize how offensive it was in the first place.
So if you want to "improve the world" how about you start by not promoting anti-Christian bigotry?
Yeah, I can speak the lingo just as well as you can.
I don't hate the Phelps family. On the contrary, I respect their honesty in terms of the Bible. They are not kooks, and I've said that before.
ReplyDeleteHow is this "anti-Christian bigotry"?
What I'm trying to get you to see is that they ARE the face of Calvinism: God doesn't love everybody. God hates the reprobate. God's sending many, if not most, people to Hell and they can do nothing about their condition. God's judgments are ALWAYS righteous and He wills and decrees all, whether it's the death of a soldier or someone dying of cancer. Why not rejoice over His righteous decisions? Who are you, o man?
Just because you don't like the facts doesn't deny the validity of the conclusions. Quit trying to make your theology appear rosy and beautiful. It's not.
By the way, I never said I subscribed to Darwinian evolution.
That would be more believable, James, if you hadn't already been interacted with on this very subject. You've been corrected numerous times, yet continue your slander. It was for that kind of behavior that you were banned in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you have no intention of engaging in an actual discussion. You only want to demonize a position you disagree with by pretending it's equivalent to another position that adherent to the first position have repeatedly denounced. If you could actually argue against Calvinism, you wouldn't have to pretend that Phelps is a Calvinist. He's not. And again, we've denounced him continously on this blog. You're barking up the wrong tree, as usual.
But you don't care about that because you're a dishonest blowhard. As I said in my original comment to you here: you just keep sticking to those talking points so you can get sleep at night.
"On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with making fun of homosexuals. It is a good thing to stigmatize sin, to make sin an object of shame and ridicule, as a deterrent to others."
ReplyDelete- http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/07/too-hot-to-handle-2.html
"Arminians complain that Calvinism reduces men to puppets. Although this is a caricature, the fact of the matter is that Scripture does present Pharaoh (and Nebuchadnezzar) as a puppet king, with God as the puppeteer."
- http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/jacob-have-i-loved-1.html
"So let us, once and for all time, drop all the mock sentiment, all the false piety, all the perfunctory and hypocritical cant about how hard it is to stomach the doctrine of hell ... But we should never act as though we were in the wrong to be favored by God when others were passed by. A Christian is a trophy of God’s grace."
- http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/12/alls-well-that-ends-well-1.html
"Mt 5:44-45 doesn’t say that God loves everyone. Rather, the point of Mt 5:44-45, like the parable of the wheat and the tares (note the same agricultural setting), is that God dispenses common grace to all as a way of dispensing special grace to the elect."
- http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/12/alls-well-that-ends-well-2.html
Given this, you're a liar who has no grounds to dismiss Phelps. I see no substantive difference in your beliefs. Sorry.
"I see no substantive difference in your beliefs."
ReplyDeleteCherry picking quotes out of context tends to blind people, James. That's why you can't see quotes like:
---
(ii) Fred Phelps is a hateful, spiteful cult-leader who speaks for no one except his cult following at Westboro Baptist Church. There are one-time homosexuals, saved by the grace of God, who will look down from heaven as he rots in hell with many of the same people he consigns to hell.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/02/irrational-interrogator-squad.html
---
---
I certainly would not want to be held "guilt by association" to many so called Christian organizations whether they are terrorists or not. An example would be Fred Phelps and his group who protest at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. My Christianity is not the Christianity that they claim to have.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/07/cross-crescent.html
---
---
What in the world does this really mean? If it means that wacko professing pseudo-Christians that are hateful, rude, and downright obscene and vulgar in their denunciation of sinful activities, like the group from "Westboro Baptist Church" (which is actually a cult), then no wonder they feel rejected.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/04/unchristian.html
---
Now, even if you're dumb enough to think that we are equivelent to the Westboro scum, obviously we've stated many times our opinion of Phelps. The above, mind you, were written by three different T-Bloggers. Plainly, any attempt you make trying to link us to Westboro flies in the face of all the evidence that you could find as easily as you cherry picked random quotes already.
So yes, James, you are, have been, and apparently always will be a liar.
BTW, this doesn't even address the slander of your cherry-picked comments yet. For instance, your first quote somehow missed the preceding sentence which was:
---
On the one had, a Christian should avoid demeaning homosexuals as subhuman, of indulging in self-righteous pride, or resorting to obscenity.
---
Further, you missed the next sentence, which was:
---
Christians ought to avoid obscene slang, but not all slang is obscene.
---
Gee, wonder why you "forgot" to quote all that....