I agree that Lib would have been better served to be fully familiar with Ross’ website before citing it as an example, but his failure on that account does not make his post disingenuous. Since he retracted his characterization of Ross after hardcore’s post, I believe that he was unaware of Ross Creationist stance when he introduced Ross as an example. A simple, “Hey – you do know Ross is a Creationist,” might have served your purpose better.
Again, I agree that your assumption was reasonable. I simply would not have leveled the charge of disingenuousness based upon that assumption. My 2¢. Worth every penny, in our inflationary time.
Well, if it is established that Ross professes a belief in Biblical inerancy, this would validate your characterization. Have you seen him profess such a belief? The passages quoted in this thread do not seem to support it.
respectfully disagree. A 2 cent piece of advice from Spiritus Mudi here is worth, (getting calculator out… punching numbers wildly… digging around for sliderule… punching more numbers… consulting experts in physics, economy, mathmatics, and political science… adding in other related factors… consulting the price guides… getting new calculator…)
Well, let me put it this way: I think that at the time, my comments were reasonable. Now, however, I see that Lib was- to me, surprisingly- unaware of Ross’s true beliefs, and I retract the accusation of disingenuousness. (Although I still feel that Lib was extremely disingenous in his subsequent discussion of Ross’ beliefs.)
It’s on his website- it appears to me that he wants very much to assure his readers that he believes in inerrancy, even though he is an OEC. One could debate whether technically speaking he is “twisting his faith,” but I think that the best you can say is that reasonable people can disagree on the issue. I, for one, think that he’s going through a lot of contortions that wouldn’t be necessary if he were more honest with himself.
You are correct. It seems he hedges this with, "While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. This apparently allows him to reconcile “inerrancy” with statements that he clearly believes are not literally true. Well, I cannot say I am impressed with the consistency of his viewpoint.
True. I would be more likely to say that “his faith is twisted (logically convoluted)”. I don’t imagine that many of his sympathizers would find that an improvement, though in my mind it is a more generous assessment of Ross’ character.
I agree in principle, though I would substitute “consistent with his reason” for “honest with himself”. I suspect that honesty with his faith/belief/heart is what led him to the convolutions of an inerrant yet metaphorical scripture.
See, Ben, this is exactly why I’m not going to have this dance with you–because you have a habit of misrepresenting both your own and everyone else’s arguments to represent yourself in the best possible light.
You’ve accused cmkeller on these pages of being disgustingly, unrepentantly “bigoted” and “homophobic.” Your words. Now, let’s go back to first principles, folks. I have added some emphases in the following quotes, to point out that, in fact, if there is anyone around here who is a liar, it is Ben.
Here is Chaim’s original, unadulterated quote:
This is where Chaim mentions homosexuality in the thread for the first time. And, keep in mind, he did so in the context of explicitly discussing not whether the “real” God is good, but whether God as described in the OT, whether real or fictional, is good. He made certain to frame the argument in these terms, and everyone else implicitly agreed to them. Within those constraints, if the God of the OT says that homosexuality is a sin (which he did), then it is. No ifs, ands or buts. Therefore, it is within his purview to punish for that transgression, among others.
How did Ben respond to this?
[quote]
If I might add to your excellent post, Opus, let me point out that CMkeller has already excused the genocides on the grounds that some of the people killed were homosexuals, and therefore had to be exterminated for their “evil.” This is, to me, nauseously offensive. We live in a society where plenty of people are killed, in this day and age, simply for being homosexuals- and CMKeller has stated that doing so is a praiseworthy act. How, then, is CMKeller any different from the neo-Nazis who praise Hitler for “serving God” by exterminating homosexuals? **
This is the first instance of Ben isolating homosexuality from the context of what Chaim actually said to make it appear that Chaim said something substantially different from, and worse than, he did say. Drop homosexuality from the equation, and watch in amazement as Ben defends incest, bestiality and human sacrifice. You don’t think so? I don’t either.
Second, he accuses Chaim of saying “Killing homosexuals is a praiseworthy act.” Well, unless there’s a code there, maybe an acrostic or something, hell if I can tell, Chaim said no such thing. He said, in no uncertain terms, that it is God’s prerogative (and keep in mind, we’re talking of God within the constraints of the OT representation, whether he really exists or not) to pass judgement on those who commit what God has said are sinful acts.
He furthermore says that it is only God’s prerogative, and that humans are not qualified to make those judgements because they are not possessed of the authority, knowledge or judgement of God. Therefore, it would stand to reason that Chaim would oppose humans taking it upon themselves, without the permission or urging of God, to judge homosexuals as “sinful” and to exterminate them.
Ben goes in another post to say:
Here, he goes far beyond the bounds of what Chaim originally (or in any subsequent post) actually said. Chaim didn’t praise anyone for “killing homosexuals”; if anything, he praised God for exercising God’s righteous judgement, within the constraints of the OT. He certainly did NOT praise Joshua, or anything even remotely like it. Ben is, ergo, a liar. That is such an egregious misrepresentation of anything that Chaim said that it is really easy to call it a lie.
But Ben will continue having the discussion as if Chaim advocated killing homosexuals. Which, obviously, he did not do. In fact, Chaim has gone to great lengths in past discussions with me to point out that he does not consider homosexuality to be particularly or especially sinful, any more than violating any of the other mitzvot. He has said that he considers comitting homosexual acts (not even being homosexual, but having homosexual sex) to be akin to doing business on the Sabbath or violating kosher laws. If anything, he downplays the severity of it, in contrast to the more rabid Fundamentalist types. I certainly have never seen him advocate gay-bashing, or any other type of violence towards them, nor suggest that they not be permitted to share equal rights. To characterize him as a “bigot” and a “homophobe” (Ben’s words) is, again, such a rash mischaracterization as to qualify as a lie.
Hey, I disagree with Chaim on a lot of things. Almost everything, it would be safe to say, at least in the realm of politics and religion. But I’m not going to see the guy slurred for something he didn’t even say, and for an opinion that anyone who has read any of his posts can obviously see he does not hold. Anyone who liked the “South Park” movie is OK in my book. Spiritus, what I said to Ben was not an insult; it was a statement of fact. Ben’s ego is fed by having these public pissing matches, and I’m not helping him out with it. I offered to discuss it with him in e-mail, and he got all in my shit. If it can’t be had out in public, Ben isn’t interested in having it out. If that’s insulting, I’d submit that it’s more Ben’s problem then mine. He’s obviously got a sharp scientific mind, but he’s also got this little lying problem when he gets engaged in these discussions.
jab and Ben, Here is the portion of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer than contains the sections dealing with baptisms and confirmation. Here is the Apostle’s Creed, here is the Nicene Creed, and here is the Athanasian Creed. These three, together or separately, are used by various churches, including the Lutheran Church-Misouri Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Episcopal church, and many others. Here is the Statement of Faith of the Presbyterian Church of the USA. Here is the statement of faith from the Constitution of the United Church of Christ.
You guys take a look-see through those, which I think can accurately be described as the major statements of faith for mainline Protestant denominations in this country and around the world, and when you find the words “Ten Commandments,” you let me know, OK? Once you do, we can proceed from there.
pldennison
Accuracy and insult are not mutually exclusive categories.
As to cmkeller, I too have great respect for him. My comments on his exchanges with Ben were restricted solely to the aptness of using Naziism as a foil for other genocides. I am uncertain, now, whether you wish to let this matter drop from public discussion or continue to post further criticisms of Ben. I imagine that he will respond to your last post. I will not until I am clear on your intent in making it.
Lib
No apology was necessary, but I accept it nevertheless. As I said earlier, it seems to me that this conflict has been characterized by people on both (all?) sides interpreting posts in as negative a light as possible. I was hoping to escape that particular baggage.
Fair enough. I cannot see that the phrase could have been meant as either a compliment or a value-neutral observation, but I feel no need to persuade you to my point of view. It is a fairly trivial matter, in the scale of accusation in this thread. Having told ben that I thought he should be more gracious in allowing pldennison to disengage, though, I felt obligated to recognize that Phil’s withdrawal was also less than gracious.
Spiritus, my intent in making the post was to sum up for the benefit of whoever cares exactly what I’ve been saying throughout the thread: that Ben treads on thin ice – thin enough to drink – when he calls any poster a liar or a hypocrite. To utterly mischaracterize someone’s words as Ben did with cmkeller’s, then to call someone else a liar, is simply offensive, not to mention mind-boggling.
I have no doubt that Ben will respond, and that’s fine. I am, however, monumentally uninterested in watching him attempt to defend himself. I offered him the opportunity to take it to e-mail and he declined, insinuating that I owe him some public duel. Well, I don’t. I posted Chaim’s words and I posted Ben’s words. I linked to the thread. It’s my opinion that they speak for themselves, and that Ben owes Chaim an apology for his foul mischaracterization and his gratuitous attempt to label Chaim a “bigot” and a “homophobe,” and to imply that he advocates violence against homosexuals.
As far as “using Naziism as a foil for other genocides,” I would submit that such a thing was outside the scope of the discussion as framed. It wasn’t “Does God exist?” or “Is genocide ever justified?”, it was “Did God as described in the OT act cruelly?” Within those constraints, the genocides described consisted of the Creator of the Universe using the Israelites to exercise His judgment against people who broke the rules that He made and that He had the authority to punish for. Insofar as Nazis are, obviously, not the Creators of the Universe, any such comparison is invalid.
This is where you are making your biggest mistake. Simply stating that if God did something, it is therefore “good” is a logical fallacy known as assuming the conclusion. How could you even debate the morality of God if you use this type of logic? No one is questioning whether a supreme being CAN define something as a sin or punish for whatever he wishes. As a supreme being, who could stop him from doing so anyway? The debate centers on whether these actions can be construed as “good”. Concluding they are by virtue of emanating from God does nothing to further anyone’s understanding of anything.
Isolating the homosexuality portion of what cmkeller said makes it appear offensive only if it actually is. Though I could support an argument challenging the righteousness of killing someone simply for committing bestiality or incest, there is nothing inherently wrong with focusing on the homosexuality punishment. If this seems to portray cmkeller in a bad light, it is up to him to defend his position or denounce it.
If the State of Texas claims to have executed 100 people because they were either rapists, thieves, or Hispanics, how does eliminating from consideration the individuals executed merely for being Hispanic excuse their actions? Regardless of whether I agree with the executions of the rapists and thieves, I can still challenge the morality of executing the Hispanics.
Again, no one questions if a hypothetical God has the prerogative to do anything, since it would be beyond our abilities to do anything about it. Please try to understand that the debate is about the “goodness” of a being who would carry out these executions, and whether such a being should be worthy of praise.
See if you can follow this logical progression:
[ul]
[li] The OT describes God as killing people for homosexual acts[/li][li] cmkeller believes the OT is authentic, and accurately portrays God’s actions and motivations[/li][li] cmkeller praises the God described therein[/li][li] Therefore, cmkeller thinks a God that kills people for homosexual acts is worthy of praise.[/li][/ul]
There it is, harsh and distasteful as it may be. Perhaps you wish to challenge something within this chain of logic, or cmkeller wishes to disagree with a statement ascribed to him. As far as I know, he has not done so. But dismissing the argument without addressing the logic does nothing to refute it.
This is the scariest of all your (or cmkeller’s) leaps in logic. How can anyone objectively know whether “God” permitted someone to exterminate another human for a sinful act? NOBODY should be allowed to execute another in the name of “God”, for anyone can claim to be doing so, and there is no way to verify it without assuming your conclusion. This logic might hold concerning “acts of God” (e.g. the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah), though obviously I object to the morality of even these acts. Using it to justify acts by humans upon other humans is vile and disgusting.
pldennison, I know you have stated you do not wish to pursue this topic, yet you keep coming back to it. Though I might have framed some of Ben’s positions in a slightly less contentious manner, blustering with righteous indignation over the treatment of cmkeller does nothing to address the underlying logic, and you would be well advised to do so if you wish to be taken seriously on this issue.
It is an undistributed middle. Praising the act of killing homosexuals is a much broader mediate object than praising a God Who has killed people who have engaged in homosexual activity. The former implies a license granted to any and sundry who might kill people for their identity. The latter implies a license granted to a specific Entity Whose action is completed, and Whose action was against other action, and not mere thought. Chaim praises God for what God IS. He does not presume to judge what God HAS DONE. Chaim concedes a gap in mediate knowledge, and allows that God had justification for His actions that no other entity has.
Libertarian, I don’t think the comparison can accurately be called the undistributed middle. In fact, you may notice in my logical progression that I was careful to limit it to only those individuals who had committed homosexual acts, not merely had a self-image of being gay. This does not improve the Supreme Being’s worthiness in my view.
However, I do agree that cmkeller (and most everyone else for that matter) probably doesn’t consider God praiseworthy for his killing of those engaged in homosexual activity. Instead, I find it far more likely they find other, more compelling reasons to worship God, and choose not to think about any of God’s less palatable actions, or rationalize it in just the manner you and pldennison have presented (i.e. God’s actions are inherently good). The rest of us are simply unable to take this “leap of faith” and praise anyone without question, as this leaves open the possibility of worshipping someone undeservedly.
BTW, I appreciate the compliment earlier, but I’m not quite sure how to take being called a fly.
jab and Ben… you guys take a look-see through those, which I think can accurately be described as the major statements of faith for mainline Protestant denominations in this country and around the world, and when you find the words “Ten Commandments,” you let me know, OK?**
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have to. I just need to ask you one question: If the TC are not important, then why do so many (presumably) Christians want them posted on the walls of public schools and government buildings? Aesthetics? Is it your belief that these people are not true Christians?
You know that I respect you, so I won’t belabor the point, except to say that the undistributed middle in your argument to Phil is due to the broader mediate object not applying necessarily to the narrower one. All cats die. Elvis Pressley is dead. Therefore, Elvis Pressley was a cat.
I can’t speak for how Phil or Chaim (or you) rationalize God’s acts, but I’d like to remind you that I do not believe that God cannot do evil, but rather that He freely chooses to do good. And I would remind you that I believe the seventy-year fart in the wind not only is not of any consequence, but is not even our life. Please grant that it is not necessary to “excuse” God’s actions, depending upon one’s worldview.
I understand what the undistributed middle means, I just don’t see how you are applying it in the case of my argument with pldennison. Don’t worry about belaboring the point – I often need to be hit with a clue-by-four to grasp a concept. But the converse holds also. Once I understand something, I rarely forget my interpretation of it.
I think we have a different interpretation of what Ben meant by “CMKeller has stated that doing so [killing homosexuals] is a praiseworthy act”. I read that as indicating cmkeller thinks a God who kills homosexuals is worthy of praise, and therefore my logical progression listed earlier is valid. I suspect you believe Ben is saying that cmkeller thinks killing homosexuals is a good thing in and of itself.
I certainly grant that anyone may hold whatever worldview they desire, particularly in a sensitive area such as religious beliefs. One man’s rationalization is another man’s fundamental religious tenet. Likewise, I’m sure you accept that I may challenge these worldviews, especially when I do not agree with them.
Pldennison, either quit discussing this, or quit complaining about discussing it- but please, don’t continue to discuss it and complain. I mean, no one is holding a gun to your head here. You can quit any time you like, and if you remain in the conversation, you have no one to blame but yourself.
**
A habit? Please provide examples of times when you felt I’ve misrepresented arguments in the past.
**
Who’s taking things out of context now? Let’s look at the original, unadulterated quote, with the context that pldennison conveniently snipped rendered in italics:
(emphasis mine.)
So if Chaim defends genocide on the grounds that the people killed were a “cancer,” and one of the reasons they were a “cancer” was homosexuality, and I call him a homophobe as a result, Pldennison calls me a liar?
Huh?
I don’t want to go rummaging through hate sites to prove a point, but I think this proves it nicely:
Much more purple and verbose than Chaim’s phrasing, but the basic point (ie, that genocide is justified because it is removing a “cancer”) is there.
The analogy was also applied in reverse:
And here’s a snippet of a poem, which I find quite interesting in this context:
Had Chaim said, “I know it seems harsh to kill people over a little thing like homosexuality, but God’s decisions are by definition just” then I would have made very different criticisms. As is, he made this argument:
It seems cruel of God to order genocide, but
Those societies were “cancers” which needed to be removed, because
They did “pretty awful things,” and
One of those “awful things” was homosexuality.
**
Other posters have already dealt with this, so I won’t waste further time on it.
**
This, too, has already been addressed by others.
**
Phelps thinks that God gave him the permission to do all the things he and his church does, and he hasn’t even killed anyone.
And you know something? I think he’s a bigot, and a homophobe. I don’t think that his belief that God tells him to do it excuses his actions one whit.
Somehow, I don’t expect to see you defending him anytime soon.
**
So if I accidentally state that Chaim praised the person who carried out the orders in addition to praising the person who gave the orders, that’s an “egregious misrepresentation”? Fine, Chaim didn’t praise Joshua, but his rhetoric is still reminiscent of Nazi rhetoric all the same.
**
Given that Chaim has said that homosexuality is one of the things that marked ancient societies as “cancers” that had to be excised from the body geopolitic, I think it’s reasonable to ask for a cite.
**
I didn’t “get all in your shit.” I pointed out that it’s irresponsible to make serious accusations if you aren’t prepared to give them the attention their seriousness deserved. I also pointed out that I have a right to defend myself publically against public accusations.
**
Why did you raise this issue in public? Was it not worth your while to discuss it with me privately from the start?
And another question, this time of the yes-or-no sort: If someone is accused publically, do they have a right to defend themselves publically?
**
Focussing on these three (because I don’t have time to plow through all of them) let me point out that there are statements of faith, not of morality. These statements clarify matters pertaining to the nature of God and the Trinity, but nowhere delineate what is or is not sin. Neither the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, nor the Apostle’s creed forbids murder. Does that mean that Christians are free to commit murder? My original question, which you declined to acknowledge, still stands: which of the Ten Commandments may Christians violate with impunity?
If we look on your own site, we find a link to the “Creeds FAQ.” And what does it say?
“Rather, these creeds are time-tested expressions of some of the most central teachings of the Christian faith.”
Some, not all.
The fact of the matter is that I used to be a Christian, and we were taught to follow the Ten Commandments. Arnold Winkelreid has told you the same thing. What more do you want?
Moving to your second post:
**
I insinuated no such thing. Again, if you wanted to deal with this in private, you shouldn’t have accused me in public. It seems to me that ideally, you would prefer a situation in which all could hear your accusations, and none could hear my defense.
**
As I already pointed out, the Nazis, like the ancient Israelites, claimed divine sanction for their genocides. You’ve simply mischaracterized my argument, pldennison.
Yes, Ben, much like my “arguments” are “gripes,” your “accidents” are “egregious mischaracterizations.” Fair’s fair.
You also need to decide whether you’re talking about what God did or what the Israelites did. If we’re discussing what God did, and the premise is that God did what the OT says he did, you can’t make Nazi comparisons by claiming, “Much like the Nazis, the Israelites also claimed divine inspiration.” If you’re going to keep switching horses midstream, I’ll just let you drown on your own. You decide.
Here are your cites. I don’t expect you to admit you’re wrong–you’re so hell-bent on making Chaim Keller into a homophobic bigot that nothing, at this point, could possibly dissuade you.
I could go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point. And, see, because of these posts of and exchanges with Chaim, I came to understand him – something you are manifestly uninterested in unless the understanding is, “He doesn’t like gays and thinks they should be killed.” If you can provide me one – ONE – instance where Chaim has advocated gay-bashing, or wholesale violence against gays, absent his claims of God-guided violence in the Bible, I will concede the point. But you’re not going to find one, I promise.
I’ll guarantee that had Chaim said that the societies God wiped out were full of incest, bestiality, human sacrifice, and eating shellfish, you wouldn’t have blinked an eye. The “cancer” to which he alludes is the refusal to follow God’s laws–ALL of them. Your knee jerked so hard when you saw the word “homosexuality” it’s a wonder you didn’t break your jaw. He could have picked any four violations of the law at random, but because he included that one, he has to suffer your smear campaign.
And make no mistake–I’ve met many of the gay and bi people here on the SDMB. goboy, dcnewsman, SqrlCub, andygirl, iampunha . . . I consider them friends. I’ve socialized with them. I like to think I know a bigot when I see one, and cmkeller is not a bigot.
But one of those laws forbids homsexual acts, meaning God thinks it’s just as evil as incest, bestiality, human sacrifice and eating shellfish(!). (Odd that pedophilia isn’t mentioned.) Did God slay those who broke just one of those laws or those who broke all of them?
I don’t think you are a bigot, pld, but saying “Some of my best friends are ______” is NOT a good defense. You sound like Archie Bunker. What we need to know is what they think of you. “A man’s heart is not judged by how much he loves but by how much he is loved by others.” –the Wizard of Oz to the Tin Man
