Perspectives of a Colorado Curmudgeon on topics ranging from Basketball to Music to Science & Religion to Travel to Memories, touching on a bit of everything.
Monday, July 28, 2014
CARGILL ON "BIBLICAL MARRIAGE"
Friend and colleague Bob Cargill discussing the concept of "biblical marriage." You have to click on image and go to Vimeo to watch.
Sick One - I knew this would get your blood boiling!! I don't recollect Bob saying that, with the main point being that there is no one, unified definition of biblical marriage.
I know, Jesus was probably full of it when he said in Matthew 19:4-5 “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”
The only reason for attempting to make the point that there is no unified definition of biblical marriage is to confuse the issue, thereby giving justification to the arguments for ghey marriage.
A lot can be lost in translation. For example, the word translated as "hate" can be interpreted to mean "love less." In other words, don't hate your family, just "love them less than Me." Cargill can be somewhat convicing in his arguments, but his journey is basically one of "evolving" from Bible believing Christian to politically liberal heretic. His liberalism probably precipitated his heresy, as he is filled with venom towards conservatives, and hate is a prime element of liberalism.
Actually, Cargill is a typical leftist, blowhard hypocrite. He claims the biblical message is “love of one’s neighbor and beneficial service of others.” So, would name calling be an expression of Cargill’s “love of one’s neighbor”? From his recent Facebook postings, “Sarah Flipping Palin. She really is the dumbest of the conservative candidates. And she's the greatest thing to happen to Democrats since John McCain ACTUALLY chose her as a vice-presidential running mate.” In reference to Michele Bachman, “Seriously. She's so whacked out, Republicans are embarrassed she's in their party.” Regarding one of the most respected Bible preacher/teachers of our time, “John MacArthur is an absolute crackpot. Anyone reading his books or citing anything he says should not be trusted with setting the table, much less expounding upon the Bible.” Guess that means I should not be trusted with setting the table. Lol!
But aside from name calling, here is an example of Cargill’s intellectual depravity. He cited this article as one he actually believes in. “Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction, Study Finds.” That one takes the cake. Who is the crackpot here?
Guess he just rubbed me the wrong way. For example, let’s say that in my youth I had a long term relationship with a woman and was very much in love. Then let’s say that I eventually grew tired of her appearance, her manner, her personality, everything about her, and that I moved on and found a woman who, in my mind, was superior in every way to my former love. Would I not sing the praises of my current love rather than go on and on about how lousy my former love and people like her are? That is Cargill. He is not content to sing the praises of his agnosticism and liberal politics. He must continually berate Bible believing Christians and political conservatives and go on and on about his transition and enlightenment. Wouldn’t a normal person want to advocate his current enlightened beliefs and convince people how wonderful and superior they are to anything else rather than obsess on how wrong the old ideas are? If Bible belief is such crap, why can’t he forget about it and leave it alone? If it really didn’t matter, he would be indifferent to it. As it stands, it bugs the shit out of him. And I think it bugs him because there is no satisfaction, no “there there” in his current belief system. Nihilism anyone?
I lob grenades. Hope Bob has better things to do than respond to that.
Hey, better watch the closet talk. Lol! I read the Mennonite World Review and the Mountain States Mennonite Conference is being urged by the Ohio Conference to “reverse its decision to license a pastor in a committed same-sex union--and to face possible expulsion from the denomination if it does not.”
There seem to be a good deal of comments made by certain individuals who may have questions about the Bible Odyssey interview I gave concerning the claim that there is but one form of "biblical" marriage.
S3, you’re getting your undies in a wad over nothing. Dr. Cargill has stated he’s an agnostic and not a Bible believing Christian. And, from my understanding of agnosticism, that would mean he is not a Christian at all. You cannot label him a hypocrite just because he does not profess love and respect for everyone. He states that the message of the Bible is love, but since he doesn’t believe in the Bible, that love message does not apply to him. He can rant and rave against anyone he wants without being hypocritical. Your belief about the origin, nature, purpose, and destiny of man differs considerably from Cargill’s and no amount of discussion, argument, logic, or whatever is going to bridge that gap. Be content in that knowledge.
There are several kinds of marriage situations described in the Bible. One of my favorites is in Exodus 22:16. “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.” [Unless daddy disapproves.] Verse 17, “If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.” It reminds me of a clever rhyme I saw in a gift shop one time: "Lovely to look at, Delightful to hold, But if I am broken, Then I am sold.” Altering that rhyme slightly, “Lovely to look at, Delightful to hold, But if you screw me, Then I’m your wife.”
16 comments:
In other words, cornholer marriage is fine and dandy.
Sick One - I knew this would get your blood boiling!! I don't recollect Bob saying that, with the main point being that there is no one, unified definition of biblical marriage.
I know, Jesus was probably full of it when he said in Matthew 19:4-5 “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”
The only reason for attempting to make the point that there is no unified definition of biblical marriage is to confuse the issue, thereby giving justification to the arguments for ghey marriage.
Jesus also said a lot of things that are troubling and often ignored:
"As for my enemies who don’t want me as their king, bring them here and slaughter them before me.”
"Love your enemies."
"Hate your father, mother, wife and children."
So SSS, cherry pick away!! :-)
A lot can be lost in translation. For example, the word translated as "hate" can be interpreted to mean "love less." In other words, don't hate your family, just "love them less than Me." Cargill can be somewhat convicing in his arguments, but his journey is basically one of "evolving" from Bible believing Christian to politically liberal heretic. His liberalism probably precipitated his heresy, as he is filled with venom towards conservatives, and hate is a prime element of liberalism.
Actually, Cargill is a typical leftist, blowhard hypocrite. He claims the biblical message is “love of one’s neighbor and beneficial service of others.” So, would name calling be an expression of Cargill’s “love of one’s neighbor”? From his recent Facebook postings, “Sarah Flipping Palin. She really is the dumbest of the conservative candidates. And she's the greatest thing to happen to Democrats since John McCain ACTUALLY chose her as a vice-presidential running mate.” In reference to Michele Bachman, “Seriously. She's so whacked out, Republicans are embarrassed she's in their party.” Regarding one of the most respected Bible preacher/teachers of our time, “John MacArthur is an absolute crackpot. Anyone reading his books or citing anything he says should not be trusted with setting the table, much less expounding upon the Bible.” Guess that means I should not be trusted with setting the table. Lol!
But aside from name calling, here is an example of Cargill’s intellectual depravity. He cited this article as one he actually believes in. “Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction, Study Finds.” That one takes the cake. Who is the crackpot here?
Sick One, you seem mercilessly hard on DES's friend. What gives/
Guess he just rubbed me the wrong way. For example, let’s say that in my youth I had a long term relationship with a woman and was very much in love. Then let’s say that I eventually grew tired of her appearance, her manner, her personality, everything about her, and that I moved on and found a woman who, in my mind, was superior in every way to my former love. Would I not sing the praises of my current love rather than go on and on about how lousy my former love and people like her are? That is Cargill. He is not content to sing the praises of his agnosticism and liberal politics. He must continually berate Bible believing Christians and political conservatives and go on and on about his transition and enlightenment. Wouldn’t a normal person want to advocate his current enlightened beliefs and convince people how wonderful and superior they are to anything else rather than obsess on how wrong the old ideas are? If Bible belief is such crap, why can’t he forget about it and leave it alone? If it really didn’t matter, he would be indifferent to it. As it stands, it bugs the shit out of him. And I think it bugs him because there is no satisfaction, no “there there” in his current belief system. Nihilism anyone?
Hopefully Bob will chime in and speak for himself.
Bizzy - methinks that SSS protesteth too much, perhaps from the closet :-)
I lob grenades. Hope Bob has better things to do than respond to that.
Hey, better watch the closet talk. Lol! I read the Mennonite World Review and the Mountain States Mennonite Conference is being urged by the Ohio Conference to “reverse its decision to license a pastor in a committed same-sex union--and to face possible expulsion from the denomination if it does not.”
Good evening good Dr. Doug,
There seem to be a good deal of comments made by certain individuals who may have questions about the Bible Odyssey interview I gave concerning the claim that there is but one form of "biblical" marriage.
May I answer any questions regarding this topic?
Sincerely,
BC
S3, you’re getting your undies in a wad over nothing. Dr. Cargill has stated he’s an agnostic and not a Bible believing Christian. And, from my understanding of agnosticism, that would mean he is not a Christian at all. You cannot label him a hypocrite just because he does not profess love and respect for everyone. He states that the message of the Bible is love, but since he doesn’t believe in the Bible, that love message does not apply to him. He can rant and rave against anyone he wants without being hypocritical. Your belief about the origin, nature, purpose, and destiny of man differs considerably from Cargill’s and no amount of discussion, argument, logic, or whatever is going to bridge that gap. Be content in that knowledge.
My question to Dr. Cargill would be, “Do you believe that polygamy in the Old Testament was ordained by God, or simply allowed to occur?”
Well Dr Bob - seems as though Sickie has given you plenty of material!!
There are several kinds of marriage situations described in the Bible. One of my favorites is in Exodus 22:16. “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.” [Unless daddy disapproves.] Verse 17, “If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.”
It reminds me of a clever rhyme I saw in a gift shop one time: "Lovely to look at, Delightful to hold, But if I am broken, Then I am sold.” Altering that rhyme slightly, “Lovely to look at, Delightful to hold, But if you screw me, Then I’m your wife.”
Post a Comment