Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Why Have A Debate About The Bible With A Person Who Doesn't Believe That The Bible Is A Credible Reference Of God's Will In The First Place?


My response from the comments section of - MSNBC's The Grio.com - "The Historic Roots Of Homophobia In Black America"

As I observe the amplifying propaganda campaign targeted toward Black people as a means of loosening certain key points that formed our existential consciousness as a people - I am more amazed at the lack of skill in awareness and debate held by those who are seeking to argue against this active scheme.

It stands to reason that the Christian bible - a document that has been around for 2000 years or more - is some sort of tie breaker for all debates.   A standard reference, similar to a national constitution, is meant to provide a common index to which two or more people in disagreement will make use of for a reference.

Those who seek to protect the integrity of traditional marriage from this onslaught often fail to see two things:

  1. The present attack is based on the failings of people like themselves to more earnestly protect this franchise - a long time ago.   These attacks today come at a time when the clear function of traditional marriage is lost upon the masses.  
  2. You cannot use the Christian bible to debate someone who doesn't believe that the Christian bible is legitimate.  
This post is about the second bullet point.

The notion that I have observed and coined called "Keep Your Enemies On Trial So You Don't Have To Indict Your Friends" is appropriate in this case.

The debate adversary seeks to use YOUR belief in the bible to force you to explain away its apparent inconsistencies.  The inconsistencies not only in the biblical text but more so the inconsistencies between that bible that you believe in and YOUR PRESENT LIFE.

Keep in mind that this "biblical scholar" does not have to bring forth HIS OWN fidelity.   His job is to keep you on trial.   He has no obligation to show you that what he is proposing will increase the amount of "salvation" within the land.    In fact - it is more the case that any one who dares to live their lives by eliminating as much of the inconsistencies between the bible and their lives will be called a FUNDAMENTALIST.

Failing to understand that at the fundamental level - THIS PERSON'S GOAL IS TO GET YOU TO "STOP PLAYA HATING" on what he wants you to yield to and NOT to advance the society, providing it with more functional order - will have you as a 'hostile witness and functional co-conspirator" to all that is going on.







My Response

Dollar Bill Phil:
Do you notice that in your history lesson on marriage you first "bless us" with information that focuses on the variables in the NUMBER OF WOMEN allowed to be claimed in various societies but never provide details on gender variations.
Next you talk about marriage as a conduit of PROPERTY.
In listening to the underlying debate by those who prove themselves INCOMPETENT to get people who already have the right to marry to do so - you all talk about PROPERTY RIGHTS and how how today the homosexual is denied access to GOVERNMENT ENTITLEMENTS due to the prohibitions on their marriage.
It is quite interesting that you and others who think themselves to be open minded can't marriage bring yourselves to note two macro trends that should bring your pause.
(I should note that I have not mentioned "JESUS" at all in this post - so you have few hand rings upon which to climb upon my vessel).
The FIRST macro trend that you can't bring yourself to note is that you and other Progressives claim PROGRESS in expanding the franchise of marriage to a larger set of dispossessed individuals - this at a time when you have proven yourself incompetent at convincing heterosexuals to submit themselves to this institution - to feast upon the benefits that you say are denied the homosexual.
What success and competency can you claim IF fewer people are picking upon your fruit tree to receive its benefits and nutrition?
Secondly - as we focus on the talking points of benefits denied a certain class of people (someone said there are over 1,200 government benefits denied gay couples) - the sad point is that all of this comes in the context of an American government that is $16 Trillion in debt and growing.
It seems to me that sometime in the future BOTH your contrived right to marry AND your entitlements will be lost as the GRANTING AGENCY is allowed to go insolvent.
Think about it - out of the anarchy that is produced by this societal entropy - what are the chances that your EVOLVED IDEOLOGICAL AWARENESS about non-discrimination will survive the journey?    

1 comment:

Cherrie said...

Hello.This post was really interesting, particularly because I was investigating for thoughts on this subject last Monday.