The dialogue in this Dan Trabue thread is not so much an example of an Agenda Lie as it is a defense of it. It begins with his New Year's Resolution for his blog pertaining to how he intends to act in discussions where opinion and fact might be confused. He claims too many of his opponents don't know the difference and often put forth opinion as if it were fact. My initial response is that he has claimed for himself the ultimate authority to decide what is fact and what is opinion and in a very subjective and self-serving way.
From there, he tries to insist that I present my definitions for both, and I respond that I am certain we both know the difference well enough, but that I don't have any confidence that he will rule according to those definitions. I felt it more appropriate that he simply get down to arguing why what was stated as a fact in not in fact...a fact. Otherwise, without doing so, what he is really doing is merely stating his opinion about what is a fact or an opinion. You can see where the trouble is.
Anyhow, as he uses an example in his post that refers to religious argument, I decide to use this opportunity to once again explore Lev 18:22 to hopefully force him to face certain realities, or to provide, finally after all these years, an actual argument based on Scriptural evidence (primarily) and then perhaps scholarly interpretations that haven't been refuted or contradicted by other scholars. One would expect that at some point, each argument runs into a barrier of logic and fact against which the other side cannot return volley. I believe it is clear that has already happened in this debate, and that the only reason it rages on (where proponents of the Agenda That Doesn't Exist do not bolt the debate for lack of legitimate argument) is due to the unwillingness of people like Dan to truly respond to the points raised about the Scriptural prohibition.
If you've a mind to do so, check it out and see what you think. I know some of you have no desire to spend/waste your time at Dan's blog, so you can post comments here if you feel so moved. But I think you'll see a clear example of Dan's fancy two-stepping as I try to get him to answer a few simple questions. Kinda humorous, really.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
262 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 262 of 262I said: "This came about as a result of you labeling cited facts as opinions."
That is, this whole discussion. To which, Dan replied:
"This is objectively false. It did not happen in the real world.
I guarantee it. Marshall has just bore a false witness."
This is part of his strategy. Ignore addressing the initial concerns long enough, distracting with the unnecessary presenting of definitions, references to irrelevant and unrelated passages and anecdotes and basically doing anything he can to avoid the initial concerns until enough time has passed, in his deceitful mind, to pretend that a statement was never said, a question never asked or an incident never occurred. False witness? It is he who bears it against me.
He goes on to say:
"IF you can demonstrate ONE "fact" that I labeled as an opinion, I will gladly recant, repent and apologize for saying this is false."
This has been done numerous times without any recantations, repentance or apologies. This is because he adds this caveat:
"it has to be a real fact, not a "fact" that is "fact" by virtue of you thinking it is a fact."
...thereby proving my point that he assumes authority unilaterally for deciding what is or isn't fact. In the meantime, he ignores facts I've presented in this manner and dares accuse me of bearing false witness, while safe under his self-serving rules, which allows him to bear false witness without fear of condemnation (he thinks).
Clearly I have presented a host of facts regarding Lev 18:22, for which he has done no more than dismiss them all as mere opinion, just as my objection has stated he would. He continues now to prove my point about the purpose of his New Year's Resolution. He won't argue against the truth of my facts, providing any evidence or facts that would dispute their validity, or provide validity to his own position, but merely waves them off as opinions. He refuses to accept the FACT that even on the level of opinion, particularly counter opinions, facts and evidence are required in order to establish one's own position in opposition to the position of another. Otherwise, his does not even rise to the level of opinion, but mere wishful thinking around which he then lives his life.
So go back and find that comment of mine wherein I list the facts regarding 18:22 and actually refute any of them with hard data of your own. Without doing so, you have shown and incredible lack of ability in discerning between fact and opinion by such failure on your part. And why should anyone take any more time engaged with such a delusional person?
I continue to stand ready to defend my position against your fantasies. Actually, I'm just going to sit since you've proven no defense will be forthcoming and standing that long is tiring. The ball's NOT in my court, since you've yet to return volley in any honorable, gracious and certainly not truthful manner.
Annnddd... there it is. I asked for JUST ONE bit of objectively factual evidence to support the falsehood Marshall wrote and none was forthcoming.
And of course, it couldn't come because it did not happen in the real world. Marshall's claim was utterly and demonstrably factually FALSE, there IS no evidence to produce for the false charge.
As my objective evidence, I cite EVERY WORD I have ever written to Marshall. Go ahead, look them all up.
Marshall's claim about what I did does not exist within the realm of reality.
And even though he can't produce ONE SHRED of evidence to support his false claim (and he can't, because it does not exist in the real world), rather than admit it and apologize for the mistake (no biggie, mistakes happen, just admit it and move on), he doubles down on the delusion.
At a guess, I still have to believe that, given the right words, these fellas could admit what I'm saying. Perhaps moreso than the right words, if I just found a conservative who wasn't delusional who could admit and point out to them that I'm not saying anything other than an obvious reality, maybe they'd believe it coming from them. But the urge to hang on to this fantasy (which they no doubt to be factual, even short of any evidence) is so strong that it blinds them, even in the face of having zero objectively factual and demonstrable evidence to support their claims.
May we have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Amen.
"As I've said before, the Gospel is NOT a call to have perfect understanding in order to be saved (whether or not they're right on this topic - and they're not), it is a call to a salvation and a life of Grace and of the Love of God."
For the second time in this thread I post a quote from you. This quote is clearly NOT presented as an opinion. Especially this snippet "...the Gospel is NOT a call to have perfect understanding..."
There is nothing in this quote or in it's surrounding context that would indicate that this is anything but a simple declarative statement of fact. Unfortunately if one applies the Dan standard of fact, one realizes that it doesn't meet said standard.
Really, enough, with the "You all just don't understand my point." whining dodge.
We understand your point, it's pretty simple.
Our problem isn't your basic premise (opinion does not equal fact), our problem is with the arbitrary unreasonable evidential standard and the arbitrary and inconsistent way you choose to apply your standard.
I'm annoyed at you lack of answering questions, but I shouldn't be, this is a pretty usual tactic from you and I should just accept it for what it is and move on.
This is what, the third time you've surrendered this thread?
"...if I just found a conservative who wasn't delusional..."
Please Dan demonstrate factually that all the conservatives you've ever interacted with are delusional, by any objective standard. Of, how about you just demonstrate objectively and undeniably that any one in this conversation is literally objectively factually delusional.
"As my objective evidence, I cite EVERY WORD I have ever written to Marshall. Go ahead, look them all up."
It's funny how only Dan's writing counts as objective evidence -- not Marshall's, not mine, and not even the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles.
"I'm saying IF you can't prove it objectively, THEN you can't prove it objectively."
It seems that Dan is saying more than this, that claims must be considered opinions and not facts unless they meet his arbitrary standard of what qualifies as objective proof.
His standard is not only arbitrary, it's inconsistently applied, to which I say, nuts to him.
It would be bad enough if he were trying to turn the world into one gray blob even though there are some things that are black or white: instead, he wants to reserve black-and-white claims for himself, so he can stand in judgment of those with whom he disagrees, with nonsense about being delusional and disconnected from reality.
--
At a certain point, dealing with a sophist like Dan risks more harm to one's own patience than its worth. It can only lead to trouble.
Nice call, Craig, though we both know that Dan won't accept your entirely reasonable request.
We're taking his arguments more seriously than he does, and so we're taking him more seriously than he deserves.
Bubba,
I read your comments and thought they were spot on and well said, then I realized it was just a delusion and really unsupported subjective opinion.
On a serious note. If Dan's incredibly narrow view of what constitutes allowable evidence, (Objective, undeniable, convincing to a skeptic) was applied to our legal system it would virtually destroy how our court system operates. Or what would it do to science? Global Warming, out. Darwinian theory, out. Methodological naturalism, out.
It's incredibly easy to set definitions in such a way as to preordain the outcome, and this is a great example. Ultimately the bottom line is that if evidence can be produced that the Bible is reliable and authoritative, then that evidential foundation supports all of the claims Dan dismisses as opinion. Fortunately, the evidence is out there and readily available to any who can approach it with an open mind. Unfortunately Dan has chosen to arbitrarily exclude certain types of evidence, while at the same time categorizing anything backed by his excluded types of evidence as opinion, without actually going to the trouble of even giving cursory consideration to anything he chooses to dismiss.
You know it blows my mind when people generalize that conservatives are closed minded.
Craig...
For the second time in this thread I post a quote from you. This quote is clearly NOT presented as an opinion. Especially this snippet "...the Gospel is NOT a call to have perfect understanding..."
How many times do I have to state: MY opinions ARE MY OPINIONS, not a declaration of fact, at least not when I'm speaking about something unprovable and subjective.
Do I need to state that in every sentence, in my opinion? Would that help you to understand that, in my opinion, when I am writing about unprovable ideas, I'm speaking of "IN MY OPINION," in my opinion?
On the other hand, there's this bit of certifiable insanity (in my opinion) from Bubba...
It's funny how only Dan's writing counts as objective evidence -- not Marshall's, not mine,
Read closely, slowly, and note the flow and meaning of the words on the page, Bubba, et al:
WHEN we are speaking of something UNPROVABLE, then our opinions ARE UNPROVABLE. They MAY be factually right and we just can't prove it, but until such time as they are provable, our opinions are UNPROVABLE. That is a tautology and FACT.
But (and here's the important part, re: your last comments), SOMETIMES, we are speaking of something provable, like "Did Dan say X...?" In THOSE cases, yes, we can demonstrably prove that Dan said X by providing Dan's words. IN THAT CASE, when we are speaking of "Did Dan say..." YES, Dan's words ARE objective, factual evidence.
Are you really not understanding this?
In this case, Marshall made a DEMONSTRABLY FALSE charge, saying, "Dan said X" when that charge is not in my words anywhere. Marshall could easily make me eat my words by providing the actual quote where "Dan said X," but he can't provide because it did not happen in the real world. It is demonstrably false. As I have proven by citing EVERY WORD I have ever written to Marshall.
SOME facts are demonstrable and objective. "Did Bubba admit to liking polka in this thread?" Objectively, demonstrably, NO. "Did Marshal say, 'this is part of his strategy' in speaking about Dan?" Objectively, demonstrably YES. Facts. Objective. Demonstrable.
That HAS to be clear to you.
On the other hand, some opinions about "facts," are NOT provable. They MAY be factual and unprovable, but we can't demonstrate that they are factual, not objectively (as the words "demonstrate" "factual" and "objective" are used in the English language). They are NOT provable.
ALL I am saying is, THAT which is unprovable IS unprovable. Simple is that. That has been my point all along.
Do you disagree with my actual point, which is a direct tautology and clearly obvious?
And, just to forgo the usual responses, I'm NOT saying that there are not people who hold opinions for what they consider to be reasonable, if unprovable, reasons. I'm NOT saying that there are not others who agree with those people, in their opinion. I'm NOT saying that we might not hold what we consider to be sound reasons - if unprovable - for our opinions about that which is unprovable.
ALL I am saying is, that which is unprovable is unprovable.
That and, OUR opinions about what God thinks about X or Y are NOT demonstrably, objectively provable. They are our unprovable opinions.
And that which is unprovable, is unprovable.
Any comments on my ACTUAL points?
And really, I am trying to leave here, because this has just gone on and on without you all appearing to recognize my actual points and arguing all manner of ideas that I have not stated and do not believe. In that sense, you all seem out of touch with reality. Also, if you can't agree that "That which is unprovable is unprovable" and "our opinions about what God thinks are unprovable," then you have a disconnect with reality.
Good day, friends.
"...the Gospel is NOT a call to have perfect understanding..."
Exactly what in this phrase would lead any reasonable person to conclude it is opinion?
"ALL I am saying is, that which is unprovable is unprovable."
Yet somehow you think that if you continue to re-state this ad nauseum, while continuing to insist (despite actual evidence) that no one understands your point, quite literally be delusional.
We get your point, we agree with your point, we have problems with how inconsistently you apply your arbitrary standard of what you consider "fact".
You keep saying you want to leave, then slink away. It's telling that you continue to refuse to extend the courtesy of answering questions to the same degree you demand answers to your questions.
But, if you think about it, that's our point. That you are arbitrary and inconsistent.
"...if I just found a conservative who wasn't delusional..."
Please Dan demonstrate factually that all the conservatives you've ever interacted with are delusional, by any objective standard. Of, how about you just demonstrate objectively and undeniably that any one in this conversation is literally objectively factually delusional.
Of course, this challenge has gone unanswered. Not surprising.
Oh, I know "It's my opinion." or "It seems to me...", or whatever lame cop out you are going to trot out.
Either step up or slink off. Your call.
Craig...
We get your point, we agree with your point, we have problems with how inconsistently you apply your arbitrary standard of what you consider "fact".
Then state it clearly. That's the closest I've heard to anyone say, Yeah, Dan, that's right.
So, YOU AND I agree that those opinions which are unprovable are unprovable, and this is just reality?
YES?
AND, you and I agree that OUR opinions about God's opinions are, indeed, unprovable?
YES?
Clarify, please.
THIS has been my whole point the whole time and I've been saying ONCE we establish this basic reality, then we can move on to consider how reasonable one unprovable opinion is over another, but first, I wanted to establish that we're all starting from a place of reality.
I GET that other people have opinions and we disagree about how reasonable these various opinions might be. I'm NOT calling all other opinions "delusional," which you (I believe) and certainly others have stated, incorrectly. I'm saying the inability to agree with what you just said you agreed with is delusional. That is, to say, "that which is unprovable IS provable" is delusional and "we can objectively PROVE/DEMONSTRATE that opinion X is God's opinion and opinion Y is factually in error, and not God's opinion..." is delusional.
Are you and I agreed?
Do you think others here agree? I don't think so.
Bubba seemed to walk right up to the precipice of agreeing, before backing down and saying, "'real' Christians would not say that, they just wouldn't..." (or words to that effect) about my very simple claim that you appear now to agree with.
If you agree with me, why don't you be the mediator and clarify with the others if they agree with you and me, then we could move on to more meaty opinions. But I am just stating that IF they don't agree to reality, I don't see the benefit of continuing on with them.
Craig...
It's telling that you continue to refuse to extend the courtesy of answering questions to the same degree you demand answers to your questions.
But, if you think about it, that's our point. That you are arbitrary and inconsistent.
And once we establish that we all actually agree with my actual points, we can discuss the merits or deficits of this charge (I state that clearly, it is factually untrue and you can not support the charge, but one thing at a time). As to the answering questions, I'm trying to take it one step at a time, in a rational order.
IF you (y'all) can't agree with reality, then there's no point in getting to the other questions because you are not founded in reality. So, by all means, clarify for yourself that you and I agree on the very principles I've been trying to get across, lo, these thousands of words. Then verify that the others either agree with reality or are delusional. But do me a favor, IF they can't agree with reality, then be honest enough to say, "Oh, they aren't disagreeing with Dan, they're disagreeing with reality..." and you and I could have a conversation apart from those detached from reality.
As I keep saying, I have to believe that you all actually agree with my actual points and that you AREN'T delusional, but getting anyone to say as much is like pulling teeth.
Dan,
Instead of going back and searching for the times I've already agreed to your "point", I'll do so again.
I agree that fact is fact, and opinion is opinion. I also agree that the difference should be acknowledged.
There, I've jumped through your hoops once again.
Now what's your excuse to not answer questions.
AND, you and I agree that OUR opinions about God's opinions are, indeed, unprovable?
YES?
Clarify, please.
Do you think others here agree? I don't think so.
Bubba seemed to walk right up to the precipice of agreeing, before backing down and saying, "'real' Christians would not say that, they just wouldn't..." (or words to that effect) about my very simple claim that you appear now to agree with.
Glenn almost certainly doesn't agree (he "can't be mistaken" on at least some ideas in his head).
Marshall, I can't say for sure. Maybe you can find out?
And there's no "hoop jumping." It is a reasonable thing to establish that the other parties are within the realm of reality in their opinions.
Again, I think you've agreed to this: IF one of the parties in a conversation is detached from reality/unable to discern objective fact from opinion, then there isn't much point going on. Given ALL the troubles you all are having understanding and agreeing to this, it is not an unreasonable request to clarify that we are on the same page, reality-wise.
I mean, if your very first response to me in this kerfluffle had been, "Yes, Dan, you are right on each of those points. My concern is..." then at least you and I could have moved on WAY back then, right?
Instead, you wrote...
it appears as though you are attempting to establish a standard of "factualness" that cannot be met. Why would you choose to do this? Are you therefore suggesting that it is impossible to factually know anything about God?
...a point that you are now appearing willing to concede that, at least, we can't DEMONSTRATE that what we "know" about God is factual. We hold opinions about God and God's opinions which aren't provable. And you went on from there, appearing to say the opposite of what you're now agreeing to (or are you?).
So, you can see, I hope, why I'm trying to clearly establish you and I are grounded in reality.
Good lord, any other hoops you're going to demand I jump through before you get caught up.
As you've phrased the premise, I would tend to agree. I have some reservations though.
1. I'm not sure I'd demean what God thinks by calling it an opinion.
2. It seems as though you are suggesting that all scripture interpretation is opinion.
3. You seem to have a very one dimensional opinion of opinion.
With those reservations, I guess I could agree.
"Do you think others here agree? I don't think so."
I don't give a rat's ass about your attempts to read other peoples minds. In the past, you have shown a tenancy to lump people together and to ascribe something that one specific person said to everyone else who shares some degree of agreement with that person.
If you want to do me the courtesy of dealing with me and what I think, fine. If you expect me to answer for other people, then you are the one who is detached from reality. I suspect that you are laying the groundwork to avoid dealing with my questions and concerns because I won't speak for others or until everyone jumps through your hoops. Grow the hell up.
"Maybe you can find out?"
Why in god's name should I care. This is your problem not mine. I am perfectly able to deal with multiple people as individuals, I'd hope that you would have the common courtesy to do the same.
"..a point that you are now appearing willing to concede that, at least, we can't DEMONSTRATE that what we "know" about God is factual."
Nope, not at all. I am willing to agree that your unreasonable standard of proof cannot be met.
"We hold opinions about God and God's opinions which aren't provable."
Yes we do. However this not not mean that we cannot know facts about God, nor does it mean that everything we know about God is automatically an opinion. Again, if one limits the "acceptable" evidence to what you arbitrarily allow, your position might be reasonable. The fact that you choose to set unreasonable limits on what you will consider is not my problem, but yours.
"And you went on from there, appearing to say the opposite of what you're now agreeing to (or are you?)."
here we get to the crux of the difficulty. It does not matter how things appear to you. How things appear to you is not factually reality. As long as you continue to place how things appear to you over reality, there will be problems.
"So, you can see, I hope, why I'm trying to clearly establish you and I are grounded in reality."
Bullshit, what you're trying to do is dodge, bob, weave and avoid actually answering questions. As in the past, you'll run this tangent on long enough that you'll pull out the, it's too far back to remember of find your questions, please do my work for me.
I'm done with the BS hoops. Either you hold yourself to the same standards you expect from others or quit the crap.
Craig...
Why in god's name should I care. This is your problem not mine.
You should care because they are representing "conservative Christianity," and the more that conservative Christianity is considered out of touch with reality (and believe me, they are - I hear from folk all the time confirming that), the more marginalized your brand of Christianity is. This is not good for Christianity in general and not for your particular group of Christianity.
Further, you should care because this is a matter of truth, and truth is worth standing up for.
Having said that, we agree, very good. Why wouldn't you have said that to begin with and save us all this time?
Having said that, you still are saying...
However this not not mean that we cannot know facts about God, nor does it mean that everything we know about God is automatically an opinion.
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "know." Do we know objectively and are we able to demonstrate that our opinions about God's opinions are factual? You have just agreed that we don't know in a way that we can demonstrate and that it is unprovable. So, what do you mean by "know..."?
Do you mean, we can reach a conclusion about an opinion of ours (NOT God's, not that we provably "know") that we can feel reasonably confident in our opinion, even if we're not certain? Okay, sure.
Do you mean know, as in "be certain..."? Well, since we can't prove it objectively and since it IS human opinion, I don't know how a conservative would reach the opinion that our opinions about unprovable matters could be certain.
Here is where I think an humble, rational place to stand is:
I am reasonably confident in all my positions that they are moral, Godly and rational. I can't prove that they are factually correct and I acknowledge it IS unprovable, so I can't FULLY know (you recall, the Bible teaches "now we know IN PART") or be certain as in "I can't be mistaken..," but I am reasonably confident.
Is that what you mean by "know..."?
"You should care because they are representing "conservative Christianity,"..."
No, they are representing themselves. The fact that you don't realize this is troubling.
Beyond that. I've been clear, I'm done until you start answering questions.
Not playing this game anymore.
Craig...
1. I'm not sure I'd demean what God thinks by calling it an opinion.
I'm just using that term to mean, "what God thinks, what God expects." It's a shortcut way of saying that. Although I'm not sure what's wrong with thinking that God has an opinion. God's opinion is we should love one another and love God. How is that demeaning? It's just a way of saying "God's mind on a topic..." so, substitute that if you prefer.
2. It seems as though you are suggesting that all scripture interpretation is opinion.
Yes. It is.
We can say, "Gen. 1:1 says X" and quote the verse. BUT, when we move to interpreting it, we have moved to opinion. Some read the literal text of Genesis, for instance, and INTERPRET it to mean that God made the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago. Other people INTERPRET the same text to mean that God created the world billions of years ago and that "days" does not mean literal days.
These ARE interpretations. Interpretations ARE opinions.
Do you disagree?
What are they, if not opinions? Facts?
3. You seem to have a very one dimensional opinion of opinion.
How so? Opinions are opinions are opinions. Some opinions about unprovable things are very rational and believable, if not provable. Other opinions about unprovable things are less rational and less believable.
What is one dimensional about that?
"Here is where I think an humble, rational place to stand is..."
In case I haven't been clear, I don't care what you think about where someone else should stand or not stand.
How about you stand up for your self, answer questions, and provide objective support for your own positions.
Dan,
Are you seriously as stupid as you seem right now? I'm done playing you games until you show that common courtesy you expect from others and answer questions.
You can keep asking, but it just shows that you are moving further and further away from reality.
These are reasonable questions to ask, Craig.
ARE our interpretations of a text Opinion? Or, are they Fact?
CLEARLY, except to the delusional, an interpretation of a text IS opinion. Now, it may turn out to be a Correct opinion, or it may turn out to be a Incorrect opinion, but interpretations ARE opinions.
What else would they be?
And you can ignore the question if you want, and this conversation can end. I'm pretty tired of it.
But if you want to be counted amongst the rational and listened to, then you answer reasonable questions.
If you want to be counted amongst the irrational and ignored as delusional, then don't answer reasonable questions.
I don't care.
(And before anyone jumps there, an important note: I did NOT say that those who disagree with me are delusional. I am just sticking to basic reality and noting that those who can't distinguish between opinion and demonstrable fact have a disconnect with reality and they need help, if they want to be taken seriously.
If someone thinks that "My interpretation = FACT," that, too, is a confusing of opinion with fact and is delusional.
Your call, I don't care which way you go.
Are you seriously as stupid as you seem right now? I'm done playing you games until you show that common courtesy you expect from others and answer questions.
You can keep asking, but it just shows that you are moving further and further away from reality.
I've asked reasonable questions that you've ignored.
"And you can ignore the question if you want, and this conversation can end. I'm pretty tired of it."
But you can ignore multiple rational reasonable questions and you expect me to just roll over and keep answering the same questions over and over again. That's a rational courteous, grace filled stance to take.
"But if you want to be counted amongst the rational and listened to, then you answer reasonable questions."
So, it's perfectly fine for me to count you among the irrational and ignored since you refuse to answer reasonable questions? Double standard much?
"If you want to be counted amongst the irrational and ignored as delusional, then don't answer reasonable questions."
Then I have no choice but to count you among the irrational, ignorant and delusional, since you've been ignoring, dodging and obfuscating for the last two days.
Why in the name of all that is holy would you think it is rational to try to insult and shame me into doing something you have refused to do.
1. I don't know what questions you've asked that I have not answered, repeatedly.
2. The questions that you have asked are off topic. The topic being, Is it reasonable to expect people to recognize the difference between fact and opinion? and Our opinions about what God thinks are not provable, and our interpretations of biblical passages ARE our opinions, not facts.
3. Your questions that I have dealt with all come at a later point in the conversation, after we establish if we're speaking at a rational level or from a place of confusion about reality.
4. The bible teaches us to do things in an orderly manner, I'm striving to heed this wisdom.
Expecting people to be orderly in conversations is not an undue "burden" to hew to in a reasonable adult, Christian conversation.
Why do your questions come before mine? (and basically, I'm STILL trying to get the same three/four questions answered that I started with... all other questions have come at a later place in the conversation. I think it is reasonable to take turns and go in order, not jump the line.
Disagree if you wish, or answer if you wish, your call.
It's said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I guess it's true.
Look, Craig, you could have made this easier. Instead of attacking my position in your first post, you could have said that you basically agree. Instead of saying...
it appears as though you are attempting to establish a standard of "factualness" that cannot be met. Why would you choose to do this? Are you therefore suggesting that it is impossible to factually know anything about God?
You COULD have said:
* Dan, I agree that unprovable facts are unprovable and that people who would say otherwise are confused.
* I agree that it is rational to verify that someone you're talking with is starting from a place grounded in reality.
* I agree that we can't "prove" our opinions about God are actually in line with God's will.
* My concern is, you seem to be suggesting that we can't know ANYthing about God. Is that what you're saying...?
And I could have answered, "depends on what you mean by "know..."
And so on and we could have stepped our way through this conversation in an orderly, rational manner. Instead of asking questions to get clarification, you kept attacking and make false conclusions about what I've actually said, and seem to EVEN NOW still be hedging your bets, saying (it seems to me) "we can't PROVE we understand God's Will aright, but we can KNOW that we are doing right..." which seems to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. How do you KNOW something that you can't prove?
This is a reasonable question asked in the order it arose.
I suspect that perhaps you don't actually agree with me, you want to hang on to the notion that you can "know" that you are "right" and others "wrong," and objectively so. But if we can't prove it, then we can't know it objectively.
Which is what I've been saying and which still remains to be seen if you agree with reality or not.
As to your definition of crazy, perhaps you're right.
If you can't get people to acknowledge reality, no matter how many ways you approach the question, then perhaps it is delusion on their part and insanity on my part to try to help them.
"Instead of attacking my position in your first post..."
Now, it seems, we get to the root of the problem. You appear to have gotten confused by my first comment. You somehow interpreted it as an attack, when In fact I was dealing with you in exactly the fashion you have asked me to in the past. Let's break down what I actually said.
"It appears as though you are attempting to establish a standard of "factualness" that cannot be met."
As I read your comments I was confused about what level of "evidence" you felt was acceptable. It appeared, and still does, as you you had set an standard that is cannot be met. So, what I did was to establish what I thought you were saying. (Note the words "IT appears...") then I (in a quest for clarification) asked a question.
"Why would you choose to do this? Now it seems reasonable that in order to gain some insight into your standard, that a question or two would be in order. The first logical question is "Why?". This was followed by a logical follow up.
"Are you therefore suggesting that it is impossible to factually know anything about God?"
Again, a seemingly logical question.
Now I did not suggest that you were delusional or divorced from reality. I did not call you names. I did not refer to your comment as "mouth shit". I did not in any way engage in anything that could be reasonably construed as an attack.
It is obvious that your misinterpreting of my attempt to gain information has caused some sort of disconnect in the process.
Perhaps, you could have done as I tried to do and asked questions to gain clarification instead of jumping to an incorrect conclusion.
"This is a reasonable question asked in the order it arose."
Unfortunately there are a myriad of reasonable questions that you have chosen to avoid, dodge, dismiss, or otherwise not answer that have come before this in the order of comments.
So, once again, you can make all the excuses you like for your seemingly irrational, inconsistent, and cowardly refusal to answer reasonable questions. If you choose to engage in a conversation where both sides actually ask and answer questions, you might find it productive. But continuing to (seemingly intentionally) misrepresent my position, accuse me of delusions, and attempt to put words in my mouth is very unlikely to provide any sort of productive give and take.
What is clear at this point, at least to Craig, Bubba, Glenn, myself and any other honest person who happens to be following along, is that so many of these 230 comments are so unnecessary, and would have never been posted if Dan had merely rejected the tactic of asking questions about that which is not in question.
-We know the difference between fact and opinion.
-We know the definitions of the words "fact" and "opinion".
The point of this post, as well as my objections to the post of Dan's to which I linked, is that Dan has claimed unilaterally the supreme authority of declaring as opinion what another has put forth as fact. Having done so, he summarily dismisses that person as if that person was a second-class person unworthy of equal rights in discourse. That person no longer is eligible for recognition in a debate or discussion on the merits of the fact(s) that person has presented because Dan has ruled that he is delusional and incapable of distinguishing between fact and opinion. That person is then not entitled to any explanation regarding why his fact has been so labeled, nor provided any evidence or hard data that would render his fact as untrue, nor any evidence or hard data to support the proposition that whatever opposing position Dan holds might make more sense.
This resolution of Dan's makes him no better than a hypocrite as his claim that this other person is delusional is an ad hominem attack, since the term attacks the character of that person and never makes any effort whatsoever to address his fact, opinion or position.
Dan wastes everyone's time on establishing a premise that needs no establishing, as we are already dealing on that level naturally. But he needs some way to avoid addressing the questions and objections of his detractors, and calling them delusional, ignorant of the definitions of words or incapable of distinguishing between them relieves him of his obligation to step up to the plate and risk striking out.
"Annnddd... there it is. I asked for JUST ONE bit of objectively factual evidence to support the falsehood Marshall wrote and none was forthcoming."
Dan says this immediately after a comment of mine wherein I invite him to go back to my comment listing several facts supporting my understanding of Lev 18:22. However, I could be mistaken in which "falsehood" it is to which Dan now refers. In any case, I put forth no falsehood about him at all. Everything I've written comes with evidence or explanation that backs up what I say. Dan must not recognize this as it is something he does not do, and certainly hasn't done at all in the last 230 comments.
In any case, it really doesn't matter. Whether he's referring to Leviticus 18 or something else, he's pretty labeled everything I say as opinion, because Dan is the supreme authority on all things fact and opinion, just as I said he has declared himself. He just continues to prove my point over and over again, as if he hates himself and wants to be known as a liar and hypocrite.
Now I feel compelled to show Dan how analogies actually work and what good analogies look like. This will also serve to reinforce my position that it is a fact that God prohibits ALL homosexual behavior.
First, a re-printing of the verse in question, Leviticus 18:22:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. KJV
And you shall not lie with a male as lying with a woman; that is a detestable thing. LEB
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. NIV
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. ESV
And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is]. YLT (This one reminds me of Yoda)
I selected several Bible translations just because. But it is plain that it is a rather comprehensive or sweeping prohibition of a particular act. The verse provides a reason why the act is prohibited: because the act is an abomination or detestable. Two facts in one verse.
Dan, if I am not mistaken, does not reject the claim that it is a fact that this verse is actually in Scripture and is verse 22 of the 18th Chapter of Leviticus. He was gracious enough to agree with this. How special.
But Dan doesn't believe this applies to all "forms" of homosexual behavior, that it does not prohibit it in particular scenarios that Dan regards as (snicker) equal to real marriage. My analogies are in response to this inane objection.
The first is the "no snacks before dinner" analogy. Dan's position is as a kid trying to grab a snack before dinner, and argues about whether or not his choice is covered by his mother's order of "no snacks before dinner". Dan goes through the list of possibilities. How 'bout cookies? How 'bout pretzels? How 'bout cheese? How 'bout Snickers? "Nothing!" his mother says. But Dan goes and makes a sandwich, claiming that a sandwich isn't a snack.
Now Ma is a bit at fault because she's had Dan for a son for quite some time. She doesn't realize as Dan's blog opponents do, that one must be exact and precise lest Dan attempt to create a loophole. But Dan knows full well that Ma's edict is really that no food of any kind is permissible while she is preparing dinner. There is NO exception. Why is that? Because she is working hard to prepare dinner and expects that her little boy eats what she feels is good for him, and he won't want to if he has spoiled his appetite with snacks before dinner. It would interfere with her plans for dinner and providing nutrition for her boy.
Dan's position on homosexual behavior is the same way. He insists God allows for some snack before dinner. He insists that God's plan for having created us male and female isn't a concern worth denying Dan his snack.
But God has a plan, as Jesus reiterates in addressing questions regarding divorce.
more coming...don't interrupt
Then Dan will pretend that we can't know that verse 22 means what I say it means, a meaning that has been understood in the same way since Moses jotted it down. He tries to insist we can't know that God means all homosexual behavior.
So here's my next analogy:
I grab Dan by the collar and begin altering the color, size and position of the components of his face with my vicious right hook. He cries out for me to stop, in essence saying, "Thou shalt not punch my face!" Before acquiescing to his prohibition, I reason that it does not apply to my barrage because there is no way for me to know for sure that pertains to me and in addition, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely...by golly I'm cool putting such things into practice. Rearranging the face of a heretic covers all that as I choose to interpret the passage.
Clearly, however, "Thou shalt not punch my face" is a sweeping and comprehensive prohibition, as Dan clearly doesn't want his face punched at any time for any reason. He would expect me, and others, to take it for granted that without providing any examples whereby punching his face would be acceptable to him, we must assume that no such scenario exists and the best choice is to not punch his face, no matter how much love is in our hearts when doing so, because we see the value in such forms of correction for heretics.
Verse 22 doesn't refer to homosexuals who love each other and commit to each other for life as if they are forming a normal, true marriage? The verse refers to the sexual acts in which they are likely to engage and context is wholly and totally irrelevant to the prohibition, just as it doesn't matter what Dan intends to eat before dinner, or what motivation is behind punching Dan's face. This is true as the verse stands alone, if it is within the context of Chapter 18, if it is within the context of the whole of Leviticus and as it sits within the pages of the entire Bible, because there is nothing that so much as hints of a possible alternative interpretation, and nothing that indicates any scenario by which lying with a male as a male typically would with a female is ever NOT an abomination.
The logic inherent in these masterful analogies alone are enough evidence to support my righteous position on the subject of God's prohibition applying today to all forms of homosexual behavior. But it is hardly all the facts available to support it. And it is based not on me speaking for God, but based on what God Himself has said as recorded in Leviticus 18.
There is more that exists about this one verse that refutes Dan's desperate and hopeless attempts to rationalize and justify his heretical position. But he couldn't overcome the logic these analogies highlight if his life depended upon doing so. He will simply dismiss the analogies as he does all else that stands opposed to his heresies.
All the above is "opinion" to Dan, because he doesn't like the implications the truth forces him and his old lesbian friends to face. But he will offer no hard data of his own. He will offer no sound argument (as we have seen in his "volumes" of repeated weak defenses submitted over the years). Far easier to attack the person than confront is position and argument. Quite typical of leftists in general, but Dan brings so much more deceit into the strategy.
Marshall,
Boy, you got me laughing so much I was almost brought to tears!!!!
Okay, just because Marshall has offered up what he thinks is "proof" that I called a "fact" an "opinion," I'll respond at least one more time, demonstrating objectively how Marshall's "fact" is, as a matter of objective fact, an "opinion." I'll use some different approaches to hopefully make it abundantly obvious.
Marshall points to Lev 18. Let me take that text and a few other texts and look at them together, so we can sort out opinion and fact.
* Lev 18 says men shall not lie with men.
* Lev 20 says men shall not lie with me, if they do, you are commanded to kill them.
* Lev 19 has a command against men cutting the hair on the side of their heads.
* The Boy Scout Handbook (BSAH) has a rule about the pledge of allegiance, saying it "should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart."
* The song, Little Bunny Foo Foo (LBFF), has a rule against bopping field mice on the head (the good fairy said, "I don't want to see you bopping them on their heads..." and threatens bunny foo foo if he keeps it up)
Five texts containing rules. EACH text factually says what it says, each factually gives a rule, that is not in question.
From there, though, the literary critic can ask some rational questions:
1. What is the source? (what literary style is it written in, who wrote it, what is the context, etc)
2. What is the authority of the source?
3. Is this a universal rule that must apply to everyone? According to whom?
4. Are there conditions on the rules? According to whom?
5. What is the hard evidence for each of these?
Okay, with me so far? The person plopped from a life on a desert island has been shown these five texts and asked to explain them. Here are five questions that this person, if he/she is a rational person concerned about morality would ask.
Fair enough?
Cont'd...
Okay, starting with Lev 18
1. What is the source? (what literary style is it written in, who wrote it, what is the context, etc)
The source is the Holiness Code section of the OT book of Leviticus. The literary style is a history of the Hebrew people passed down orally from ~4000 years ago.
The author? We don't know. Some people would say God. Other people would say Moses. Other people would say it is a compilation of tradition by various people, all inspired by God.
We have NO hard proof of who wrote it. No objective data, discernible to all, that says God inspired it. We have NO proof that, if God inspired it, that God's INTENTION was a universal condemnation of all male-male gay sex or if it was limited to ancient Israel, TO WHOM the text was written. IF it was indeed inspired by God and IF, indeed, it is intended to be a universal rule.
Most Christians have traditionally accepted that this was 1. a rule literally given to ancient Israel and 2. that its intent was a universal rule NOT ONLY against male-male sex acts, but against all homosexual sex acts.
Some Christians have disagreed. Neither side have objective evidence that God wrote it, inspired it or what God's intent was on the text.
2. What is the authority of the source?
Well, IF it was written by God, IF it was intended as a universal rule against gay male sex, THEN that would be a strong authority against this as an immoral act. But people do not agree on either of these points and there is no objective, demonstrable proof of God's inspiring it or of God's intent.
3. Is this a universal rule that must apply to everyone? According to whom?
Again, some sects within and without Christianity would say that this is "clearly" a rule against gay male sex, and "clearly" suggests that all gay sex, male or female, is wrong.
But not all people would agree with this opinion and it is an unprovable opinion.
4. Are there conditions on the rules? According to whom?
Within the text, this is part of the Holiness Code given specifically to ancient Israel. That is factually within the text and factually within the text, who the rules are addressed to.
Now, some people have said that this particular rule is a universal rule against all homosexual behavior. But this is not a provable opinion.
5. What is the hard evidence for each of these?
Given as I've gone along.
With me so far?
Okay, Lev 20
1. What is the source? (what literary style is it written in, who wrote it, what is the context, etc)
The source is the Holiness Code section of the OT book of Leviticus. The literary style is a history of the Hebrew people passed down orally from ~4000 years ago.
The author? We don't know. Some people would say God. Other people would say Moses. Other people would say it is a compilation of tradition by various people, all inspired by God.
We have NO hard proof of who wrote it. No objective data, discernible to all, that says God inspired it. We have NO proof that, if God inspired it, that God's INTENTION was a universal condemnation of all male-male gay sex or if it was limited to ancient Israel, TO WHOM the text was written. IF it was indeed inspired by God and IF, indeed, it is intended to be a universal rule.
Most Christians have traditionally accepted that this was 1. a rule literally given to ancient Israel and 2. that its intent was a universal rule NOT ONLY against male-male sex acts, but against all homosexual sex acts.
Some Christians have disagreed. Those who do not believe the text to be inspired by God or an authority do not agree. Neither side have objective evidence that God wrote it, inspired it or what God's intent was on the text.
2. What is the authority of the source?
Well, IF it was written by God, IF it was intended as a universal rule against gay male sex and a command to kill those who engage in it, THEN that would be a strong authority against this as an immoral act and that we SHOULD kill those who engage in it. But people do not agree on either of these points and there is no objective, demonstrable proof of God's inspiring it or of God's intent.
3. Is this a universal rule that must apply to everyone? According to whom?
Again, some sects within and without Christianity would say that this is "clearly" a rule against gay male sex, and "clearly" suggests that all gay sex, male or female, is wrong. Some, but not many, even think the command to kill the participants is a clear command from God. Most people every disagree. Today.
But not all people would agree with this opinion and it is an unprovable opinion.
4. Are there conditions on the rules? According to whom?
Within the text, this is part of the Holiness Code given specifically to ancient Israel. That is factually within the text and factually within the text, who the rules are addressed to.
Now, some people have said that this particular rule is a universal rule against all homosexual behavior. But this is not a provable opinion.
Some people have said that the rule against male-male sex is a universal rule, but the command to kill them is not, that it was specifically to ancient Israel.
Again, this is not a provable opinion.
5. What is the hard evidence for each of these?
Given as I've gone along.
With me so far?
Okay, starting with Lev 19
1. What is the source? (what literary style is it written in, who wrote it, what is the context, etc)
The source is the Holiness Code section of the OT book of Leviticus. The literary style is a history of the Hebrew people passed down orally from ~4000 years ago.
The author? We don't know. Some people would say God. Other people would say Moses. Other people would say it is a compilation of tradition by various people, all inspired by God.
Of course, for this one and the previous two, some would say there is no evidence that it is inspired by God or that a particular interpretation is inspired by God.
We have NO hard proof of who wrote it. No objective data, discernible to all, that says God inspired it. We have NO proof that, if God inspired it, that God's INTENTION was a universal condemnation of all male hair cutting on the side of the head or if it was specifically to ancient Israel. IF it was indeed inspired by God and IF, indeed, it is intended to be a universal rule.
Most Christians have traditionally accepted that this was 1. a rule literally given to ancient Israel and 2. that its intent was NOT a universal rule about how men should not cut the hair on the side of their heads.
Presumably, many Jewish folk would take it as literally applying to them, but not necessarily to others.
No sides have objective evidence that God wrote it, inspired it or what God's intent was on the text or who it applies to, if it was indeed inspired by God and if, indeed, God has a Perfect Will about men's hair cuts.
2. What is the authority of the source?
Well, IF it was written by God, IF it was intended as a universal rule against certain haircuts for men, THEN that would be a strong authority against this as an immoral act.
But people do not agree on either of these points and there is no objective, demonstrable proof of God's inspiring it or of God's intent.
The application of the rule is an unprovable opinion.
3. Is this a universal rule that must apply to everyone? According to whom?
Again, some sects within and without Christianity would say that this is "clearly" a rule specifically for ancient Israel, and "clearly" suggests that it's not a universal rule, applying to people today.
The text itself DOES say (as with all these rules) that it is given specifically to ancient Israel. Those who support the Lev 18 and Lev 20 (the first part) as literal universal rules have given no reason as to why this is not also a universal rule other than it "obviously" (meaning, obviously to them, in their unprovable opinion) is not a universal rule, but was, as the text says, given specifically to ancient Israel, while the other rule and a half are "obviously" universal. In their unprovable opinion.
But not all people would agree with these opinions and it is an unprovable opinion.
4. Are there conditions on the rules? According to whom?
Within the text, this is part of the Holiness Code given specifically to ancient Israel. That is factually within the text and factually within the text, who the rules are addressed to.
Again, not everyone would accept this as a rule from God in the first place or who it does and doesn't apply to IF it is a rule from God. But none of these are provable opinions.
5. What is the hard evidence for each of these?
Given as I've gone along.
With me so far?
Okay, the BSAH
1. What is the source? (what literary style is it written in, who wrote it, what is the context, etc)
The Boy Scout rule book which, itself, cites the "US Flag Code" on this point.
The author? Surely this is discoverable, although I don't know off the top of my head and have not researched it.
Many, but not all, Christians and US citizens have accepted that this was 1. a rule for BSA and for US citizens and 2. that its intent is that this is a good and right thing to do. Some would insist that it is morally wrong to NOT stand at attention as described.
Some Christians and others have disagreed, thinking a "pledge of allegiance" to a nation is not a moral thing to do.
Neither side can prove that their opinion is the "Right" one.
2. What is the authority of the source?
For the BSA, it is simply part of their traditional rules and, if you want to be a BS in good standing, you follow the rule.
No one claims that this is a rule from God and MUST BE a universal rule followed, and would probably allow that it depends on the circumstances.
3. Is this a universal rule that must apply to everyone? According to whom?
Probably most people would agree that it is not a universal rule in their opinion and, for those who believe in God, would probably allow that God has not come out with a moral stance of the pledge of allegiance.
This is, of course, all unprovable, but is not unreasonable.
4. Are there conditions on the rules? According to whom?
For the BSA and for US citizens, it is a Rule given to all citizens. It does say "Should" stand at attention for the pledge and is not specifically defined as a universal command. According to the text and almost certainly, any legal scholars who've addressed it.
5. What is the hard evidence for each of these?
Given as I've gone along.
With me so far?
Okay, finally, LBFF
1. What is the source? (what literary style is it written in, who wrote it, what is the context, etc)
A children's traditional song.
The author, as far as I know, is unknown.
Most folk would agree with the opinion that it is not good to go around bopping field mice - or people - on their heads. Many might even agree that if you keep on picking on others that you might be punished.
Neither side can prove that their opinion is the "Right" one and no one is concerned about it, as this is clearly written in a nursery tale/fairy tale sort of style.
2. What is the authority of the source?
None claimed. It's teaching a universally accepted rule not to pick on others and that you might get punished if you do. No one really objects to this rule, as far as I know, as it seems innately clear, regardless of opinion and religious preference.
The opinion seems obvious, but there is no way to appeal to a source to "prove" this opinion objectively.
3. Is this a universal rule that must apply to everyone? According to whom?
Probably most people would agree that it is a universally good thing to do, to not pick on others. Many would agree that Karma or God or Justice will catch up to you if you do insist on being mean.
This is, of course, all unprovable, but is not unreasonable.
4. Are there conditions on the rules? According to whom?
No.
5. What is the hard evidence for each of these?
Given as I've gone along.
Clearly, these texts all SAY what they say. The questions are:
What is the Meaning?
and
Says who?
The answer to these two questions is objectively, factually unprovable. Some interpretations to some meanings of some texts will seem (to we humans) Obvious and Reasonable and, if we can appeal to it, Self-Evident.
But other than an appeal to Self-Evidence, there is nothing provable about the various answers to these two questions.
Factually speaking.
Thus, when I said that Marshall's INTERPRETATION of the text IS an opinion, not a fact, I spoke the Truth of the situation. Obviously so.
If you can't see that, well, talk to Reality. Good luck.
Hopefully, you can see that and we're all on the same Reality page.
Now, with all of that, have a blessed, joyful and warm weekend, friends.
Oh, one more thing. I meant to add to this line...
The literary style is a history of the Hebrew people passed down orally from ~4000 years ago. This was a time before the era of Modern History telling when histories have been told in non-linear, not strictly factual ways. It was a time of telling history via Legend, Epic and Myth literary styles. We have no objective evidence that "proves" this text was written in these styles, BUT NEITHER do we have any objective evidence that they were NOT written in those styles, as they appear to many to be written in.
Regardless, the INTENDED literary style is unprovable, factually speaking. The text does not tell us and the author(s) have not told us. Factually speaking.
Dan calls the following "a logical consideration" in analyzing Scripture...
"BUT NEITHER do we have any objective evidence that they were NOT written in those styles, as they appear to many to be written in.
Thus, we must consider that there is no evidence Leviticus wasn't written in Crayola's "burnt umber", so we must allow that possibility existed. We have no evidence that Moses didn't receive revelation by way of an audible report when breaking wind, so therefore that, too, is a possibility. We could speculate on an uncountable number of possible things for which we have no evidence of having occurred, but no honest student or scholar of antiquity bases conclusions in this manner. Only those who need the room to assert their personal desires and preferences do such dishonest things.
The facts remain, Marshall:
You can NOT prove your opinion is a fact. You factually can NOT do so.
Thus, I did not call a "fact" an opinion. I called an opinion and opinion.
A decent man would admit he misspoke.q
That is, a decent man who was not also delusional.
As to this...
We could speculate on an uncountable number of possible things for which we have no evidence of having occurred, but no honest student or scholar of antiquity bases conclusions in this manner
We could, but there is no reason to speculate on most of them, as at least your examples are silly ones.
On the other hand, it is not in any way unreasonable to think that this text - which does not claim to be a factual history written in the modern style and for which there is no evidence - is written in a more figurative, poetic style, the styles common to the day. One could also theorize - not unreasonably - that it is a more literal history written in the Modern style of history telling. These are both not unreasonable theories.
Neither one is factually provable. Not in the real world.
Why, then, would anyone insist that one is provable and one is not? Or can we admit the reality that we can prove that neither one is provable, that they are both opinions that can't be proven, as is simple reality?
3000 (give or take) years of Jewish and Christian theologians and scholars have operated under the premise that the Bible is ultimately authored by God.
yet all Dan has to do to dismiss this vast history is simply point out that "some people" don;t think this to be the case.
MA, apparently it's not the quality of opinion that makes it is the quantity of opinion.
OH, and if you use ALL CAPS or bold typeface it makes it fact as well.
"That is, a decent man who was not also delusional."
I'm guessing the chances for objective undeniable evidence to back up this statement will not be forthcoming.
Guys,
You Know you're just wasting your time - Trabue is always right and everyone else is delusional.
Glenn,
My wife, the fetching Mrs. Marshall Art, as Hugh Hewitt would say, believes all the blogging I do is a waste of my time (which I suspect she regards as actually her time). But I actually find it entertaining to see just what wackiness Dan will conjure to refute more sensible, logical and truthful positions. Call it "cheap entertainment".
"You can NOT prove your opinion is a fact. You factually can NOT do so."
Not with anything that would satisfy the rigorous standards of one so given over to their corruption, such as yourself. But many things in life are regarded as true and factual based on evidence far more circumstantial than anything put forth here. Whether or not people like yourself buy into it is irrelevant to the truth buttressed by that evidence. The salient point here is that you continue to regard the facts I present as opinion, based on...wait for it...your opinion and nothing more. You childishly hold your breath until you turn blue, insisting one admits one's position is only opinion until you are satisfied enough that one's remorse in daring to be so bold is sufficient enough for you to grace us with your counter argument...(breath)...as if that will change the truth of the matter one way or the other. Cut the crap and make with the evidence of your own. If it is compelling enough to reduce the status of my position from fact to opinion, I can assure you that I would have absolutely no problem in doing so. Until then, expecting me to regard fire as anything but hot with out evidence in support of a contrary position does not have any value whatsoever in the debate but to allow you to stall. It's an irrelevant point to argue in place of the more relevant points being put forth. It's a disingenuous tactic that fools no one, but serves well to further cast doubt as to your honesty. You'd do well to jettison this whole notion of wasting time on what is or isn't fact and just man up and make your case.
Marhall,
Well, I'd certainly have to disagree with your Mrs, because I think you have some of brilliant blogging which people could learn from --- but ONLY if they are open to learning. Unlike Trabue, who is never in need of learning because he knows everything and is right about everything. If you don't agree with that, it's because you are delusional.
In any case, your whine and the lame excuses for what you seem to regard as an argument against the fact that I have offered facts, distracts from the real issues surrounding the debate. Let's review some before I have to pause for a few chores...
"Five texts containing rules. EACH text factually says what it says, each factually gives a rule, that is not in question."
The first idiotic claim is that you're pointing to five texts. I don't know that we can regard a single verse as a text. I can see how you'd be confused given that your repeating the same lame claims over and over constitutes for you "volumes". But I would say it is more accurate to say "three" texts.
Secondly, not one of those "texts" relates to any of the others, with the notable exception of Lev 20 relating to Lev 18, which supports my underlying premise nicely. So thank you for that.
Thirdly, what is said in any other text that is not the Bible or related to understanding the Bible is wholly irrelevant as it they are not related in any way, nor helpful in understanding the verse in question and the fact that it is applicable today.
Fourthly, we've established, I'm fairly sure, that it a fact that Lev 18:22 says what it says, because you need to pretend you're being reasonable in admitting that it does say what it says. Thus, you no longer have to make any reference to the fact that it actually says "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." You seem to find comfort in such redundancy.
And fifth, since three of the five "texts" (I'm excluding Lev 20:13) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever and the "opinion" that Lev 18:22 still applies today, I dispense with all useless references to them.
continuing...don't interrupt
"From there, though, the literary critic can ask some rational questions:
1. What is the source? (what literary style is it written in, who wrote it, what is the context, etc)
2. What is the authority of the source?
3. Is this a universal rule that must apply to everyone? According to whom?
4. Are there conditions on the rules? According to whom?
5. What is the hard evidence for each of these?
Okay, with me so far? The person plopped from a life on a desert island has been shown these five texts and asked to explain them. Here are five questions that this person, if he/she is a rational person concerned about morality would ask."
Sez you. As we are not concerned with the Boy Scout manual or a fairy tale, the two of them would not be shown to our desert castaway. But, allowing that YOU would endeavor to make your point by doing so, I would wonder by what standard this poor soul judge the validity of ANYTHING you show him, as he lived in a freakin' desert with nothing by which he could refer to make such judgements. You need to give up on trying to craft analogies or hypotheticals, as you continually prove you lack the skill to do so without provoking laughter and pity.
Next, I am not concerned with any "literary critic" who is not a Christian seeking to divine which Levitical laws apply to Christians today and why. This is the only thing that matters as I do not use Scripture to debate the truth regarding the dysfunction of homosexual attraction and the immorality of acting on that attraction.
(Side note: since atheists suggest that no deity is necessary for morality, and that morality is a natural product of our evolution, I have no prohibition against using the term "morality" with non-believers and expect and insist they do not use this as an excuse to claim I'm forcing my religious beliefs into the debate.)
So now we can respond to the questions based on Christian belief and teaching.
1. The Bible, written by a variety of men inspired by God, some with direct contact with God. In this case, the book of Leviticus is widely believed to have been written by Moses who claims to have had the most direct contact with God than any other human save Christ, or perhaps, Adam.
2. God Himself.
3. Yes, according to God Himself.
4. No, according to God Himself.
5. His Holy Word as revealed to us in Scripture, by the testimony of his servant, Moses.
These are the facts you dispute. Get on with disproving them like a decent honorable man would.
GREAT stuff, Marshall, especially the comment from February 14 at 9:06 PM. It wouldn't do for me to quote the whole thing, but I think you've nailed it.
"The point of this post, as well as my objections to the post of Dan's to which I linked, is that Dan has claimed unilaterally the supreme authority of declaring as opinion what another has put forth as fact. Having done so, he summarily dismisses that person as if that person was a second-class person unworthy of equal rights in discourse. That person no longer is eligible for recognition in a debate or discussion on the merits of the fact(s) that person has presented because Dan has ruled that he is delusional and incapable of distinguishing between fact and opinion."
That accusation of delusion is the height of hypocrisy, not only because Dan poses as an enemy of ad hominem attacks, but also because he cannot possibly prove the accusation in a way that would satisfy his own ridiculous standards.
--
Craig has always struck me as the least flappable of all of us, so it's worth noting that Dan has even him swearing in frustration.
--
I'm reminded of that Narnia book, The Silver Chair.
At the risk of spoilers, the book's lesson is clear: at a certain point it's useless (and even dangerous) to continue arguing with a sophist.
The witch was arguing against the facts of the overworld, the sun, and Aslan himself; Dan here is arguing against facts he doesn't like and even the concept of facts when they don't meet his arbitrary standards.
There are some serpents you don't defeat in debate: you slay them -- or in this case, it REALLY may be best simply to repudiate Dan Trabue as the deceiver that we've long since known him to be.
Bubba,
Thanks, I think.
Marshall, well said. Only Dan would attempt to offer the BSA handbook and a silly children's song as an equivalent to the Bible. Further, only Dan would simply approach the Bible as a literary critic, as if it was simply the newest Danielle Steele novel.
It was definitely a compliment: as initially satisfying as some of my vented anger toward Dan has been, I do wish I hadn't let his lunacy rile me like that, and so I've always appreciated your more even-toned approach.
I've dealt with Trabue for too many years. As soon as I see his nonsense pop up, my irritated factor raises exponentially. If he wasn't so dishonest, he would be easier to deal with, but his dishonesty makes every discussion with him an exercise in futility.
MA,
On a semi related subject, one of your favorite bloggers has removed the possibility of comments from his blog, while Dan's new rules allow him to severely limit comments on his whims.
Interesting contrast, no?
Alex,
You have me at a disadvantage. To which favorite blogger (sarcasm, perhaps?) do you refer?
Dan's been limiting comments in one way or another for quite some time.
BTW, while I welcome comments from most anyone whenever one is moved to do so, I'm a bit embarrassed at not recognizing you. Have you commented on any of my posts before? Forgive me if I'm having a premature senior moment.
MA,
Sorry, I signed in with my son's Google acct., I didn't even notice.
Also, GKS is the comment eliminating blogger.
Wow, Craig. Somehow, without having visited in a while, I knew you were referencing lil' Geoffie. How sad that is, but how very much expected as well. He has whined about my leaving comments on his blog, comments seeking an expanded explanation for his perspective...kinda what the comments option is all about...and I had suggested that perhaps not having a comments section would allow for him to opine as if his perspective couldn't possibly provoke questions, objections or reaction. How sad indeed.
Post a Comment