As I look
to the links regarding the Bilkszto case, it becomes even more clear why
you chose to take the position you did. The DEI bully, Ojo-Thompson,
is just like you. Rather than deal with objections to her questionable
and unsupported claims, she seeks to cancel...."delete" if you
will...the response by Bilkszto to those questionable and unsupported
claims. And just like you, she insists that he ignores what he knows to
be true...because it is...in favor of "BVLTT!"...even while
acknowledging the fact that racism and discrimination is still a problem
which requires resolving.
But you prefer to attack this guy's
sad and unfortunate response to his dilemma with your evil,
condescending "fragile egos of white men" crap, as if the ego of a blog
host who deletes for the slightest infraction is steel. His lawyer, in a
released statement about his demise presented:
"On his retirement from full-time work in 2019, a superintendent from the TDSB wrote to Richard,
You
have proven your excellence in equity, instruction, entrepreneurship,
student engagement and breaking new ground for communities where chronic
struggles, mental health and newcomer status often brought more
frustration than success. You have been a leader amongst leader in
changing their lives." (emboldened mine).
High praise
indeed, and in many ways mirrors the self-congratulatory presentations
of your own work and church-related service. I highlighted "mental
health" because I'm aware that there are many who serve in mental health
areas because of their own struggles in that regard. This man could be
just such a person and why he responded to his woes as he did, if
indeed they were the main reason he took his own life.
You
ought to be ashamed of yourself for your fixation on this portion of my
link and your foul exploitation of it and the man's suffering to promote
your bullshit "white privilege" narrative. If I had respect left for
you at all, which I didn't, it would now have been destroyed by this
grace-embracing evil.
Tuesday, November 26, 2024
A Note To Dan In The Event He Deleted It When Submitted Under His DEI Post
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
135 comments:
Dan continues to act as if this post doesn't accurately reflect her response to a serious situation regarding the suicide of an evidently gracious and charitable man, concerned with doing good in the world.
Dan's truly a petulant little girl. What she's not, is a Christian.
I again attempted to engage on this issue with the lying fake Christian, Dan, and she again deleted my comment rather than "man up" (not that the little girl ever could) and respond like the adult he demands others be. This is sad and she represents the progressive accurately for whom truth and facts are anathema.
The worst part is that there is no chance at ever healing divisions which have widened so greatly because of those like Dan and her kind. They prefer to cling to their lies and fictions, such as Trump being a felon. Trump's never been sentenced, so he's not a felon. But they like using that term because it paints Trump in a dark light, which is how they operate. They demonize opposition rather than bring facts to prove their opponents are wrong or in error.
In Dan's most recent post, where she shames her favored candidate Biden for pardoning his miscreant son, she pretends what Biden did is typical of the better party, projecting again all she needs to believe is true about them in order to rationalize her hatred of them and her devotion to wickedness. I called her out on it and again, she deleted my comment. In the meantime, we see her troll spewing his typical lies...lies very much in the same vein as Dan's...and no doubt they will remain unscathed from Dan's deletion cleaver. I think she wants to show that she doesn't delete on the basis of disagreement, but the troll isn't disagreeing as much as putting a leftist twist on an already pathetically leftist opinion.
And of course, Dan's NEVER presented ANY evidence which supports the notion that DEI improves anything. The closest he's come is in a past post of hers which goes on about the work she does in finding jobs for the disabled. It's without question a worthy and laudable endeavor on behalf of the disabled. But it isn't enough. She tries, but fails, to assert that it's good for businesses who hire the disabled. The problem is that her "evidence" never compares apples to apples. That is, are the disabled employees better than others with the same knowledge and work ethic? None of Dan's "evidence" makes that comparison. We are only told that those replaced by the disabled are not as reliable or dedicated to the company as the disabled person who previously struggled to find gainful employment. What a surprise! To want badly a gig and then to endeavor never to lose the gig one gets by striving to prove one's self isn't an expendable asset! So while one can laud those who help the disabled, either from the headhunter side of the equation or the employer willing to make accommodations to employ the disabled, that's not in itself an argument for DEI in any way, because in the end, it's still a matter of filling positions with good people. Their disability, skin color or sex is secondary to that if considered at all. Merit is what matters above all else in hiring or placing or admitting to institutions of higher learning.
DEI does not improve a thing. Merit does. The focus on helping people needs to be in encouraging self-improvement to an extent that one becomes exactly the person sought by those in need of people. Organizations are improved by the quality of character of those who are the organization.
Dan and those like her will never understand because they're too busy wanting to posture as better than others.
I posted about the study published in a journal that demonstrates that Dan is full of bullshit, yet he (who reveres studies and journals and the like) somehow just ignores the evidence he doesn't like. Much like he's ignored the fact that most of Europe's experts believe the he and the pro-"trans" folx are full of shit as well.
Dan's fundamentally a bully and a coward. He rarely bothers to pay attention to anything from experts that doesn't support the Narrative he's committed to and he prefers to hide at his blog where he and his henchman can say vile, and false things about others and he can simply delete anything that he doesn't like or that scares him. He demands his way regularly, but can't handle it when he doesn't get his way. He thrives when he can control, bully, and lie about others.
I'd seen your comments at the cesspool, then I went back to dig a little deeper and found them deleted. Just more proof of Dan's cowardly bullying. His making fun of and demeaning someone who was driven to suicide is simply vile.
Craig,
I'm glad I made a post out of the comment she's deleted. Because I did, I've been able to copy/paste it back in the comments section of her blog post three times...only to have him deleted it yet again. She responded to it with nonsensical, cheap excuses and rationalizations, but refuses to deal honestly with the facts. Instead, she chooses to defend a bully of a DEI promoting black woman because she's a DEI promoting black woman and who cares that an evidently mentally/emotionally disabled white guy took his life, supposedly as a result. Apparently only leftist disabled people are worthy of Dan's concern and patronage.
Dan's always been a fraud and it seems she'll never be any different.
I've done this in the past, and I believe that it is it helpful to be able to demonstrate that his characterizations of the deleted comments are lies on his part. He is so committed to whatever Narrative his political overlords tell him is correct, that he gets myopic in defending that Narrative.
People like him are very sheep like in their devotion to whatever they're told, yet strangely enough think that they are independent thinkers and non conformists.
There's a quote attributed to John Lyden that talks about how things have changed so much since the 60s/70s and that those advocating for rebellion then are now the establishment, and the establishment then are now the rebels.
Dan lives in a fantasy world of his own creation, and clearly has no interest in allowing anything to intrude on the cocoon he's created.
Dan reminds me of cult members. Never allowed to think for himself, adheres to his religion (LEFTISM) with ardor and believes everything his cult tells him.
You guys are sooo deceived when it comes to Trump. Come over here and learn the truth about him: http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2024/12/dont-be-fooled-by-trumps-lies.html
TDS is strong in this one!
I've taken a cursory look at your link. Lots of out-of-context nonsense and nothing I'd consider "truth" about Trump as a result. I'll take a deeper dive later, as other stuff at that site seems legitimately interesting. The host is a real Trump hater, that's for sure. Serious problem for one claiming to be Christian.
One claim I found especially funny is Trump caused the border problem by his plan to close the border. That's funny. "We'd better get over there before Trump puts up the wall, or we'll NEVER get in illegally!" OK. I can see that from those who aren't willing to go through the legal process, but that just exposes the fact that so many were already coming to cross illegally, not that they were compelled by Trump's plan. What nonsense!
I read that article and agree with Art. Metacrock's article is a CROCK.
As an aside, I'll note that Dan appears to continue to delete your comments and respond to out of context snippets of your comments at will. It's his MO, to misrepresent what you say and twist his response based on his removal of the context.
It's amusing to see the troll bashing him, and see Dan's absolutely clueless reply. Then see him responding to out of context snippets of your deleted comments.
He clearly suffers from a bad case of TDS. I don't know if this "Anon Boy" is the host of that blog, but if not, then "Anon Boy" is also infected. In any case, I haven't had time to check out his other stuff related to Christianity. It could be that he's cool on that while being a lunatic regarding Trump, but we'll see in time...if I actually choose to investigate.
Craig,
I don't know if Dan's comments in response to his troll are clueless, as I haven't read the troll's stuff or Dan responses. Given the troll is clueless, to have a clueless response to a clueless comment from the troll is take cluelessness to whole 'nuther level!
I really don't get Dan's deleting behavior. If my comments were all that he says they are, why not leave them posted for all his millions of visitors to see? If his criticism are valid, they would all agree with him. He's clearly afraid to engage in the "respectful, adult manner" he claims to insist his visitors (especially his conservative visitors) must manifest. I could understand it if I was constantly referring to him in truly vulgar terms, but I don't. He's just the lying coward we've long known him to be, and he's getting worse with age.
It may be the first time in years that I actually read the entirety of a comment by the troll, but they are pretty clueless as well. Yet Dan appears pathetic and lost in his response, almost like he can't believe his buddy turned on him.
That's exactly why I don't delete Dan's comments, and why I quote so expensively from him when I respond. I want people to see the context, I want people to see the idiocy and vitriol, I want Dan's words on record for anyone to see. He's too liable to try to weasel out of things he's said and I absolutely want the evidence in black and white.
In the case of comments on his blog, I think it's about control. He wants to have complete control of the narrative, and doesn't want to allow any sort of free exchange if he can avoid it. It's why he makes up absurd reasons for deleting, and never actually demonstrates what it is that offended his delicate sensibilities so much that it needed to be gone. He's, like many on the left, simply power hungry. It's why he gets so pissed when I try to keep him on topic at my blog or when I call him out for something outrageous. At his blog, no one can do that, so he can say whatever he wants.
The troll is droll.
"why not leave them posted for all his millions of visitors to see?"
Listen to the women, LGBTQ folks, sexual assault survivors and other decent humans who are routinely brutalized by vulgar false comments like yours. They'd tell you.
Your type of comments cause active harm. I know that you probably don't understand that, but it doesn't change the reality.
Additionally, when I ask you to support your fact claims or admit that they are only your unsupported, subjective opinions and you opt not to do so, you are spreading harmful gossip and slander which undermines decency and honesty and you won't do that on my page.
It's a way of trying to help YOU learn the difference between subjective opinions and objective facts.
I typically will give you one/a FEW chances to admit reality. Beyond that, I cut you off.
You have to ask yourself, Why am I not willing to simply support my claims with proof? Is it because I can't???
Dan
Craig opined...
"In the case of comments on his blog, I think it's about control. He wants to have complete control of the narrative"
You can make all kinds of guesses, no matter how ridiculous or false. But why not listen to what I'm CLEARLY saying?
1. I want people to be decent, not vulgar, not misogynistic. Don't refer to "balls" or "like a girl," or "whores" or "pussy" or other vulgar words that are misogynistic. If you don't think "pussy" is vulgar in that context? Tough. My blog, my rules. Women have told me they don't want to hear such abusive language. My dear painted ultra-conservative mother would not want such words to show up on my blog, if she knew what a blog was. My rule is, DON'T. Just need the rules of the blog, out of basic respect and decency.
2. If you want to make a fact claim and want to say it's an objective fact, THEN, provide support. Period. It's a rational rule and expectation. WHY wouldn't you want to prove something you believe is an objective fact? IF you can prove something is an objective fact, THEN, I will agree. Reality is reality.
IF it's something you merely BELIEVE subjectively, then why not admit as much? I do that all the time.
This is not about power. It's just being rational, respectful and decent.
Dan
Look, Dan provides evidence that supports my point.
1. I also want people to be decent at my blog, yet I've allowed you to post all sorts of crap that strains or exceeds the bounds of what I consider decency. I do so to show anyone who pays attention what kind of person you are, and how you behave.
2. When you start to hold yourself to the same standards you expect of others, I'll take crap like this seriously. In the past you've deleted my providing exactly the "proof" you claim you wanted then lied about my not providing "proof".
You clearly seem to desperately need to exert control over your blog, and will use any excuses you can to do so. No matter how capricious, random, and inconsistent you are, it all comes down to finding a reason to delete others and to misrepresent their comments. If Art's comments are all of the horrible things you claim they are, then leave them and let others judge. Don't delete them and make claims that you can't prove about them.
In Dan's two most recent comments at my blog, I count seven claims Dan made without even the attempt to offer even one tiny shred of proof. I guess if I applied his rules, I'd just delete his comments and misrepresent them.
Fortunately, Dan's unproven claims don't scare or offend me and I want those claims to be visible for everyone to see and judge independently.
Indeed, Craig. I just attempted to again back up my positions at his laughably titled "Shame" post, and he deleted me yet again with the same bullshit excuses, so I discontinued my efforts.
Here's Dan's only value to the word: In Dan we see everything wrong with the nation, with the so-called "progressive", with the Dem Party. All the ills our nation suffers is because of such as Dan and if you want to see name a specific evil characteristic of the left, you'll find it manifested in the words and actions of Dan.
Craig said, with ZERO support, mind you:
In Dan's two most recent comments at my blog, I count seven claims Dan made without even the attempt to offer even one tiny shred of proof.
What are they? Craig asked me to provide support that showed that UH was having a large profit margin or something. But I said nothing about UH or about profit margins. I had NO opinions about those topics and why Craig is asking me about them, I don't know.
What I ACTUALLY said/claimed:
Some large group of outliers - not "the media," not "the Democrats," but actual people
who have been actively harmed by the Insurance Industry -
have expressed some amount of schaudenfraude about the murder of this industry leader
in an industry that has committed great harm to large numbers of people.
When he asked me to provide support for THAT claim, I did. With multiple sources. When he responded with a New Yorker article, I noted that THAT article, too, demonstrated the active harm caused by insurance industries specifically and our health system, more generally. It's the latter I'm mostly speaking about.
It doesn't matter if insurance companies are breaking even and not making ANY profit (which is far from the case) IF they have these practices of denying services recommended by a patient's medical experts because THEIR expert (who has never even seen, much less, examined the patient) denied the claim. It doesn't matter if they're profiting when our system leaves millions of people uninsured and of the uninsured, there are tens of thousands of deaths and beyond that, much more physical and financial harm. That IS actual harm and I supported my actual claim with actual, commonsense data... it's not really a secret that many people are outraged with our health system, or lack thereof.
Just to set the record straight.
Now, if you or Craig ever have an actual claim that I HAVE made and want me to provide support for it, you can ask.
Reality is reality.
Marshal claimed, ridiculously, and with no support:
In Dan we see everything wrong with the nation
Dan and people like Dan (ie, this isn't about me... it's about the irrational disdain that conservatives have against the huge number of wonderful, rational, helping liberals in the world):
* Married and faithful to one woman for 40 years (next year);
* Loving father or two fantastic children who are actively making the world a better place;
* Faithful church-going Christian for all of his life, currently a music and otherwise leader in our congregation full of people WAY better than me;
* Working to make the better place (by helping people with disabilities get jobs and live more independently - oh, the horror! - in my case, but also social workers, people helping the unhoused find housing, people helping those with mental health concerns, teachers, environmentalists, medical workers, etc, etc)
* In our free time, working to make the world a better, healthier place (advocating for kind and helpful actions like welcoming refugees escape from danger, giving the homeless a place to gather with dignity and share in art and music and poetry, working to clean our streams and forests, etc)
* in our other free time, writing and playing songs or doing art about justice and kindness and goodness, about helping the marginalized, welcoming the marginalized, advocating for policies that help the poor and otherwise marginalized...
In other words, when you demonize folks like me as "everything that is wrong with the nation, you sound insane. I and people like me are good people, helpers, kind people working for a better world. (Other people WAY moreso than me... but you know, liberals=helpers, in general).
What is wrong with being a loving, committed, faithful spouse and parent? Can you say the same? Your pervert king sure can't. What is wrong with being a teacher, social worker, helper? What is wrong with working on art and music, sharing it with others, helping others do their own art and music and giving THEM support as they do it?
It's just a silly-on-the-face-of-it claim that smacks of delusional conspiracy theories. And, of course, goes completely unsupported. The problem, I suspect, is that you and people like you think that disagreeing with your personal opinions on moral or theological issues is the same as disagreeing with God or with hating moral goodness and decency.
Reality undermines these nonsense claims of yours.
Dan responds to fact of his moral corruption by again listing that which no one here is likely to verify and that Dan can't. But let's assume all his nice things are true to one extent or another. None of it mitigates the evil of his support for the tens of thousands of deaths from abortion, as if it's an actual medical procedure which "does no harm". And of course that includes the women who underwent abortions and suffered physical harm, including death, as well as lasting mental/emotional harm for their troubles. As if that's not evil enough, he'll perpetrate the lie that it's sometimes necessary and must be protected because lying abortionists and feminist harpies insist it's their right to murder their own children.
Then there's his undying support, defense, celebrating and enabling of ACTUAL sexual perversions of any kind (except the most common compulsion of a man to have sex with hot babes....somehow THAT makes one "a pervert king"). He supports, defends, celebrates and enables exposing small children to actual pervert men who dress up as clownishly oversexed women and their teaching those kids of the "goodness" of "being different", which are always stories of or implying sexual perverts. He supports, defends, celebrates and enables disordered and/or perverted men who "transition to women" (as isn't even factually possible) and then, because they hadn't the talent and skill to be competitive against other men, choose to compete in athletics against women, often inflicting severe injury against women who spent their lives working to improve their ability to compete against women, as well as denying the ability of other females to qualify because other dumbfuck lefties like Dan have the authority or legal ability to allow them to so threaten women. (Trump's never harmed any woman in any way comparable to what I've laid out so far. Dan, by his voting history and activism...to the extent he's an activist by supporting, celebrating, defending and enabling it all on the blogs...is a far greater threat to women than Trump has ever been.)
This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Dan's moral depravity. I've laid out these and other cases which prove the fact more times than I can count. And when Dan provides his litany of "good deeds" and expects that they mitigate all the evil with which he is so proudly complicit, and then asks "what's wrong with being like me?", we can then get into this world class dishonesty and deceitfulness.
Dan wants to pretend he's "good" and will prove it by focusing on those good deeds. But to deflect from the truth of his corrupt and black soul, he pretends the evil he supports isn't evil at all, and by doing so, he can insist he's a good man. Trump doesn't get to do that. Only progressives and other leftists have that right. And that's where he's most corrupt...in his belief that he gets to decide what is right and what is wrong. By assuming that authority, how can one ever be anything BUT "a good man". Such a person sets the rules.
It's a funny thing. When we reference the fact of God having used human agency to destroy those whose sin merited such punishment, Dan will dare suggest that God...if the Bible has accurately recorded the events...is a moral monster. What Dan is doing is denying God the authority Dan appropriates for his own evil benefit. Dan isn't evil because Dan insists he's a "good man", as "evidenced" by his "good deeds". God, Who is the Only Being who is truly Good...as He stated clearly when in the form of God the Son...is not allowed by Dan to act by His own volition and to serve His ultimate master plan. God must act as Dan dictates He must. Dan can do whatever the hell he wants to do.
Dan is morally bankrupt.
It's a funny thing. When we reference the fact of God having used human agency to destroy those whose sin merited such punishment, Dan will dare suggest that God...if the Bible has accurately recorded the events...is a moral monster. What Dan is doing is denying God the authority Dan appropriates for his own evil benefit.
It's a funny thing, indeed. When YOU all believe in YOUR human traditions that ancient texts written before modern history depict stories that depict what is clearly unjust, unloving and even evil actions, you all decide to hold your human traditions as sacrosanct and say that those normally obviously evil, twisted, cancerous actions were somehow NOT evil in those cases, and that justice and love as is normally understood is not the right way to understand "god" as you perceive it to be.
In other words, you rely upon your human traditions and opinions over and against the notion of a rationally just and loving, Good God.
I on the other hand, do not say ANYTHING evil about God. I disagree with your personal human traditions and awful understandings of a great good God.
As to the rest, the problem is, because you are dedicated to your human traditions about "men are evil" etc, you ignore the obvious, taken at face value GOOD human lives of obviously good and loving people. And, at the same time, you downplay the obviously very bad, evil nature of your pervert king.
And where we disagree on the harmful aspects (potentially) of this policy or that policy, you choose to decide that you and your human opinions and traditions are THE Right ones. Someone can't, in good faith, disagree with you about war or abortion or border policies and still be good.
You dismantle basic common notions of good and decent when you do all of that. And you don't even understand, it appears, that this is what you're doing.
To pull that thread a bit more... This is, I'd say, part of the problem of not distinguishing between what's clearly objective fact and what's clearly subjective opinion. IF one holds personal opinions that are not proven and are clearly, literally subjective... and believes them to be "proven" "facts," then that skews one's ability to reason well or make intelligent, rational arguments.
IF one believes that all humans are bad, evil, corrupt and all humans are incapable of being good, not knowing what IS good, then it doesn't matter how obviously good, moral, decent and upright they are observably, they can't be "truly" "good," because that only comes from "god" (as you personally propose "god" should be understood - or even NOT understood, since you all appear to argue that we can't understand your "god" unless your whimsical "god" decides that we are one of the lucky few who your whimsical "god" deigns to bestow insight and understanding upon.
So the reality of obviously, overtly good, loving, parental, nurturing, giving, decent, faithful, gracious, welcoming people (albeit imperfect) doesn't matter, they disagree with you on policies 1, 2 and 3 so they are engaging in "proven" (by your opinion) "bad behavior..." You can't give people the benefit of the doubt that they genuinely are trying to do good, to do the right thing by supporting immigrants, LGBTQ folks, women making their own decisions... no, they are just evil.
Reality be damned.
That's the problem you're having. You're coming across as ridiculously morally preening without any grounding in morality or basic decency.
Now, for my point, I don't say that's because you're evil or bad. Just that you're mistaken. You confuse the evil for what you perceive to be "good." You engage in clearly bad, vulgar, graceless behavior, but you're not, in your heart and intent, bad.
Do YOU think you're bad, vulgar, evil?
You see, in the world of conservative religious traditions and opinions, GOOD is not defined as it normally is - someone who is kind, giving, support, decent, etc. For you all in your subjective opinions, one can be good ONLY IF one is perfect as an almighty "god" (you all theorize). It's not rational or biblical or loving or decent, but it's certainly your opinion - which you appear incapable of acknowledging as an opinion.
In the world of your traditions, JUST is not fair and rational... it's a whimsical and irrational insistence upon CRAZY evil punishment for the slightest of imperfections and the reality of being an imperfect human person.
In the world of your traditions, LOVING is not, you know, caring, gracious, giving, decent, compassionate and forgiving... instead, it's capricious and cruel, whimsically given to a literal FEW while insisting most of humanity will unjustly be punished WILDLY beyond notions of justice and decency and love for relatively minor offenses and ultimately, for the "crime" of being imperfect. Having a "sin nature," as you all theorize with no objective proof.
Your subjective and irrational theories are your human traditions and they make no rational or biblical sense and they paint a wholly human and inhuman picture of "god" as your tradition theorizes.
"Some large group of outliers"- unproven claim #1
"- not "the media," not "the Democrats,"" unproven claim #2 "the media" covers quite a lot of ground, and "the democrats" implies that as long as it's not the DFL, what individual liberals do/say is irrelevant.
"but actual people who have been actively harmed by the Insurance Industry" Unproven claim #3 To suggest that the only people who have been engaging in gleeful comments are the above is simply false, until proven True.
"have expressed some amount of schaudenfraude about the murder of this industry leader" Unproven claim #4 To claim that the only thing expressed was schadenfreude is false until proven True. A UM Mankato professor posted that they were disappointed that this wasn't a serial killer.
"in an industry that has committed great harm to large numbers of people." Unproven claim #5 Without a definition of "harm" and a measure of "large numbers" this claim cannot simply be assumed to be True.
That's five in one snippet.
"AND, it is a tragedy that health policies have been so dominated and harmed by a FOR PROFIT system of "insurance" that causes so much harm." Unproven claim #6 (I believe)
I apologize, my memory was faulty and I miscounted Dan's unproven claims. There were only 5 or 6, not the 7 I estimated. Please forgive me for this grievous error.
"When YOU all believe in YOUR human traditions that ancient texts written before modern history depict stories that depict what is clearly unjust, unloving and even evil actions, you all decide to hold your human traditions as sacrosanct and say that those normally obviously evil, twisted, cancerous actions were somehow NOT evil in those cases, and that justice and love as is normally understood is not the right way to understand "god" as you perceive it to be."
December 11, 2024 at 8:05 PM
This is typical of Dan's nonsensical equivocation and deceit. Just this long-ass sentence is rife with BS, and I'll break it down:
"When YOU all believe in YOUR human traditions..."
I won't be speaking for anyone but myself here, though much of what I hold as true is pretty much held as true by other conservative/actual Christians who stand opposed to Dan and his fictions. When Dan speaks of "YOUR human traditions", it's his way of saying what I believe isn't true, is categorically incorrect or inaccurate or that the words on the pages of Scripture do not mean what they say at all. He doesn't offer a coherent, comprehensive, intelligent and fact-based, evidence-supported alternative understanding of that to which he condescends to call "YOUR human traditions", but by doing so, he insists my position is somehow in error and that's all which anyone needs to know and thus all should reject that position as such, ostensibly to agree with what he doesn't explain is somehow a better and more accurate understanding. That is, HIS understanding is the better and accurate understanding. Just believe it, because he says so.
"...ancient texts written before modern history..."
This is a favored tripe...uh...trope of Dan's from an obscure source he found for the purpose of negating that which he personally finds displeasing in the Old Testament. He also refers to the "style" as "mythic writing". For Dan, coming up this source was a boon and by buying into it as evidence (rather than the subjective opinion of the source's author which pleases Dan more than the truths of Scripture), and his subsequent clinging to it, he can dismiss anything from the OT as unreliable as written, though still not providing an intelligent alternative which would compel others to dismiss those objectionable passages as well. This is clearly a dodge rather than an actual reason to dismiss how the text reports events of the time. His excuses for rejecting the divinely inspired text will be coming up.
"...depict stories that depict what is clearly unjust, unloving and even evil actions, you all decide to hold your human traditions as sacrosanct and say that those normally obviously evil, twisted, cancerous actions were somehow NOT evil in those cases, and that justice and love as is normally understood is not the right way to understand "god" as you perceive it to be."
So here Dan accuses God of unjust, "obviously evil, twisted, cancerous ("cancerous"?? WTF!?) actions" because hordes of people were slaughtered by the Will of God through His Chosen People. He accuses God of lacking justice and love by commanding these attacks. What makes it so horrendous for Dan in particular is the killing of women and children.
What's notable here, and a sign that Dan is given over to his corruption, is how he chooses to ignore the very significant details and distinctions. (Before I go further, I must acknowledge that there are also Biblical scholars who are actual Christians who also struggle with these passages Dan finds so "unGodly".) Dan finds it unjust and unloving that a loving and just God would command the slaughter of even infants, constantly harping on how those like me have no problem with infants being run through with spears or hacked to death with swords. But Scripture doesn't get really descriptive with how any of those killed in these battles were actually put to death (with some specific exceptions regarding specific people, if I'm not mistaken), but only that the Hebrews were commanded to kill everyone, sometimes even the animals. We know full well that the reason for the mass destruction of these populations was their sin, how long they sinned before this final judgement was handed down. But it's just as likely that most...especially the very young and very old...were killed with one stroke of the sword or spear or arrow. Whether that was the case or not there's no such description upon which to make the case. But just as true is that there is nothing which says there was great suffering beyond that which comes from a single mortal blow or strike.
My point here is not so much the details of the deaths of those grave sinners, but how the deaths of any infants compares to what Dan supports, defends, celebrates and enables with regard to abortion, where human beings are poisoned, scalded and too often rent limb from limb with the skull crushed for removal.
You see, that's OK because it's a private decision by a woman and her so-called doctor (an abortionist who makes his money aborting babies). The helpless child is somehow an inconvenience worthy of murdering it.
But while we can't know fully God's plan, His motivations and the like, we know that in these cases the annihilation of these populations served His purpose, certainly was a manifestation of His Justice and Love for His people and a direct response to the great sinfulness of the people He destroyed through human agency. To Dan, God's a moral monster, while he's a caring individual concerned for "the least of these", despite his support for their destruction.
Of course, Dan will whine that I'm just not understanding that those passages are merely written by goat herders trying to comprehend God, not a people who are chosen by God and in contact with God through God's prophets, so as to have no confusion about God's Will and expectations. At the same time, those parts of those same books of the OT which are pleasing to Dan, are somehow not perverted by the patriarchal authors of the OT, the non-intellectual recording before some arbitrary beginning of "modern history", the "mythical style" of the authors.
So these acts of violence against the non-military members of those sinful populations are not "evil acts" if God ordered their destruction. They're evil when we do it for our own personal benefit, such as Dan's support and defense and enabling of abortion.
Dan then goes on to reject Scripture on the basis of how love, justice are "commonly understood". But what is he doing here really? He's doing what he accuse me of doing...abiding human tradition and abiding it over God and Scripture's inspired recording of OT events. Though it can be truthfully stated that our "common understanding of love and justice" is derived from Scripture, it is clearly not identical to God's love and justice. Dan insists that God MUST act in a manner which reflects Dan's conception of love and justice which he says is commonly understood. But understood by whom? Does the muslim world understand love and justice as we do? Do all cultures even within our own nation understand love and justice as actual Christians do? Clearly those Dan favors have an entirely different understanding of justice if they'll riot and protest the death of a thug and seek retribution against the cops doing their job when the punk died due to his own issues. Justice...God's justice certainly...isn't DEI initiatives and Affirmative Action, which are racist by definition. God doesn't play favorites. Dan's "commonly understood" justice does. Dan's "commonly understood" justice does not seek justice for any of the unnecessarily terminated people in utero. Dan's "commonly understood" justice defends the murderers of those unfortunate and wholly defenseless people.
True justice requires that the one who is wronged is restored by the person by whom one was wronged. Dan's too morally corrupt to accurately identify the wrongdoer or the wronged.
I have no doubt my understanding of God is far more accurate than Dan's, because there's no holes in my understanding. I don't have to ignore any of Scripture, or invent what I'd prefer Scripture says. Reading Dan's laughable posts explaining why he rejects God's Will reveals clearly his perversions of Scripture and his totally corrupt nature.
So when Dan's says stupid shit like:
"...you rely upon your human traditions and opinions over and against the notion of a rationally just and loving, Good God."
He's judging my positions on the basis of his human traditions, traditions which are corruptions as well...traditions which are no more than his preference for what God should be versus how God is described and presented in Scripture. He can whine about my "interpretations" all he likes, but he can't actually provide any compelling, fact-based argument to support the claim that I'm not presenting a truthful and accurate understanding of the faith.
"I on the other hand, do not say ANYTHING evil about God."
Oh yes, you most certainly do, Danny-girl. When you pretend that God would regard homosexual unions as worthy of His Blessings as are actual marriages, you are projecting evil upon God, as you project all manner of evil against conservatives who are far better people than you.
When you pretend that the unborn aren't fully human and of the exact value as any other born person, you're speaking evil of God by suggesting "Thou shalt not murder" isn't to applied with regard to all people He created.
When you suggest that allowing people to cross our border in conflict with our established laws regulating immigration, you are projecting evil upon God by claiming He teaches us to allow lawbreaking by "sojourners".
I could give many more examples of how you speak evil about God by acting and preaching contrary to His clearly revealed Will, but those are enough for now.
"As to the rest, the problem is, because you are dedicated to your human traditions about "men are evil" etc, you ignore the obvious, taken at face value GOOD human lives of obviously good and loving people. And, at the same time, you downplay the obviously very bad, evil nature of your pervert king."
This is yet another lie Dan's never supported except by repeating his anecdotal tales of...not "good" people, but people doing good things. I know lots of people who do good things. I know no one who does things which displease God. No one is perfect...though Dan insists perfection isn't necessary to be good. There's no argument he's ever made which resolves this clear contradiction, but he runs with it anyway. "Good" IS "perfection" because as Jesus clearly stated, no one is good but God, and God is perfect. That doesn't mitigate the fact that we regard some people as better than others and with that in mind refer to them as "good" people. Such are examples of people who, despite their sin natures, strive to do good. That doesn't make them "good" per se. It makes them "good" as compared to other people.
Dan also lies in saying I downplay someone I've no doubt he means to be Donald Trump. Never have and never will. On the contrary, Dan overstates Trump's character flaws. If anyone is downplaying the moral corruption of anyone, it's Dan downplaying the moral turpitude of his beloved lesbians, homosexuals and "transgendered" people, the BLM marxists, the perversions of Barack Obama, and the many obvious failings of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, to name just a few. But as Dan seeks to ignore the sin nature of all those he insists are "good"...not just downplaying, but ignoring...he, like the hypocrite he is, will not say word one about the good things that Trump has done, both politically and personally, which are easy enough to find with some simple research. In short, because Dan...who bores with expressions of "embracing grace"...is so filled with a perverse hatred for a guy who's done more good for all Americans than any person Dan's supported for president, he prefers to focus on Trump's flaws, like a guy which a plank so fucking large in his eye, he again shows his fraudulence. This makes Dan so far worse than Trump could ever be.
"And where we disagree on the harmful aspects (potentially) of this policy or that policy, you choose to decide that you and your human opinions and traditions are THE Right ones. Someone can't, in good faith, disagree with you about war or abortion or border policies and still be good."
I get this kind of crap even from conservatives from time to time. But the truth is that in Dan's case...and it really only concerns Dan, though he speak of hypothetical "others"...he most always wrong (I'm being gracious here. I can't recall when he's ever been right.) And again he references "human opinions and traditions" instead of simply bringing to bear better more compelling arguments in support of his own positions.
What Dan refuses to acknowledge is that regardless of how he wants to refer to my positions and the facts and truths I present, he's still obligated to provide evidence of his own or that mine are wrong. He doesn't. He doesn't even know how, apparently. He just doesn't like the facts and truths I present and thus..."human opinions and traditions" and attacks on how I deal with disagreement.
"You dismantle basic common notions of good and decent when you do all of that. And you don't even understand, it appears, that this is what you're doing."
Yet another cheap dodge. He attacks me rather than present a coherent, intelligent, fact-based, evidence-supported counter argument. Worse, he dares suggest he's a manifestation of "good and decent".
What a childish little girl he is!
December 11, 2024 at 8:36 PM
"This is, I'd say, part of the problem of not distinguishing between what's clearly objective fact and what's clearly subjective opinion. IF one holds personal opinions that are not proven and are clearly, literally subjective... and believes them to be "proven" "facts," then that skews one's ability to reason well or make intelligent, rational arguments."
This is something Dan likes to say as if it absolves him from his obligation to provide an actual fact-based argument to counter truths he finds problematic. If he could do that, he might find a better outcome in these many debates. But that's as far as he goes when he runs into that which displeases him...pretending I have some difficulty distinguishing between the objective and subjective. But let's assume I do. Let's assume all the facts I present, with all the attendant evidence in support of them, are still no more than subjective opinion. We'll never know for certain because all Dan offers is the claim my positions are subjective opinion. No facts. No evidence. Just the claim that my positions are subjective and not a thing I present as evidence actually is definitive in any way. In short, my positions aren't subjective because they actually are, but they're subjective because DAN says they are, and that's all that's necessary. It's the same thing he does when he regards allegations of Trump as evidence of guilt (or of anyone else on the right for that matter). Then Dan throws around words like "reason" as if he's actually presenting anything akin to that. He doesn't understand the word. He uses lots of words falsely in order to avoid admitting he's wrong. He's too enslaved by his perversions and corruption.
"IF one believes that all humans are bad, evil, corrupt and all humans are incapable of being good, not knowing what IS good, then it doesn't matter how obviously good, moral, decent and upright they are observably, they can't be "truly" "good," because that only comes from "god"..."
Again Dan perverts the teachings of the faith. I don't "believe" all people are inherently sinful by nature. I accept it as fact because it's what Scripture teaches. Scripture clearly teaches we're all stained with sin natures and only God is good. Rather than wet myself like Dan, as if it means the people I love aren't "good" to a noticeable degree, it confirms our need for Christ, which is also taught by Scripture and is indeed the most important teaching of all. We need Christ because we aren't good.
"So the reality of obviously, overtly good, loving, parental, nurturing, giving, decent, faithful, gracious, welcoming people (albeit imperfect) doesn't matter, they disagree with you on policies 1, 2 and 3 so they are engaging in "proven" (by your opinion) "bad behavior..." You can't give people the benefit of the doubt that they genuinely are trying to do good, to do the right thing by supporting immigrants, LGBTQ folks, women making their own decisions... no, they are just evil."
Here we see Dan the Real Pervert King perverting again. I have no problem giving people the benefit of the doubt, that even when they favor clearly vile policies and behaviors, they mean to do good. But that just underlines the truth that they are corrupt...driven by their sin natures....more concerned with the favor of the world than of God.
And of course he perverts words when he speaks of "supporting immigrants", when the fact is that he is supporting lawbreakers who enter illegally. He prefers to regard them all as hapless folks oppressed in some way simply seeking a better life, though almost 100% of them are paying off criminals in order to cross as they do, rather than go through legal channels regardless of the effort and time involved. Dan votes for assholes who enable the millions who seek to be among those who will be allowed to stay at some point despite not have come here according to OUR laws and customs. Dan likes to pervert the situation to enable this bad behavior, and then pretend he's more "Christian" because he cares about "the oppressed", as if all(or any) who enter illegally are.
He again speaks of supporting sexual perversion as if they are incapable of controlling themselves, incapable of exerting the self-discipline in abiding God's Will, as if their perversions are like skin color or sex. What a fucking liar! A vile, vulgar disgusting liar! With these people, as with the illegal invaders, we're supposed to subordinate our own "self-determination" to that of these self-serving law-breaking sinners (some break the laws of man, but all are breaking the laws of God).
And arguably the most vile are those women who murder their own children. Dan and his kind lie like Satan in regarding this evil as "women making their own decisions"! Indeed, enabling this heinous practice makes Dan about as evil as they come!
But as people disregard the Will of God, which includes abiding civil laws enacted by the representatives of ourselves, they are indeed evil.
Some like to use the word "evil" sparingly, as if evil isn't always evil if it isn't as evil as other evils. That's cheap bullshit. I'm done with that crap regardless of who tries to run with it. Every little sin we commit is the perpetuation of evil. Yeah, damnit! It's THAT serious! Dan's especially indicted by this type of behavior.
"Reality be damned"
The "reality" is that Dan is a vile, evil POS.
"You're coming across as ridiculously morally preening without any grounding in morality or basic decency."
That's funny! Somehow, to Dan, Scripture isn't proper "grounding". Dan has confirmed he doesn't regard Scripture as the ultimate source of moral teaching, so I'm not at all surprised he'd say something so stupid. How I come across to a morally bankrupt fool like Dan is of no concern to me. I don't acquiesce to evil like him.
" Now, for my point, I don't say that's because you're evil or bad. Just that you're mistaken."
I don't give a flying fuck about what you say. I only await your proof for what you want to pretend is true. Until you can do that, until you make so much as the slightest effort to provide such, you're farting.
"You confuse the evil for what you perceive to be "good.""
WTF does this even mean?? I'm not the least bit confused about your evil and that only God is good. I don't "condemn" anyone because they're imperfect. I simply acknowledge the reality that only God is good. If Jesus says it, it's true. If you can't prove He was speaking "metaphorically"...which you haven't come close to doing...I'm not the least bit compelled to regard His words as anything other than Truth. And since He IS the Truth, it requires nothing more from me, and a helluva a lot from you if you insist on contradicting Him.
"You engage in clearly bad, vulgar, graceless behavior, but you're not, in your heart and intent, bad."
I'm a sinner grateful as all get out that I have Jesus Christ as my Savior, who died so that I won't have to, that by His shed Blood I will be redeemed and regarded as "good" before the Most High. And my "bad, vulgar, graceless" behavior is nothing compared to the Christ-mocking behaviors you indulge, enable, defend, celebrate, support and love.
"You dismantle basic common notions of good and decent when you do all of that. And you don't even understand, it appears, that this is what you're doing."
What a load of crap spewed from the virtual mouth of a load of crap! I'm not the least bit concerned with "common notions" of "good and decent". I concern myself with the True notions of good and decent as revealed to us in Scripture. "Common notions" are truly "human traditions" and "human traditions" in the worst possible sense. I know it's how YOU roll, but I aspire to be considered a good and faithful servant of God, not to "common notions". (Wish me luck...it ain't easy for me!)
"Do YOU think you're bad, vulgar, evil?"
I have my moments, you vile cocksucker. That is, I'm a sinner in need of a Savior. I don't bullshit about my shortcomings and I certainly don't bullshit about the Truth of Scripture like you fake Christians do. I don't boast about my concern for the innocent people in utero regarded as disposable by assholes like you. It's just a point of fact, as but one example.
"In the world of your traditions, JUST is not fair and rational... it's a whimsical and irrational insistence upon CRAZY evil punishment for the slightest of imperfections and the reality of being an imperfect human person."
The "human tradition" here is that "just" is determined by you, not by God. You dare to insist that God must abide YOUR notions of justice, that God cannot and MUST NOT be offended by sin if Dan thinks a given sin is not serious enough for eternal damnation. I'm sure God is cowered at the notion that some putz from Louisville is unhappy with what displeases Him. Putting YOUR notions of justice above God's is a winning strategy. Good luck with that. I hope there's popcorn and drinks served while we watch you answer for your arrogance.
But of course, you continue to in your failing as regard what results in our salvation or condemnation. You continue to insist it's about works...about whether one steals a stub of a pencil or whether one sends a 6 million Jews to the gas chambers. You pretend you're a serious and prayerful student of Scripture, yet you continue to believe it's about works. So sad. Here's a hint, little girl: given we're all imperfect sinners, maybe it's not about works at all.
"In the world of your traditions, LOVING is not, you know, caring, gracious, giving, decent, compassionate and forgiving... instead, it's capricious and cruel, whimsically given to a literal FEW while insisting most of humanity will unjustly be punished WILDLY beyond notions of justice and decency and love for relatively minor offenses and ultimately, for the "crime" of being imperfect."
Wow! That's an incredibly fantastical fantasy you've invented. Did your troll help you create that, or did you do it all by yourself? Why do you keep projecting this fantasy onto me and those like me? Why not just address our actual positions? Could it be that you can't deal with the truth? I think that's absolutely the problem.
"Having a "sin nature," as you all theorize with no objective proof."
Uh...except for Scripture, from which I and others have so many times provided all relevant verses and passages confirming the truth of our sin nature. But then, lying is so essential to your objections, isn't it?
"Your subjective and irrational theories are your human traditions and they make no rational or biblical sense and they paint a wholly human and inhuman picture of "god" as your tradition theorizes."
So you so desperately wish was true despite your abject failure in supporting with actual facts and evidence...unlike me who has presented no small number of verses and passages which confirm the positions I hold as true and factual. This is just crap you like to say as if saying so makes it so. It doesn't sad little girl. Try backing it up for a change.
As if Dan doesn't also believe in whatever human traditions he holds dear.
"...you rely upon your human traditions and opinions over and against the notion of a rationally just and loving, Good God."
Of course Dan is basing his human tradition on his subjective notions about what "just", "loving" and "good" look like as they relate to YHWH.
"... someone who is kind, giving, support, decent, etc."
Interesting that Dan defines "good" 100% in terms of deeds and actions. Further noting that most of those are subjective terms. Further noting that he neglects to mention the motivation behind the actions as a factor. In other words, as long as someone who's "evil" does actions that appear to be "kind, giving, decent, and supportive", then they magically become "good" in Dan's fantasy world.
Dan:
"Having a "sin nature," as you all theorize with no objective proof."
Marshal:
Uh...except for Scripture, from which I and others have so many times provided all relevant verses and passages confirming the truth of our sin nature. But then, lying is so essential to your objections, isn't it?
1. What I said is that you have NO OBJECTIVE PROOF to demand that YOUR HUMAN THEORY of eternal punishment for "sinners" is anything that God has planned for the majority of humanity (or truly, factually, for anyone.). Period. You have no objective proof. Literally none.
2. You may read the Bible and offer YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN OPINIONS and interpretations of various passages, but they are literally that: Your subjective human opinions and interpretations. That is just an established fact. Because, what else is there? When there is no GOD there to authoritatively verify, "Yup, that irrational and unholy nonsense IS what I think..." You are reading a text which you literally can't prove is "from God" and which is literally the recordings of a bunch of human authors and, given those texts, you read some handful of lines and then YOU decide, "Well then, that MUST mean that God literally will punish most of humanity for an eternity of torture for the crime of being imperfect humans, no matter how irrational, unloving or unjust that is, that is what WE THINK these verses must mean."
3. I'd ask you if you can concede that much which should be easy since it's observably factual, but I don't think you can see it. Craig, can YOU see and affirm that this is literally, factually, objectively what's happening?
I suspect he can't, either. While most of you all won't come out and say it (but tend to hint around at it when pushed to address these holes) is that you "believe in your hearts" that "God affirms" you are understanding God aright AND that this feeling or "belief in your heart" of "God's affirmation" is something more than subjective and unproven opinion.
Good luck, fellas. May your hearts be softened and your eyes be opened.
Art,
This is totally your choice (9 comments responding to Dan's off topic regurgitation of his tired, old, taking points), and I'm not being critical of your choice at all, but this is exactly Dan's strategy. It's all about exerting control over the conversation, forcing the conversation into whatever idiocy Dan chooses, and completely ignoring the point of the post. It's almost like he is unable to engage in the topic at hand or deal with arguments, so he trots out the same old regurgitated bullshit as a way to divert attention from his failures.
To address Craig's concerns that I've made false claims or unproven claims:
1. "Some large group of outliers"- unproven claim #1
This is just basic math. There have been, what? Hundreds of comments presumably from hundreds of people who've said something along the lines of "I'm glad he's dead..." or other tasteless and cruel comments about a man's murder? Have their been THOUSANDS of such comments? Let's REALLY bump it up and guess that there have been 30,000 unique and tasteless sorts of comments like this. In a nation of 300 + million people, that comes to .01%. That is a mathematically TINY number of people, literally a tine fringe. AND that's being extremely generous to guess a number as high as 30,000.
How am I mistaken?
"- not "the media," not "the Democrats,"" unproven claim #2 "the media" covers quite a lot of ground, and "the democrats" implies that as long as it's not the DFL, what individual liberals do/say is irrelevant.
IN THE MAINSTREAM accepted-as-professional media, the actual journalistic outfits like NPR, BBC, CNN, ABC, Wall St Journal, etc, there have been, as far as I know, NOT ONE SINGLE journalist who espoused such a position. Same for the mainstream elected Democrats. If you can find one, by all means present it. But YOU are the one making the slanderous claim that these are "leftists" and you do so with NO support other than noting that some of these commenters (a tiny percentage, no doubt, of the tiny percentage of people making such comments) seem to you to be using liberal talking points.
It is literally NOT the mainstream journalistic media (ie, what most people tend to be talking about when they talk about "the media") outfits making these tasteless comments. To suggest otherwise with no support is childish slander and gossip, except that it's not childish in the potential for harm.
"but actual people who have been actively harmed by the Insurance Industry" Unproven claim #3 To suggest that the only people who have been engaging in gleeful comments are the above is simply false, until proven True.
Fair enough. So far, you have ONE comment that I've not provided proof for. But then, we can't. We don't KNOW who these nameless commenters are. From what I've read in a large number of comments about this man's murder is people expressing concerns about how they've been mistreated by the insurance industry and their irrational rules. But are THOSE people the ones making the cruel comments? We can't prove that (except in the cases where it's more than just the tasteless comment, but also they offer some reason, such as, "I have a hard time finding sympathy for him when his policies and actions have caused so much harm to so many people."
None of us can prove the motivations or backgrounds or partisan policies of these anonymous commenters. That most certainly includes YOU, who are the one making the slanderous charges with no objective support.
Look, if you want to say, "In many of these comments I've read (let's say, 2 dozen!), these cruel comments have come from people who appear to me to be expressing some traditionally liberal-sounding claims, like "healthcare for all!*"" You can righteously and reasonably make that sort of comment, but to jump to sweeping comments of blame is not rational, it's just slander.
* with the caveat that there are certainly many conservatives who appreciate the notions of universal healthcare that is not run for profit... it's not a universally liberal idea.
Craig:
"have expressed some amount of schaudenfraude about the murder of this industry leader" Unproven claim #4 To claim that the only thing expressed was schadenfreude is false until proven True.
Fair enough. We can't (not me, not YOU) prove the motives behind why people are making such cruel comments (and let me be clear, here, that the "cruel or tasteless" comments I'm talking about are the ones like "I'm glad he's dead," or "CEO's should be watching out!" as if to celebrate his death or even encourage more such harm... that, as opposed to saying something like "the way that these insurance companies take advantage of people, it's not surprising that people are angry..." The latter is certainly Schadenfreude, by definition, as the joy that some people feel in seeing some people be harmed is typically (not always, but typically) tied to concerns about injustices that have been done. The joy in seeing a Nazi executed, for instance, is not expressing irrational and cruel joy in seeing just anyone be harmed, but specific to someone who engaged in monstrous actions.
I suspect, but can't prove, that most people making such comments are most likely doing so because they feel the insurance companies have been cruel in their policies. Do you suspect otherwise? Do you REALLY think that such a wave of harsh discontent is coming simply because people hate people they don't know for no reason?
I'd say that's an irrational guess, if that's what you're guessing.
"in an industry that has committed great harm to large numbers of people." Unproven claim #5 Without a definition of "harm" and a measure of "large numbers" this claim cannot simply be assumed to be True.
HARM. Just HARM, as we normally define it or understand it. The tens of thousands of people who die young due to having no insurance or who go bankrupt because their insurance didn't cover their needed medical expenses have been harmed.
Now, you may think such harm is justified... that maybe the dead and bankrupt and other people harmed by these policies should have taken better care of themselves or made more money... but you can't say that dying young is not harm. You can't say that going bankrupt is not harm.
I know what Dan's doing. But what I'm doing now is allowing him to provide more hemlock for his bullshit beverage and as we can see, he's doing that still.
He's also brought your discussion here because he can't get his manure exposed on his own terms. Kinda like his troll does. Maybe that's where he got it.
While the post refers to the DEI nonsense, it also points to Dan's craven character, so to some extent, what's happening now between us is the result of him doubling down on it. In time, I'll be referencing specifics of the post in relation to all the shit he's been spewing to defend his love of sin and perversion.
December 13, 2024 at 9:08 AM
"1. What I said is that you have NO OBJECTIVE PROOF to demand that YOUR HUMAN THEORY of eternal punishment for "sinners" is anything that God has planned for the majority of humanity (or truly, factually, for anyone.). Period. You have no objective proof. Literally none."
"Uh...except for Scripture, from which I and others have so many times provided all relevant verses and passages confirming the truth of our sin nature."
Scripture IS "objective" proof for all things related to the Christian faith you pervert to your liking. Without Scripture, there is no Christian faith for we in modern times. And as to our sin nature, Scripture is not obscure or unclear about it.
"2. You may read the Bible and offer YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN OPINIONS and interpretations of various passages, but they are literally that: Your subjective human opinions and interpretations."
You can say that all you like. You can regard the facts and truths I present and defend in any manner of your choosing. But what's constantly and purposely missing is your evidenced/fact-based arguments to counter the facts and truths I present. You're saying they aren't doesn't make it so.
"That is just an established fact."
It's a "fact" of no relevance whatsoever if stated without the required facts and evidence to refute those I present or to support whatever the hell you want to suggest is an alternative of actual merit. You NEVER provide.
" When there is no GOD there to authoritatively verify, "Yup, that irrational and unholy nonsense IS what I think...""
God IS there throughout the Bible you use to wipe your ass saying that which I repeat, in most cases directly and in other implicitly and I provide evidentiary support for the latter always. Unlike you, I don't require and demand that Scripture or God must use exact wording to my liking in order to understand what is otherwise crystal clear. And those things of God and Scripture I present are in no way "irrational and unholy nonsense" simply because a self-serving, lying pervert like you so desperately and pathetically need them to be.
"You are reading a text which you literally can't prove is "from God"..."
By this, Dan once again accuses the Biblical writers of being liars, self-serving and unreliable chroniclers of human history and God's interaction with humanity.
"...and which is literally the recordings of a bunch of human authors..."
...which in Dan's mind automatically means Scripture is NOT "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..." And it can't be if Dan wants to continue defending abominations as he constantly does. Indeed, that's the very reason Dan constantly disputes word for word Scriptural presentations which indicts him.
"...and, given those texts, you read some handful of lines and then YOU decide, "Well then, that MUST mean that God literally will punish most of humanity for an eternity of torture for the crime of being imperfect humans, no matter how irrational, unloving or unjust that is, that is what WE THINK these verses must mean.""
First, given the text, whether "a handful" of verses, a single verse, or more truthfully the full context whence comes those verses and passages I present, their quantity is irrelevant. Only whether or not a verse is truth and fact and until you can prove it isn't, it remains truth and fact. If you can't prove it...if you want to whine it can't be proven...then you have no business daring to rebuke those of us who revere the Word and preach It boldly.
Then, you go on and accuse God because His punishment doesn't live up to your human tradition of what constitutes irrational, unloving or unjust consequences for failing to meet God's expectations. How dare He act contrary to Dan Trabue's will!!! I hope there's tasty snacks and beverages for those who get to witness you making that case before the Judgement Seat. Should be entertaining.
"3. I'd ask you if you can concede that much which should be easy since it's observably factual..."
Then it should be easy for you to prove. I'll wait here while you don't.
"While most of you all won't come out and say it (but tend to hint around at it when pushed to address these holes) is that you "believe in your hearts" that "God affirms" you are understanding God aright AND that this feeling or "belief in your heart" of "God's affirmation" is something more than subjective and unproven opinion."
Put down the crack pipe. I could not be more unequivocal, more direct, more totally honest in affirming my acceptance of the facts and truths I present in these discussions. That is, no mere "belief in my heart"...as if I'm believing that which isn't presented to all of us as fact. There's no way you can "push" me into acquiescing to your insistence it isn't, except by presenting compelling evidence to the contrary. You not only can't, but you don't even try believing you're in no way obliged. Your self-serving say-so is enough. But it isn't. YOUR say-so is crap and unworthy of consideration because of your well known notoriety as an inveterate liar.
"Good luck, fellas. May your hearts be softened and your eyes be opened."
Here you double down again on your arrogant assumption that you're right, I'm wrong and that's all the "evidence" I should need. My eyes have been open to your falsehood, your low character, your love of sin and hate for God and His Will for a long, long time.
As to the post itself, I reiterate that the point of it was to present a comment I made at Dan's Blog of Lies which he deleted. He refuses to respond to it in a truthful manner and pretends my concern for the dead guy is a "white" thing. The vile response to his concerns about DEI policy Dan believes is justified...that the marxist bitch has no obligation to treat the poor man in a Christian manner, as if doing so is "appeasing" him. It's another case of Dan assuming authority to dictate what is right and wrong, and in this case, he against mitigates the foul behavior of one of his own and projects racist traits upon the guy who killed himself. This is what "embrace grace" looks like in Dan's world.
Trabue keeps proving is not a Christian. His rank heresy is so gross! He definetly sounds like a pawn of Satan when he says the Bible doesn't say what scholars have said it said for over 1500 years! But Dan's opinion, totally uneducated and ignorant as it is, certainly proves all these people wrong becaue only HE know what God means/thinks. Dan is as disgusting as it gets.
Marshal...
Scripture IS "objective" proof for all things related to the Christian faith you pervert to your liking...
PROVE IT.
The reality is that you 100% absolutely are entirely impotent and hopelessly, helplessly incapable of proving objectively even THAT much of your childish vapid weightless human theory. If you could, you would.
You don't even TRY to prove it precisely because you can't.
YOU are the one making the ridiculous claim. The onus is on you to prove it.
Dan
Without Scripture, there is no Christian faith for we in modern times.
What a childish, irrational and venal little faith you have. You have no faith in anything but your petty, graceless and cruel human traditions and you don't even understand that this is the case.
Dan
December 13, 2024 at 8:30 PM & 8:33PM
I said: "Scripture IS "objective" proof for all things related to the Christian faith you pervert to your liking..."
Dan the pervert king replied:
"PROVE IT." (Typical)
Have you ever read it? Oh yeah...that's right...you "seriously and prayerfully studied". Right. Given that, I have to ask, what other source can you produce which provides any proof for or about the Christian faith? Your "REASON!??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Any questions regarding the teachings of the faith are always go back to Scripture because it's the source of all knowledge about the teachings of the faith. And anything you try to present as a possible replacement ("the heavens proclaim the glory of God" for example) you only know or have because of Scripture telling you. Any dispute about the teachings of the faith require referencing Scripture to get to the answer. You don't have ANY way to justify even demanding I provide you with "proof", much less any possible alternative which disproves that fact. And of course, even with you pretending to have "seriously and prayerfully studied" Scripture, you still have so much of it wrong, even discounting all you've rejected because it conflicts so directly with your personal preferences and heresies, YOU still turn to it in your lame attempt to rationalize your corruptions of it.
"The reality is that you 100% absolutely are entirely impotent and hopelessly, helplessly incapable of proving objectively even THAT much of your childish vapid weightless human theory. If you could, you would."
Such personal attacks are good proofs of the truth of my position also. But setting that aside, I'm under no obligation of any kind for stating what's so obvious and factual. If it wasn't, instead of wetting yourself and embracing grace with your personal attacks, you'd present a better source for learning about the faith than Scripture. But as there is no better source, you default to pretending I'm obliged to prove what you can't disprove. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. A "ridiculous claim"? Hardly. A ridiculous demand by you? Without a doubt.
I said: "Without Scripture, there is no Christian faith for we in modern times."
Dan embraced grace again with this little pouty and petulant rejoinder:
"What a childish, irrational and venal little faith you have."
That's funny. I have faith in the reliability of Scripture, a collection of books about God and His relationship with us, and this pervert heretic wants to pretend there's something amiss about my faith! Amazing how he clings to his perversion!
"petty, graceless and cruel human traditions"
Like supporting, defending, enabling and celebrating infanticide, corrupting small children who haven't been murdered in utero, sexual perversions of all kinds and a host of other truly cruel inhuman traditions you favor? It's special when a vile person such as yourself condescends to accuse me of being being what you are. Progressives routinely project their evil onto others. Well done.
I asked:
Answering the question with another question is NOT objective proof. Beyond that, who SAYS that there IS "objective proof" for or about the Christian faith? Does ANYONE say that exists? If anyone says that, do they have objective proof for the claim?
They don't. There is nothing in the Bible or in all of God's good earth that says we have some source for objective proof of the Christian faith.
Do you recognize that reality?
This isn't that hard, brother.
Any questions regarding the teachings of the faith are always go back to Scripture because it's the source of all knowledge about the teachings of the faith.
We can certainly get information and stories about Jewish history and about the life and teachings of Jesus and the early Christian church from the Bible, as well as some other sources. But who says the information in the Bible or any other sources are objective proof of anything?
Do you understand the problem?
And anything you try to present as a possible replacement ("the heavens proclaim the glory of God" for example) you only know or have because of Scripture telling you.
I'm not presenting ANYTHING as a replacement. I'm acknowledging that we, none of us, have objective proof that our understanding of various biblical texts are objectively proven that we understand God aright or these various human principles and beliefs correctly. Again, I'm talking about objective proof.
Any dispute about the teachings of the faith require referencing Scripture to get to the answer.
sigh. Prove it.
You don't have ANY way to justify even demanding I provide you with "proof", much less any possible alternative which disproves that fact.
Of course, I do. IF ANY person is making claims that you want to say are objectively factual (the bible is inerrant, one of the various flavors of human theories of atonement, that humans are "totally corrupt..." Or, that Allah wants men to have multiple wives or that women can't get an education past the sixth grade, etc), then it is always reasonable to ask for the person for them to provide the proof. That's just basic communication 101.
IF someone is making a claim that they are saying is objectively factual/proven, THEN that person has the burden of proof.
You know this, right?
And of course, even with you pretending to have "seriously and prayerfully studied" Scripture, you still have so much of it wrong, even discounting all you've rejected because it conflicts so directly with your personal preferences and heresies, YOU still turn to it in your lame attempt to rationalize your corruptions of it.
There. THAT is the problem. EVEN IF someone loves the Bible, tries to take it seriously, loves God, loves Jesus, wants to follow Jesus (someone like me, for instance), then YOU are saying they can get it wrong, since you think I get it wrong.
What is your authoritative objective source that can demonstrably objectively prove YOU are the one who is understanding God aright on these various human theories?
"I have faith in the reliability of Scripture, a collection of books about God and His relationship with us.."
Me, too. I just don't have faith in you and other humans like you to understand it correctly. And that's the point. WHICH humans have the authority or objectively indisputable opinions on interpretations and understanding?
Not you.
Not me.
It's literally our subjective opinions.
Dan
December 14, 2024 at 10:04 AM
"Answering the question with another question is NOT objective proof."
I'm sorry. That's my bad. I forgot I need to speak plainly with you so that there is no doubt of my meaning. You want respect and civility in discourse, but that's only so you can push bullshit on your terms. But this isn't your Blog of Lies. This is a blog where honesty is valued.
So, to be clear, my questions to your question (actually, to your demand for "proof" of what has been true for centuries) were meant to point to how much your demand is bullshit and just another dishonest diversion. You won't provide an argument against my positions, but will demand proof of a quality you never provide on those rarest of occasions when you offer crap meant to taken as evidence.
The fact is, you can neither support with any real evidence of any kind your own perversions of Scripture you put forth as the result of "serious and prayerful" study, nor can you provide support with any real evidence that my positions are in any way in error. Instead, you deflect to demanding from me as if you have any intention of conceding any point regardless of the quality and quantity of evidence provided to prove my point.
So here, the onus is on YOU to provide evidence. Abdicating that obligation on the sorry excuse that you're just offering an opinion which can't be proven is unacceptable and while totally expected given your long history of such cowardice and honesty, is a clear white flag of surrender without having the courage to publicly admit defeat.
"Beyond that, who SAYS that there IS "objective proof" for or about the Christian faith?"
Honest people.
"Does ANYONE say that exists?"
Uh...theologians, Biblical scholars, historians, archaeologists, the early church fathers as well as non-believing historians among the Romans and Jews, the Biblical authors, and last, but not least, witnesses to the events of Christ's ministry, execution and resurrection.
"If anyone says that, do they have objective proof for the claim?"
Nothing a lying, cowardly, fake Christian like you would ever accept. So again, stop with the bullshit and get down to business. Make a case that's more compelling than this constant 5 yr old level "Nyuh uh" crap.
"There is nothing in the Bible or in all of God's good earth that says we have some source for objective proof of the Christian faith."
You're a moron. The Bible itself is objective proof of the Christian faith.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
PROVE your "reality", or retract that question in your next comment and never ask it again.
"This isn't that hard, brother."
Don't call me "brother". You're not my brother and little is more insulting than for you to call me "brother". Henceforth, I must regard it as such, for it's as vile a thing to call me as would be "Jeff St. congregant".
"We can certainly get information and stories about Jewish history and about the life and teachings of Jesus and the early Christian church from the Bible, as well as some other sources."
What other sources? List a few.
"But who says the information in the Bible or any other sources are objective proof of anything?"
Again with a Dishonest Dan tactic. We're talking about the Bible here, not "any other sources". Stop lying. If it's not the ultimate authoritative resource for knowledge of the Christian faith, prove it. Your questions are no more than truth claims suggesting the opposite of what my position is as if there is an opposite with any true merit.
"Do you understand the problem? "
Yeah. You're a lying asshole who refuses to do a damned thing to support your opposition to the truth I present. Given you aren't about to accept any evidence from me regardless of the quality of it, the problem is that you're dodging your obligation to actually do what you claim you always do...engage in discourse in an adult and respectful manner. That isn't evident anywhere in this thread.
What IS starkly evident is that you continue to do exactly what I've been saying is routine with you regarding your dishonesty and lack of honor and integrity. Thanks for the help.
"I'm not presenting ANYTHING as a replacement."
Another aspect of the problem. You never do. You just object, criticize and refuse to accept a clear presentation of Scriptural truths which don't work for your pervert narratives.
" I'm acknowledging that we, none of us, have objective proof that our understanding of various biblical texts are objectively proven that we understand God aright or these various human principles and beliefs correctly. Again, I'm talking about objective proof."
Another intentional, blatant lie. You're spewing a favorite excuse for rejecting that which does not align with your preferred heresies with the false suggestion that you heresies are just as likely true as the Scriptural truths and facts I present. You're not fooling anyone here. No one here fails to easily see through these cheap rationalizations and excuses from you. The extent of the knowledge provided us in Scripture is not mysterious. You inject ambiguity where it doesn't exist so you can go on supporting infanticide, sexual perversions of your LGBTQ friends, sticking your hands in the pockets of productive people rather than being more productive yourself, deaths and rapes and robberies of fellow citizens and migrants about whom you pretend to care and a host of other anti-Christian behaviors you want to pretend are somehow Christian after all.
" sigh. Prove it."
Provide a better source.
"Of course, I do. IF ANY person is making claims that you want to say are objectively factual (the bible is inerrant, one of the various flavors of human theories of atonement, that humans are "totally corrupt..." Or, that Allah wants men to have multiple wives or that women can't get an education past the sixth grade, etc), then it is always reasonable to ask for the person for them to provide the proof. That's just basic communication 101."
Never again mention islamic tenets in a discussion about Scripture and the Christian faith you mock by saying you love God. It has no place here and is just another attempt to diminish the Scriptural truths I might present by grouping them with lies.
This also is another deceptive tactic by not specifying which claims are being proven by citing Scripture. Fortunately, the three you mentioned here have been exhaustively proven many times in many ways and, because you're a lying heretical asshole, you reject it all without reciprocal counter evidence. So don't condescend by pretending to instruct me in what I do constantly without an adult response from you. "Basic communication 101" is a two-way street. The receiver of information or truth claims must respond with something more intelligent and adult than "Nyuh uh! PROVE IT!", especially not continually demanding "PROOF" for the proofs and evidence given without end. "Adult and respectful" is just a punchline to you. You clearly never mean it.
"IF someone is making a claim that they are saying is objectively factual/proven, THEN that person has the burden of proof.
You know this, right?"
Fuck yourself. What no one knows is the exact criteria for determining the quality and quantity of the evidence the Almighty Trabue will accept. So cut the crap. At this blog, YOU are most obliged to bring the goods. Don't ever forget that.
"There. THAT is the problem. EVEN IF someone loves the Bible, tries to take it seriously, loves God, loves Jesus, wants to follow Jesus (someone like me, for instance), then YOU are saying they can get it wrong, since you think I get it wrong."
That's funny. You reject so much which is beyond debate, yet you claim to be someone who "someone loves the Bible, tries to take it seriously, loves God, loves Jesus, wants to follow Jesus". This ain't your Blog of Lies.
The truth is you don't "get it wrong" as if you're mistaken. You blatantly reject numerous truths and concepts which are beyond debating at this point and do so with no evidence to suggest you have a legit reason for "being wrong". The most laughable part is when you talk about having arrived at your heresies by use of your "God-given reason". There's reasoning out the truth and then there's "reasoning" (scheming in reality) your way around it. You do the latter.
" What is your authoritative objective source that can demonstrably objectively prove YOU are the one who is understanding God aright on these various human theories?"
And still with this dishonest question which will never be allowed here again. The point of this question isn't to secure an answer, because the proof is in how closely and accurately my positions match the actual teaching of Scripture, but to impose ambiguity so as to allow that your heresies might actually be meritorious and "Christian" despite being so much farther from being truth than mine are close. It's a question you ask because of the impossibility of actually arguing for your heresies. You're not fooling anybody by asking this fool question. You're just being an asshole...and you're always a success in that endeavor.
December 14, 2024 at 11:55 AM
"Me, too. I just don't have faith in you and other humans like you to understand it correctly. And that's the point. WHICH humans have the authority or objectively indisputable opinions on interpretations and understanding?"
First, no you don't. You reject so much which is so clear to make such a claim. You insult God by saying so when it is so clearly untrue.
And no, it's not that you don't have faith in my ability to properly and accurately understand Scripture. My understanding conflicts with your marxist, pro-perversion ideology. This is true and proven by your inability, unwillingness and refusal to provide evidence to contradict my understanding. "Nyuh uh" will never get it done. This is another "Nyuh uh" comment.
Those humans whose opinions have not been rebuked, rebutted or contradicted with better evidence than that provided multiple times to support them.
"It's literally our subjective opinions."
You continually think this means something. I don't care if you want to refer to the truths and facts I present as opinion, hunches, human traditions or whatever. That's just you peeing yourself again. Bring some evidence to contradict it and explain why the evidence I bring fails. Do either one if not both. It'll be a first and an example that you really believe in "adult" conversation.
"Bring some evidence to contradict it and explain why the evidence I bring fails."
1. Fact 1: The Bible literally does not say the Bible is a rulings book, nor does it state it is offering authoritative, objective facts about what a new religion called Christianity should be, according to God.
2. Fact 2: It is not enough for you all to simply proclaim, HERE are the beliefs you need to affirm to be in accordance with what God wants/expects a Christian should believe. YOU have to prove me wrong. IF you want to proclaim your opinions and traditions are objective facts, then the burden of proof is on you.
What if the reality is that the Bible has NO opinions on the Bible?
What if the reality is that the Bible doesn't define Christianity?
Dan
December 15, 2024 at 9:17 AM
More dishonest absurdity:
"1. Fact 1: The Bible literally does not say the Bible is a rulings book, nor does it state it is offering authoritative, objective facts about what a new religion called Christianity should be, according to God."
That's not a "fact" with any true meaning or value. But it is a truth claim which denotes your presumption that there must be specific and exact words which say that the Bible is any of those things. So, you're greatly obliged and required to provide proof that the Bible must speak of itself in such a way in order for it to be any of those things. I'll wait here while you try to bullshit your way out of it.
Failing as you surely will to provide such proof, as if you have no such obligation, will be more evidence of what I've been saying regarding your use of these types of questions and distractions to avoid proving your beliefs, opinions, positions and objections have any merit whatsoever and are no more than simply your self-serving preferences regarding the faith.
"2. Fact 2: It is not enough for you all to simply proclaim, HERE are the beliefs you need to affirm to be in accordance with what God wants/expects a Christian should believe. YOU have to prove me wrong. IF you want to proclaim your opinions and traditions are objective facts, then the burden of proof is on you."
More of the same dishonest absurdity. When we say, for example, "the Bible clearly says 'XYZ'", you demand proof. When we cite the passage/verse where it says "XYZ", you then demand proof "XYZ" actually means what it says. When we then gather other passages or verses which support the fact that XYZ is actual teaching of the Bible and means what XYZ clearly implies, you move to "that's just your hunch you can't 'objectively' prove" despite that fact that we've actually proven our point. You neither provide a more compelling explanation for what XYZ "really" means, nor do you provide any coherent description of what "objective" proof might look like. It's all just bullshit to deny admitting your heresies are heresies and that you refuse to accept the clear teaching regarding XYZ. When all you do is whine about proving and hunches and all that other crap you constantly spew and never provide a compelling, fact-based counter argument, it's utterly clear you reject truth.
"What if the reality is that the Bible has NO opinions on the Bible?
What if the reality is that the Bible doesn't define Christianity?"
What if you did more than constantly bore me with laughably stupid and meaningless questions of no substance?
So...YOUR task is to PROVE that the Bible MUST say its authoritative, reliable, inerrant, the definitive source for the teaching and understanding of the Christian faith or any of the other of the moronic, self-serving dishonest distractions.
Marshal:
.YOUR task is to PROVE that the Bible MUST say its authoritative, reliable, inerrant, the definitive source for the teaching and understanding of the Christian faith
No, it's not MY task. I'm noting a simple reality: "The Bible" doesn't say anything that demands others accept your human theories about inerrancy or PS Atonement or TULIP. That is an objective fact (AND FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME: IT does NOT have to be those exact words. I'm saying there's nothing in the Bible that HINTS at the suggestion that we MUST affirm those human theories as being the same as "God's word," or what God expects).
Now, that is an objective fact claim. The Bible does NOT say what you theorize it says nor does it insist that these theories are what God thinks/expects/demands.
Now, in THAT scenario, IF you want to claim that inerrancy IS an objective fact, or that some version of TULP IS an objective fact, then the burden of proof is on you.
I'm merely noting what is observably factual. If you want to try to prove what is not observably demonstrable and objectively factual, YOU must prove it.
OR on the other hand, if you merely want to say, "I can't prove it, but I think this is clearly the most reasonable conclusion... but I can't prove it as objective fact," then say that. THAT would be fine.
The problem is when you want to suggest that these human theories and subjective opinions ARE objective facts.
Do you think "inerrancy" is an objective fact? Prove it.
Do you think PS atonement is an objective fact? Prove it.
etc. This is not unreasonable. It's just basic logic and human communication.
Dan:
"1. Fact 1: The Bible literally does not say the Bible is a rulings book, nor does it state it is offering authoritative, objective facts about what a new religion called Christianity should be, according to God."
Marshal:
But it is a truth claim which denotes your presumption that there must be specific and exact words which say that the Bible is any of those things. So, you're greatly obliged and required to provide proof that the Bible must speak of itself in such a way
It is NOT my presumption that it must be those specific and exact words. How can we know that? By the way you KEEP bringing up this inane and false objection and I've clarified by saying, "IT IS NOT MY PRESUMPTION THAT IT MUST BE THOSE EXACT WORDS."
YOUR claim is an objectively false claim, as demonstrated once again by my clarification.
I do not believe that the Bible must say the exact words "We should not nuke whole cities of children and innocents" to conclude that it is a bad/immoral action to take. But then, I'm not a biblical "literalist" the way you are. You see, I don't think WE NEED the Bible to recognize the great moral atrocity of bombing cities and killing innocent people and children.
But if YOU think the Bible is a rulings book or it is offering authoritative, objective facts about what a new religion called Christianity should be, according to God... then YOU need to prove it, objectively. Once again, YOU are the one making objective claims about what you personally theorize the Bible objectively is saying.
When YOU are saying "The Bible says X and therefore, that objectively means that God wants us to hold to X," then the burden of proof lies with you.
Again, this is just Logic 101. Basic human reasoning and communication.
So, be clear: Do you think that God objectively wants us to believe in an "inerrant Bible..."? Prove it.
Do you think that God objectively wants us to affirm the total depravity of humanity? Prove it.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim of objective fact.
For my part, the only objective facts I'm claiming are those that are objectively demonstrable. The Bible demonstrably NEVER argues for an "inerrant Bible." And it literally doesn't. That is a human theory.
Do you not understand the problem you have?
"When we say, for example, "the Bible clearly says 'XYZ'", you demand proof. When we cite the passage/verse where it says "XYZ", you then demand proof "XYZ" actually means what it says..."
Yes. Of course, I do. Why wouldn't we? JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A LINE IN THE BIBLE DOES NOT MEAN IT IS factually, morally or rationally correct.
There is a line that refers to the four corners of the earth. That does not mean that the earth has corners.
There are lines that defend or demand slavery. That does not mean that slavery is a moral option.
There are lines that defend or demand killing all the people in a location. That does not mean that killing children, babies and other innocents is a moral option.
There is a line from Jesus where he commands us not to store up treasures/riches on earth. That does not mean we can't reasonably save some money.
There are ALL KIND of lines in the Bible. That doesn't equate to the notion we should take it literally.
YOU do not believe this or you'd be executing adulterers (including yourself,
perhaps..?) and gay people. We ALL recognize that there are texts that should not be taken literally. And why is that? Because the Bible is not a rulings book and never claims to be. Literally.
The existence of a passage that says XYZ is NOT objective proof that we should affirm or believe. XYZ.
You don't think so, do you?
Dan
Dan can't prove the claims he made, despite a very clever effort. It's the Dan double standard. He demands unreasonable "proof" of things that are commonly known, while offering this crap as "proof" of his bullshit.
Craig...
Dan can't prove the claims he made, despite a very clever effort.
Of course, I can and I have.
1. God has never told anyone in all of known history that God does not want gay guys to get married. That is objectively factual.
2. God has never told us we should affirm an "inerrant" Bible. Ever. This is objectively factual.
3. God has never told us that human have a "sin nature." Period.
4. God has never told us that God plans to torture most of humanity for all eternity for having this theoretical "sin nature."
Etc. EACH of those claims by me are objective facts UNLESS AND UNTIL someone can offer objectively proven data to the contrary. There is NO HARD, OBJECTIVE data that proves otherwise.
Now, SOME HUMANS might say, "but there is a verse in the Bible that I interpret to mean..." whatever, that remains an objectively unproven subjective personal human opinion.
IF people like you want to say that LGBTQ folks are bad and can't marry, have children or be accepted for who they are, THAT is a horrible and corrosive claim. If you additionally add on that it is an objective fact that God told you, it is reasonable in the extreme for people to demand proof of such a cancerous, oppressive claim. YOU should be asking for objective proof and when the people in your human tradition can't provide objective proof (and they can't), then you should question why you should promote that human opinion.
Same for the theoretical "total depravity" of humans you personally believe in (which is NOT "commonly known") or an inerrant Bible, etc. IF you can’t provide objective proof of these human theories, then at the very least, personal integrity and reason would dictate that you acknowledge them as the subjective human opinions that they are.
A little humility is in order, and that's a good thing.
Dan
Craig,
Of course he can't, nor has he ever come close. Instead, what he does is make crap up and then hides behind "of COURSE I can't prove it, no one can, it's just my opinion, blah, blah, blah" as if "opinion" means one has no obligation to provide a legitimate reason why one holds a given opinion. He could be honest (hypothetically...he's clearly not honest) and say, "No, I have no facts, evidence or legitimate reason for holding my opinion other than it sounds nice and by pretending it's legitimate I can then do what I want." But no, he insists on demanding we prove anything and everything we say, while giving no reason why it isn't true and accurate renderings of a very clear and unambiguous Scripture.
Before realizing that he submitted last four comments wherein he continues making the same dishonest criticisms and objections, I came upon the following link in the Federalist written by possibly the best source on the Bible and homosexuality there is, Robert Gagnon. You'll easily note how the flaws of the father/son team defending homosexual unions sound eerily familiar:
https://thefederalist.com/2024/12/16/12-disqualifying-errors-in-richard-hays-biblical-case-for-gay-relationships/
I will be addressing Dan's latest flimsy attempts to defend his dishonesty and corruptions a little later.
You simply asserting things you believe to be True isn't "proof" by any standard. But, I was specifically speaking of the specific claims I pointed out which you made.
That you feel the need to drag this off topic to simply repeat your unproven talking points is your problem, not mine.
1. That's quite a claim. There are only ways that this claim could possibly be "objectively factual". Either you've spoken with YHWH and He's told you this (which is really more hearsay than "objectively factual" or you've interviewed every single person who's lived on Earth (which again is more hearsay than "absolutely factual"). That you think that you simply stating these talking points of yours and asserting them to be True somehow magically makes them so, speaks volumes to your delusions.
If you want to waste time trying to dispute what Dan has decreed to be "objectively factual", go for it. It's just him beating the same dead horses with the same old talking points, with the same lack of proof.
I'll make it easy on you, Craig, and clarify my objectively factual claim:
THERE IS NO WHERE IN ALL OF HEAVEN AND EARTH AS FAR AS WE KNOW Where God has objectively said God is opposed to gay folk marrying...
Where God has said that God endorses the theory of "biblical inerrancy."
Where God has objectively said that God wants us to affirm the human theory of "the total depravity of all humans."
Etc.
There is objectively NO PLACE where God has objectively said this.
ALL anyone has to do is provide that place for ANY of my clear fact claims and you can disprove me. I'd WELCOME that, because I want to know the truth.
But, you must know that merely pointing to the Bible and saying "Here is a verse where I THINK it clearly says X" is NOT objective proof of your claims.
For the life of me, I can't see what you all are failing to understand.
IF you have objective proof, PRESENT IT.
You never do precisely because you can't. You all rarely even TRY because you know (somewhere deep within you) that you don't have that proof. I GET that you all REALLLLY think you understand biblical texts correctly and that human understanding is some how objective proof, but it's just not.
If you thought it was, you'd present it.
Craig:
Instead, what he does is make crap up and then hides behind "of COURSE I can't prove it, no one can, it's just my opinion, blah, blah, blah" as if "opinion" means one has no obligation to provide a legitimate reason why one holds a given opinion.
What are you missing? I'm saying it's an objective FACT that no one has presented data that supports the theories you all hold to, like...
God is opposed to gay guys marrying;
God wants us to affirm an "inerrant" Bible theory, because it's objectively factual;
God thinks that all humans are totally depraved;
God thinks that the Atonement Theory is "the right" human theory about salvation;
etc.
It is objectively factual that these are human theories that have never been objectively proven.
Do you disagree?
THEN PROVE them. ALL you have to do is present ONE piece of objective proof that God affirms ANY of your human theories. You won't because you can't and you won't even try because it's too overwhelming for you all to admit you can't prove it objectively. (The last is just my guess, not an objective fact... but it fits the known data).
IF you all could objectively prove any of these human theories, of course, you would. That you never do and rarely even TRY to provide objective proof should tell you something.
Are you suggesting that God somewhere has secretly HID all these (what you theorize are) objective facts and you're not willing to reveal the secret objective proof? If so, do you understand how crazy that sounds?
My guess is that you all truly FEEL in your "hearts" that God HAS objectively revealed these human theories to YOU all, and that's how you "know" it, because "god" has "revealed" these truths to you... but you can't say that because you recognize it's subjective (and a bit crazy) on the face of it.
You tell me.
What you all should not do, however, is keep insisting you have the "objective proof" without providing it.
December 15, 2024 at 8:05 PM
I said to Dan, "YOUR task is to PROVE that the Bible MUST say its authoritative, reliable, inerrant, the definitive source for the teaching and understanding of the Christian faith"
Dan replied:
"No, it's not MY task. I'm noting a simple reality: "The Bible" doesn't say anything that demands others accept your human theories about inerrancy or PS Atonement or TULIP."
But we weren't talking about my "human theories" about inerrancy, PSA or whatever. We're talking about YOU insisting that because the Bible doesn't mention any of these things in a manner you demand they must, then you can dismiss them as "human theories". And given that your position is that the Bible doesn't, for example, refer to itself as inerrant, then it's only an opinion without any proof.
But my response is specific (unlike your nonsense). I'm asking you on what basis are you suggesting that the Bible MUST say it's inerrant in order for that to be true. How can you prove it's necessary that the Bible MUST refer to itself in any way, in order for it to be truly inerrant, a "rule book" or any of the other things you dismiss in order to assume the authority or liberty to deny these things? As it stands...and as it has stood for a very long time...this demand of yours that it MUST so refer to itself has been nothing by a weak excuse to deny belief in those things you find personally unpleasant or contrary to your preferred, thought unsupported, alternative. So provide the proof that it MUST refer to itself as inerrant or a rule book or anything at all or retract the bullshit question and demand for proof.
"Now, that is an objective fact claim. The Bible does NOT say what you theorize it says nor does it insist that these theories are what God thinks/expects/demands."
The "objective fact" is that there is nothing which requires the Bible MUST say anything about itself (a collection of 66 books) in order for what it teaches to be true, even if it doesn't teach it in such a manner you personally demand.
The issue here is not what it does say. It's about you presuming that it MUST say one thing in order for another to be true and factual about itself or anything else. That is to say, you're constantly rejecting what it does say on the basis of this false and presumptuous demand in order to continue your heretical perversions of what the faith is and what it teaches us.
"Now, in THAT scenario, IF you want to claim that inerrancy IS an objective fact, or that some version of TULP IS an objective fact, then the burden of proof is on you."
Now again, I point out that you're once more speaking of things I don't personally say, or that aren't my personal opinions. I've never dealt with "TULIP" directly, so there's no reason except obfuscation to mention it here. I do know that the Bible is inerrant, and doesn't need to describe itself in that way in order for it to be true. But more specifically, I regard Scripture in the manner of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which tells us all we need to know in order to regard Scripture as the ultimate authority on the faith. There is nothing better for the purpose described in the verse, and you've never, even once, provided something more useful for that purpose. It certainly isn't your "reason", which is an incredibly hilarious jest, especially given how it manifests.
Furthermore, as you demand that Scripture MUST refer to itself as inerrant, we know there is no verse which so much as hints that it is unreliable.
Your task remains.
" I'm merely noting what is observably factual. If you want to try to prove what is not observably demonstrable and objectively factual, YOU must prove it."
What "fact" of any consequence are you presenting? And if you're presenting a fact, that means you're presenting a truth claim for which you offer nothing more than your own opinion. And if you hold an opinion, it must rely on something substantive beyond your personal desire that it be true. So pretend you're a man and get busy.
"The problem is when you want to suggest that these human theories and subjective opinions ARE objective facts."
No. The PROBLEM is you running this petty, childish little girl crap instead of making a case which either actually negates my position as unlikely or which fleshes out what alternative you think makes more sense. You don't get to shit your crap and pretend you've rendered my position untrue, or the facts I present. That's just you saying "Nyuh uh". I don't present opinions, or waste my time pushing them without stating specifically that I'm speaking of that which is only my opinion. When I speak of what Scripture says, I'm speaking of truth and fact which is clearly beyond your ability to contradict. So you play this bullshit game instead.
"Do you think "inerrancy" is an objective fact? Prove it."
This particular demand is an abject deflection asked in order to distract from your obligation to prove an accurate representation of any verse, passage or teaching isn't true, not because the account of it is wrong or in error, but because it conflicts with your preferred, unBiblical alternative. That the Bible is "inerrant" is a given, but never an actual point being argued. The issue only comes up when you're trying to avoid defending your objection to truth or your preferred alternative.
"This is not unreasonable. It's just basic logic and human communication."
What's "reasonable" and "logical human communication" does NOT include this type of bullshit you bring to the table in order to avoid defending your corruption and heresies. It's not "adult". It's not "respectful". It's vulgar deception and cowardice.
December 15, 2024 at 8:20 PM
"It is NOT my presumption that it must be those specific and exact words. How can we know that? By the way you KEEP bringing up this inane and false objection and I've clarified by saying, "IT IS NOT MY PRESUMPTION THAT IT MUST BE THOSE EXACT WORDS."
YOUR claim is an objectively false claim, as demonstrated once again by my clarification."
I didn't make a claim, so once again you're lying or proving your inability to comprehend what it plain. The statement of yours which is in response to one of mine misses the point. You posted a comment which you preceded with "Fact 1". That "fact" was that the Bible does not refer to itself as a "rulings book". My response demands you prove it is somehow required to refer to itself in such a way in order for it to be true. THAT is the issue: that YOU get to make a fact claim without the slightest argument or evidence to back it up. I'm just supposed to ignore the clear teachings of Scripture because Dan wants to insist the Bible isn't a book which, among other things, includes rules for what it means to be a Christian...which makes it, among other things, a "rulings book". Try to explain how anything YOU believe makes you a Christian is in any way binding, without reference to teachings about moral and immoral behaviors. I'll wait here while you spew more obfuscation in lieu of an honorable and honest response.
What's more, no matter how many times you want to pretend you don't require specific wording, that fact will remain every time you do...which is uncommonly common.
" YOUR claim is an objectively false claim, as demonstrated once again by my clarification."
Your "clarification" conflicts with your history and behavior. As such, it's as meaningless and most everything else you say. Every time you say the Bible isn't a "rulings book", or that it never says it is "inerrant", you're demanding that it must say that exact thing somewhere within its covers in order for those things to be true. So your "clarification" is no better than, "I know I said it, but I never said it". Works at your Blog of Lies, but not here.
" The burden of proof is on the one making the claim of objective fact."
Yet you prove nothing, whether it be that my position is wrong, or that you actually have an alternative which makes more sense. In the meantime, you won't prove that the Bible is NOT inerrant. And find where I ever said "God wants us to believe the Bible is 'inerrant", when it's enough for actual Christians to just regard it as a given given it's the Word of God as recorded by HIS prophets.
"Do you think that God objectively wants us to affirm the total depravity of humanity? Prove it."
Oh, this has been proven repeatedly at great length and comprehensively. Your response? "Nyuh uh!" And this is yet another manifestation of your moral corruption and inveterate dishonesty. You act as if you haven't been enlightened to this truth.
"For my part, the only objective facts I'm claiming are those that are objectively demonstrable. The Bible demonstrably NEVER argues for an "inerrant Bible.""
And again, it's a "fact" of no consequence and no value because it demands what you won't do, being the lying coward you are: that you prove it MUST say such in order for it to be true. Until you can make such a case, it means nothing to continually say that as if you say it NOT to deflect from your heresies.
"Do you not understand the problem you have?"
My "problem" is my embracing grace by continually seeking from an asshole that which he refuses to provide: honesty, integrity, an actual explanation for an alternative understanding of ANYTHING he criticizes, evidence, truth and the like.
As to my understanding of Scripture, it's pretty solid and accurate.
Marshal:
This particular demand is an abject deflection asked in order to distract from your obligation to prove an accurate representation of any verse, passage or teaching isn't true, not because the account of it is wrong or in error, but because it conflicts with your preferred, unBiblical alternative. That the Bible is "inerrant" is a given...
My claims are quite clear and provable in the complete absence of evidence to the contrary. That is, it doesn't matter if someone says there are purple unicorns living on the moon, we have no obligation to take it as a serious claim UNTIL THEY provide objective proof. Their claim is not sufficient. So, my claims:
Of course, I can and I have.
1. God has never told anyone in all of known history that God does not want gay guys to get married. That is objectively factual.
2. God has never told us we should affirm an "inerrant" Bible. Ever. This is objectively factual.
3. God has never told us that human have a "sin nature." Period.
4. God has never told us that God plans to torture most of humanity for all eternity for having this theoretical "sin nature."
I love the Bible. But I do not CARE a whit about what you say you think in your opinion the Bible should be "saying." I'm talking about God and God's will/opinion/desires on many issues. IF you think YOU personally have found objective proof for ANY of these types of claims, then the burden of proof is on you AND merely citing, "Well, here is a bible verse..." is NOT objective proof. It is literally a subjective opinion.
To make it easy: YOU have one responsibility on one topic you support... PROVE the Bible is "inerrant." It's simply rationally insufficient and not objective proof to merely claim "It's a given..." It's literally NOT a given.
I think that's part of the problem you all have... you want to operate under a series of GIVENS that you all presume, but have not objectively proven. IF it's a given that you understand God correct and IF it's a given that the Bible is "inerrant" (whatever that means!) and IF it's a given that the Bible is some sort of official and authoritative rulings book, THEN we make our case base upon those givens.
But you have not proven your givens.
So, given that you are making a rather astounding set of claims (focusing now on inerrancy) and the burden of proof is on you, just as it would be upon the purple unicorn theorist, you all traditionally turn to "the Bible," as if merely citing pages and phrases from the Bible is objective proof.
"We know the Bible is 'inerrant,' because we know it's God's Word and that the phrases therein can't be wrong..."
Given your presuppositions, then:
1. How do you objectively prove the 66 books of the Bible are words from God?
2. How do you objectively prove that the words you're citing are inerrant?
(here, you likely presume that if the 66 ARE scripture or as scripture and if they are "inspired" there would be no errors of fact or theory in these words written literally by humans... but how do you prove that objectively?
3. How do you prove YOUR PERSONAL human understandings are without error and are, in effect, inerrant?
4. IF your human understandings are NOT inerrant (and of course, they're not) how do you prove objectively that your understandings on any phrase or story or set of phrases in the Bible are without error?
You all have never even attempted to do so, it's as if you think your presumptions are "proof" enough. But they ain't.
"December 15, 2024 at 8:55 PM
"Yes. Of course, I do. Why wouldn't we? JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A LINE IN THE BIBLE DOES NOT MEAN IT IS factually, morally or rationally correct."
It is until you can prove otherwise. Only a fake Christian says this type of crap. (And by "fake Christian", I refer to those like Dan who pretend to be Christian in a superficial way in order to legitimize corrupt behaviors) If you're not willing to provide an alternative explanation for any verse presented that you don't think is properly understood, along with solid, unassailable evidence your alternative fiction is possibly more accurate than mine, you're just blowing smoke. Your intention to to stifle the truth so that you can carry on in your morally bankrupt manner. No one here is fooled by you. More importantly, no one here is unwilling to alter a belief, opinion or understanding in the face of a better explanation supported by unassailable support. You never provide anything like that. You just indulge in your obfuscation and deflections.
So when you continually demand more proof for the proof provided for the demand for proof which proved what was demanded prior, it's just you fucking around and refusing to accept a damned thing if it means acquiescing to Truth which conflicts with your preferred narratives. You're not dealing with lefties here.
"There is a line that refers to the four corners of the earth. That does not mean that the earth has corners."
Another dishonest tactic: referencing something never meant to be taken literally by a people who didn't see the world as a cube or as square in the first place and pretend it's analogous to the truths you don't want to accept. That might work with other lefties, but not for honest people or those who strive to be among them.
"There are lines that defend or demand slavery. That does not mean that slavery is a moral option."
Yet another intentional lie: pretending that references to "slave" in the OT are akin to the antebellum south of the United States history as if countless theologians and historians haven't clarified those verses.
Worse, liars like you like to pretend what those like me use those verses to legitimize what we today think of when we hear the word "slavery", as if that's an issue among those like me who post comments on these blogs. It's a cheap and deceitful ploy. This is another issue scholars and theologians have explained and clarified enough that no honest person would pretend there's any acceptance of slavery as we regard the term today. In short, no one is suggesting because of Scripture that slavery is a "moral option" and you're lying again just by trying to run this crap. Don't ever do it again.
"There are lines that defend or demand killing all the people in a location. That does not mean that killing children, babies and other innocents is a moral option."
Another Trabue corruption. There are no lines which demand of us the killing of all people in a location. The defense of those instances in Scripture where God used His Chosen People to enact His justice and judgement on a vile population is clear and unambiguous. Your laughable posturing as outraged purposely ignores the difference between the 21st Century sentimentalities and the realities of the times in which those events took place. In the meantime, while you pretend you give a flying rat's ass about children, babies and innocents being put to the sword, you stand in support of tearing an infant limb from limb for purposes of selfish convenience. You're a rank asshole for continually bringing this up as if you're doing so honestly and accurately. The fact is you purposely and intentionally lie about it while doing worse with your support for abortion, like the fucking, murderous scumbag you are.
"There is a line from Jesus where he commands us not to store up treasures/riches on earth. That does not mean we can't reasonably save some money."
Of course it doesn't, because as has been explained by use of the entire context in which that line is found, it's not about how much money we "store up", but whether we do so instead of or subordinate to abiding the Will of God. This is another line you abuse for your socialist purposes and as such also doesn't fly here. Pervert Scriptural teaching at YOUR Blog of Lies, not here.
" There are ALL KIND of lines in the Bible. That doesn't equate to the notion we should take it literally."
Just in your offerings above, you demonstrate yet again you pervert the notion of "literal" understanding of verses and passages.
"YOU do not believe this or you'd be executing adulterers (including yourself,perhaps..?) and gay people."
A literal understanding of Scripture does not oblige me to do any such thing. A perverted sense of a literal understanding falsely asserts I'm so obliged. You've been schooled many times regarding how your sexual immorality is addressed in the OT versus how we address it now. Thus, you're either lying or stupid to make such a suggestion regarding literal understanding and interpretations.
"We ALL recognize that there are texts that should not be taken literally. And why is that? Because the Bible is not a rulings book and never claims to be."
Wow! How desperately stupid! While the first sentence is true, it fails to account for which texts, passages and verses should be taken literally and which shouldn't. You determine such by what you find personally pleasing or not, while I determine it by a sincere, objective desire for truth without regard to whether or not I find the truth to be personally pleasing or not.
So this has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is a rulings book, and it certainly has nothing to do with proving whether or not the Bible is required to state that it's a rulings book in order to be one.
"The existence of a passage that says XYZ is NOT objective proof that we should affirm or believe. XYZ."
That depends upon the passage and why it was mentioned and to what it was mentioned to support or refute. As a blanket statement for all passages, verses and texts brought up, it's meaningless.
Marshal falsely claimed:
Yet another intentional lie: pretending that references to "slave" in the OT are akin to the antebellum south of the United States history as if countless theologians and historians haven't clarified those verses.
When I speak of slavery, I'm speaking of people being ENSLAVED, OWNED by another human being to work for the slaveholder. You know, slavery. That IS what happened in many circumstances in the Bible.
But you know this. This is YOUR dodge to pretend I'm saying something I'm not. I'm literally just talking about forced slavery, as when Israel took over a city or nation. Those captured (the ones who were slaughtered) were not willing slaves or some kind of indentured servants.
When you try to say I'm lying you only serve to catch yourself up in another stupidly false claim.
Dan:
"The existence of a passage that says XYZ is NOT objective proof that we should affirm or believe. XYZ."
Marshal:
That depends upon the passage and why it was mentioned and to what it was mentioned to support or refute. As a blanket statement for all passages, verses and texts brought up, it's meaningless.
THAT's the point! YOU ACKNOWLEDGE that we should not take every line as a literal ruling or command or philosophy or religious tenet. NO ONE takes the Bible literally.
But that leaves us with another problem: WHICH LINES (if any) should be taken literally and based upon what? WHO decides THIS line is literal and THAT line is figurative? WHAT authoritative rubric do we have for deciding THIS line but not THAT line?
This is the problem you have. Without SOME authoritative rubric about THESE are the literal lines and THOSE are NOT literal lines, then what we are left with are subjective opinions.
That's what you have... YOUR personal human subjective opinion NOT an objective proof. Just admit it and move on.
You determine such by what you find personally pleasing or not, while I determine it by a sincere, objective desire for truth without regard to whether or not I find the truth to be personally pleasing or not.
Another stupidly false and demonstrably false claim. Remember: I WAS conservative. I studied the Bible, well, religiously. (Still do). I was seeking God and Truth and the Right Way with deep sincerity, with OUT regard to anything as banal as whether I find it personally pleasing or not. Iif I were a betting man, I'd be willing to wager a good bit that I studied the Bible much more frequently and deeply in my first 30 years than you ever have.
AND as a result, I came to disagree with the opinions conservative religionists held BECAUSE I found them increasingly to be unbiblical, immoral and unGodly and entirely missing the point of the story and message of Jesus.
You have no proof of the ridiculous and false claim that I studied Bible to only find that which personally pleased me. Indeed, having been raised to sincerely believe the conservative religious doctrine, I had NO desire to change my opinions on these matters because to change my views was NOT personally pleasing to me. I changed my views because I, in good faith, no longer held to what I was taught growing up as being biblical, rational or Godly. Naught else.
December 16, 2024 at 12:29 PM
Craig said: "Dan can't prove the claims he made, despite a very clever effort."
Setting aside I don't regard any of Dan's efforts to be in the least bit "clever", Dan responded:
"Of course, I can and I have.
1. God has never told anyone in all of known history that God does not want gay guys to get married. That is objectively factual."
You can't and haven't. This point #1is meaningless and is not a point anyone argues. And again, where is your proof that God MUST tell us He doesn't approve of SSMs in order for it to be true that He doesn't? My objection is that you use this childish argument to provide you the liberty to support, enable, defend and celebrate the union of two perverts and the unfounded, illogical notion that God would bless such a union. Just as bad is your laughable reasoning for your support of such based on perversions of Scripture for the purpose.
"2. God has never told us we should affirm an "inerrant" Bible. Ever. This is objectively factual."
Once again, you must provide proofs or evidence to confirm that He is REQUIRED to tell us such in order for it to be so. Without doing so, it's not an actual argument against the inerrant quality of Scripture.
"3. God has never told us that human have a "sin nature." Period."
The same as above with the added benefit of His actually having told us so in various places throughout Scripture through His Prophets and Apostles. These verses and passages affirming this fact have been presented to you enough to indict you as a liar for saying otherwise.
"4. God has never told us that God plans to torture most of humanity for all eternity for having this theoretical "sin nature.""
This is also another lie of yours, made worse by the intentional choice of inflammatory words like "torture" in your desperate attempt to alter Scripture. You've been provided evidence from Scripture confirming eternal punishment and have done nothing to counter that truth except to object and criticize expressing that truth.
"EACH of those claims by me are objective facts UNLESS AND UNTIL someone can offer objectively proven data to the contrary. There is NO HARD, OBJECTIVE data that proves otherwise."
The "HARD, OBJECTIVE" data is Scripture itself, as has been demonstrated many times. You simply reject it without a reciprocal degree of "HARD, OBJECTIVE" data of your own. "Nyuh uh" is all we get from you, and that's because your infantile "God-given reason" is incapable of coming up with a compelling argument at all. To constantly say childish things like "God never said...!" doesn't get it done, particularly when in saying this you are indeed demanding exact wording of YOUR choosing for it to be true.
"IF people like you want to say that LGBTQ folks are bad and can't marry, have children or be accepted for who they are, THAT is a horrible and corrosive claim."
"People like me" speak truthfully about this issue and do so with more accuracy than you've the honor to employ. I don't say LGBTQ people are simply bad for being LGBTQ compelled. They're bad for indulging those compulsions. Those who resist because they know full well they'd be acting contrary to God's Will are just fine.
Setting aside laws imposed on our nation by activist judges, pervs have the liberty to form marriage-like unions regardless of civil laws. It's just wrong to do so because the behavior is sin regardless of any commitment or expression of love.
They shouldn't be "having" children because they are a morally corrupting influence on those children, thus worthy of having millstones with their names on them.
No one is obliged to accept them for who they are if they are identifying themselves as openly rebellious against God's Will...which those you defend are doing. Indeed, we're to cast out the unrepentant sinner, not embrace them as just as worthy of being part of the Christian family as those who strive to abide God's Will.
There's nothing "horrible" or "corrosive" about any of the above, because God's Will never is.
"If you additionally add on that it is an objective fact that God told you, it is reasonable in the extreme for people to demand proof of such a cancerous, oppressive claim."
"Cancerous"??? WTF!
I've provided proof by citing the only verse I need for the purpose: Lev 18:22. None of what you listed in your comments is possibly morally acceptable because of that verse. "Cancerous" would be your support for those abuses and how it's metastacized throughout our culture because of evil people like you.
And it's not a concern that sinners feel oppressed by those who reject their sinful behavior. God doesn't oppress us by expecting us to repent of our sins. Open and active LGBTQ folks are unrepentant sinners.
"YOU should be asking for objective proof and when the people in your human tradition can't provide objective proof (and they can't), then you should question why you should promote that human opinion."
Actual Christians, and those of us who strive to be among them, are all humans. It is our "tradition" to abide the clearly revealed Will of God as recorded in Scripture. Fake Christians like you are all humans, too (more or less) and indulge YOUR tradition of pissing on God's Will to serve your own personal preferences. You do so without 'HARD, OBJECTIVE" data to support doing so.
Everything I've presented in my comments here and elsewhere have indeed been supported by citing Scripture, which you then pretend is unreliable and not inerrant, or the suggestion without evidence behind it that my "interpretation" is somehow in error. Your saying so never makes it so, and rarely aligns with truth, logic, reason or Scripture.
"A little humility is in order, and that's a good thing."
So says the arrogant, condescending asshole, Dan Trabue.
"How do you objectively prove..."
If one looks at how Dan proves his claims, it's very easy to prove things. Simply announce "This is objectively factual" and move on. That's all there is to it. Very simple, very easy.
Marshal...
"I've provided proof by citing the only verse I need for the purpose: Lev 18:22."
And, earlier in Lev 18, we read...
"Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period"
And then, in Lev 20, we read...
"If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death."
But presumably, YOU have decided that sex during menstruation is not universally prohibited by God. And YOU have decided that killing gay men is not required by God.
So, once again, your "proof" has not been objectively proven.
Who says Leviticus 18 is a universal rule from God?
Who says that Lev 18 prohibition against menstrual sex is NOT a universal rule?
Who says the Lev 20 command to kill gay men is not a universal command?
WHERE is your rubric for deciding how to authoritatively interpret any passages correctly?
If you have no authoritative rubric (and you literally do not), then why is YOUR human understanding of it all proof of any sort.
Dan
December 17, 2024 at 7:21 AM
Dan continues with the same old drivel. Another example of his misbehavior in discourse.
"My claims are quite clear and provable in the complete absence of evidence to the contrary. That is, it doesn't matter if someone says there are purple unicorns living on the moon, we have no obligation to take it as a serious claim UNTIL THEY provide objective proof."
Your only claim is that my claims come without evidence to back it up. None of the claims I make are as insipidly stupid as "purple unicorns living on the moon" and it's irreverent to run crap like this as if Scriptural citations backing up my claims are in any way comparable.
"1. God has never told anyone in all of known history that God does not want gay guys to get married. That is objectively factual.
2. God has never told us we should affirm an "inerrant" Bible. Ever. This is objectively factual.
3. God has never told us that human have a "sin nature." Period.
4. God has never told us that God plans to torture most of humanity for all eternity for having this theoretical "sin nature.""
I've responded to all of these many times (such as above) and in great detail. In three of those cases, you have to pretend Scripture isn't God's Word, that He hasn't addressed these issues through Jesus or His Prophets and Apostles if not directly, and I've presented Scriptural citations many times to bear this out. To reject this means you most certainly do NOT "love" Scripture, and that His Prophets and Apostles just made shit up.
Regarding SSM, you'll need to provide evidence that He is required to say what honest and honorable people can conclude just on His command to never indulge in homosexual behaviors without caveats like pretending to be married like normal people. Honest and honorable people don't need to be told that if Mom says "not snacks before dinner", it's obvious she means don't eat then not be hungry after she's slaved over a hot stove. Someone who claims to love the Bible doesn't pervert it in order to draw false, non-existent inferences like God blessing SSMs, as you do.
After saying the same old drivel which doesn't comport with your positions and then expecting we buy it, you say,
"...merely citing, "Well, here is a bible verse..." is NOT objective proof. It is literally a subjective opinion."
This constant generalizing and pretending you've confirmed your crap as having any merit is tiresome. If you claim the Bible doesn't say XYZ and I present every passage and verse where it says XYZ either explicitly or implicitly, that is absolutely objective proof. To then question my "interpretation" in order to save face after having been proven wrong then requires you to present an alternative interpretation with evidence to back it up. I don't care you're so corrupt as to reject all proofs and evidence showing a better understanding of God's Will to the extent it's revealed to us in Scripture, but just rejecting it outright is your typical baby "Nyuh uh"...not proof of your counter-claims. That's not adult, respectful, good faith debate.
So, while the Bible/God MOST CERTAINLY DOES SAY say that homosexual behavior is sinful abomination without providing ANY scenario or context in which it might be indulged and NOT be an abomination still, honest and honorable people are just in concluding what your homosexual grannies are calling "marriage" can in no way be acceptable to God. It's wholly illogical.
" To make it easy: YOU have one responsibility on one topic you support... PROVE the Bible is "inerrant." It's simply rationally insufficient and not objective proof to merely claim "It's a given..." It's literally NOT a given."
My true "ONE" responsibility here is to provide you the opportunity to prove that the Bible isn't inerrant or must refer to itself in that manner. As it's God's Word, it can't be anything else and I accept it as such. Who has disproved any of it? Certainly not you. In the meantime, I have no responsibility to abide your dictates here.
"I think that's part of the problem you all have... you want to operate under a series of GIVENS that you all presume, but have not objectively proven."
It's hilarious that you dare presume we're the people with the problem. Not hardly. We're far more specific than to suggest a complaint in such a manner. But it's a freakin' joke you say this specific thing given how often you rest on your claims being "self-evident" or "everybody knows" and other such "givens" of your own. I'm unaware of anyone regarding Scriptural being inerrant as a "given". We simply accept it as such for ourselves and don't argue for it, but instead argue for the proper meaning of that which is not ambiguous, despite your intent to pretend there's another meaning which, somehow, you never reveal, much less support with evidence.
And at this blog, that's a requirement of you in particular.
"But you have not proven your givens."
And you NEVER so much as try to prove yours, so keep up the hypocrisy. It's one of the many blatant character flaws of you we've come to expect.
December 17, 2024 at 7:55 AM
"So, given that you are making a rather astounding set of claims (focusing now on inerrancy) and the burden of proof is on you, just as it would be upon the purple unicorn theorist, you all traditionally turn to "the Bible," as if merely citing pages and phrases from the Bible is objective proof."
None of my claims are in the least bit astounding. Your rejection of what is so clear is. What's more, I've no argued for inerrancy, but you seem to need to push that angle because "the Bible doesn't say it's inerrant", which is closer to the issue here. Thus, you're still obliged to prove that the Bible MUST say it's inerrant in order for it to be inerrant. THAT is what you've jumped passed rather than admitting how stupid an argument it is, like an honorable person would do.
""We know the Bible is 'inerrant,' because we know it's God's Word and that the phrases therein can't be wrong...""
Stick to saying EXACTLY what we say, not your self-serving paraphrasing invented to serve your purposes
"Given your presuppositions, then:"
We're not here to discuss any suppositions of my own. We here to have you defend your demands of what the Bible or God must say in order for any given claim to be true.
"1. How do you objectively prove the 66 books of the Bible are words from God?
2. How do you objectively prove that the words you're citing are inerrant?"
These are diversions so you don't have to support your heresies and corruptions. I'm not obliged to prove in any way either of those issues. YOU'RE obliged to prove there's some way to make your heresies and corruption Biblical. For that, you need Scripture and more cunning than you've demonstrated to make a compelling case for all which you pretend is Biblical which clearly isn't.
"(here, you likely presume that if the 66 ARE scripture or as scripture and if they are "inspired" there would be no errors of fact or theory in these words written literally by humans... but how do you prove that objectively?"
I'm not obliged to prove it. Actual Christians accept that Scripture is God-inspired, meaning the men who authored the books did so accurately in a manner pleasing to God. Your stupid demand suggests that without proof to back it up, then we can't regard Scripture as God's Word and if that's the case, it's worthless crap. It clearly is to you already given your many heretical corruptions of it. I'm under no obligation to prove it's trustworthy, though there's plenty of archaeological evidence to support the proposition.
"3. How do you prove YOUR PERSONAL human understandings are without error and are, in effect, inerrant?"
Stop with these diversions from your obligation stated above several times now. Just know that given your lack of evidence to the contrary, and my accurate presentations of what Scripture says, there's no error evident in any position I've taken so far.
"4. IF your human understandings are NOT inerrant (and of course, they're not) how do you prove objectively that your understandings on any phrase or story or set of phrases in the Bible are without error?"
More of the same childish bullshit. If any of my positions are not accurate and true, there surely must be some compelling, evidence-backed argument you could bring to bear to make that case. You haven't and you never do. That's the first "proof" of the "inerrancy" of my positions. Everything hinges on your proving me wrong, or that you have an alternative understanding which isn't crap. Until you bring such forth, constant pressuring me to "prove" my positions to some unknown standard satisfactory to the likes of you will not happen.
"You all have never even attempted to do so, it's as if you think your presumptions are "proof" enough. But they ain't."
This is just an abject lie in your refusal to accurately present the history of our back and forths going back to at least 2008. We've more than merely "attempted" to support our positions. We've succeeded. Your equivocations and demands to clear higher and higher bars of proof until scum like you is satisfied doesn't mean we haven't successfully done our part. Indeed, from this point forward, it's all about you defending your positions and objections with evidence which satisfies us/me.
Regarding your comments on December 17, 2024 at 1:18 PM
It is not I who is lying here. It is you. Your referencing "slavery" as it appears in Scripture is not honest given the context in which your referencing appears. This is not a thread on the subject of slavery in the Bible, and as such I will not entertain any more comments on it. But the fact is that you've been educated on the reasons why bringing it up in debate is erroneous and at this point continuing to do so is flat out lying.
The one point of value and merit in your bringing it up now is in the fact that it is another example of your dishonest debate style, which is really the point of this discussion since you decided to ignore answering to your bad behavior the post itself presents. I appreciate you validating my position on your childish behavior in discourse. You're a pip.
December 17, 2024 at 1:23 PM
Dan said:
"The existence of a passage that says XYZ is NOT objective proof that we should affirm or believe. XYZ.""
To which I said:
"That depends upon the passage and why it was mentioned and to what it was mentioned to support or refute. As a blanket statement for all passages, verses and texts brought up, it's meaningless."
To which Dan stupidly replied:
"THAT's the point! YOU ACKNOWLEDGE that we should not take every line as a literal ruling or command or philosophy or religious tenet. NO ONE takes the Bible literally."
I've acknowledged no such thing by making the comment I made. I acknowledged the stupidity of the comment for which it was a response. Real Christians...and those of us who strive to be among them...take the Bible literally. That's not the same as saying all lines in the Bible are intended to be taken literally, but that the teachings which include non-literal expressions or phrasing are. You'll continue to bring up "the four corners of the earth" and such and pretend by boldly stating the earth isn't square doesn't allow you to reject "Thou shalt not..." verses which mean trouble for your lesbian grannies. But thanks again for demonstrating your dishonest methods of discourse.
"But that leaves us with another problem: WHICH LINES (if any) should be taken literally and based upon what? WHO decides THIS line is literal and THAT line is figurative? WHAT authoritative rubric do we have for deciding THIS line but not THAT line?"
That's a problem you've invented in place of proving my positions are in error or that yours...whatever the hell they may be...are a better understanding of than mine which you don't like. (And by "mine", I mean God's, since I'm just repeating His words and teachings.)
"This is the problem you have. Without SOME authoritative rubric about THESE are the literal lines and THOSE are NOT literal lines, then what we are left with are subjective opinions."
This is not a problem at all until you can at some point provide and example of that about which we disagree which you want to insist is not literal. This you never do, preferring instead to play this bullshit game about whether or not my positions are true and accurate Scriptural representations. And if I demand you provide your rubric and you try this false "That's the point! There is no rubric!", you're still obliged to support your position with something substantive. Pretending I'm wrong on the basis of failing to meet your demands I provide whatever the hell you think will get me to stop speaking the truth won't get it done. Borrow a pair of testicles and support your objections or positions.
"That's what you have... YOUR personal human subjective opinion NOT an objective proof. Just admit it and move on."
Where's that humility of which you think I need to have more? Kiss my ass. Whether opinion or fact, I support my position. I don't care if you call it opinion or anything else. My position stands firmly as an accurate representation of true Christian teaching until you can put on your big boy pants and make an actual case against it in an honest intelligent manner. I will mark my calendar when that day comes.
December 17, 2024 at 1:45 PM
I said:
"You determine such by what you find personally pleasing or not, while I determine it by a sincere, objective desire for truth without regard to whether or not I find the truth to be personally pleasing or not."
You replied in the same manner about which I've been speaking throughout this thread: dishonestly.
"Another stupidly false and demonstrably false claim."
Not at all. It's "demonstrably" true (you use "demonstrably" constantly without demonstrating what you insist is either true or false) that you reject stories of God's wrath because you find it personally displeasing to know that God can be angry. This shows up again in your rejection of teachings regarding eternal punishment. You reject other actions of God as "evil" because those actions make you shudder in your panties. You reject anything of God which doesn't match your standards, which you insist in error to be a truer understanding of God's nature.
"Remember: I WAS conservative."
I never forget your penchant for repeating this absurd claim.
"I studied the Bible, well, religiously. (Still do). I was seeking God and Truth and the Right Way with deep sincerity, with OUT regard to anything as banal as whether I find it personally pleasing or not. Iif I were a betting man, I'd be willing to wager a good bit that I studied the Bible much more frequently and deeply in my first 30 years than you ever have."
All this clearly indicates your study was piss-poor if you come away with the positions you now hold as a result. Was it a real Bible, or a coloring book?
"AND as a result, I came to disagree with the opinions conservative religionists held BECAUSE I found them increasingly to be unbiblical, immoral and unGodly and entirely missing the point of the story and message of Jesus."
Yeah....piss-poor study. I don't know what "conservative 'religionists'" you found to be so, but they don't run this blog or visit here. To assert that God would bless a lesbain "marriage" is unBiblical, immoral and unGodly. So are all the other perversions of Scripture you espouse.
"You have no proof of the ridiculous and false claim that I studied Bible to only find that which personally pleased me."
I just did in my referencing your panty wetting at stories in Scripture of God pouring out His wrath against sinners. You reject that and focus on things like helping the poor. You reject the idea that Christ's death, and the shedding of His blood, was the literal ransom paid for our sins.
"Indeed, having been raised to sincerely believe the conservative religious doctrine, I had NO desire to change my opinions on these matters because to change my views was NOT personally pleasing to me. I changed my views because I, in good faith, no longer held to what I was taught growing up as being biblical, rational or Godly. Naught else."
So you say. The result nonetheless is that you are far from more accurate in your understanding as you continually fail to prove to the contrary.
I don't know what you were taught growing up. I don't know the quality of instruction any who taught you possessed. Based on what you say constantly, they sound as moronic as you sound now, or you never understood the Truth then any more or better than you do now.
But thanks for adding even more examples of the bullshit wasting of keystrokes which do nothing to suggest I'm in error on any position I've expressed nor that your position is more accurately reflecting the Will of God. 99% of your words have nothing to do with proving anything, and everything to do with avoiding the obligation we each have to explain ourselves.
Craig,
"If one looks at how Dan proves his claims, it's very easy to prove things. Simply announce "This is objectively factual" and move on. That's all there is to it. Very simple, very easy."
He uses "it's 'self-evident'" which is just a different way of saying something is objectively factual. The best part is if Dan says it's "self-evident", no evidence is required. Danny Double Standard Trabue.
Regarding Dan's lame attempt on December 17, 2024 at 3:27 PM
Each of these issues has many times been exhaustively examined and explained, using evidence from Scripture as well as commentaries by many Biblical scholars and theologians going back to the early church fathers.
But this is yet another of your petulant and dishonest tactics: repeating what has been proven many times as if the subject never came up, and as was the case in every previous incarnation of this particular debate, you never offered any evidence in support of your contention our positions on this issue is in error or that yours or that yours is true.
Thus, further demands for proof from us in support of our positions will be ignored unless those like me choose to provide. Instead, your focus needs to be on proving your positions and/or proving ours are in error.
Art,
You apparently have no authoritative rubric. Dan has no rubric at all, nor has he any ability to conclude that scripture has any authority. If he does, he's certainly never revealed it. This constant appeal to Dan's limited experience, gets old quickly. All of his "arguments" really boil down to "I've never heard/seen X.". Yet he pretends that his lack of knowledge is what makes something "factual".
The double standard always wins because it allows him to demand one thing from us, while not demanding the same thing from himself. Of course he, in his fantasy world, is always right. The standard of proof he applies to himself is as low as it can possibly be, while he expects us to meet an impossibly high standard.
Excellent point. That Dan demands that we explain these things to him as to a child, when there are numerous people both scholars and those who focus on a more popular audience who have written and spoken extensively on these topics. Over the years I've given Dan lists of resources to get answers to his questions, and I do not recall a single time where Dan engaged with anything I've given him or actually attempted to refute any scholarly argument. In other topics Dan insists that we defer to the "experts" no matter what. In this area, he simply dismisses the experts without even addressing their work. His excuses for doing so are creative, yet they are just that, excuses. I believe that this is simply laziness on Dan's part. He demands that we summarize the work of experts and scholars in a blog comment, then refuses to actually engage with what has been summarized.
It's simply cowardice. A fear of actually engaging with anything that might disrupt one's beliefs. His counter arguments, as noted, are simply him making ridiculous assertions about how X has never happened, then asserting that his claim is "factual" without providing any evidence beyond his assertion.
I'll give him credit, he's completely hijacked this thread away from the topic and back to some of his favorite dead horses.
Craig:
Dan has no rubric at all, nor has he any ability to conclude that scripture has any authority.
I'm stating quite clearly that in ALL of heaven and earth, there has never been ANYONE who has found and announced an authoritative rubric to objectively interpret the Bible with no mistakes. It does not exist. I don't have it, nor do YOU all have it.
Now, IF it exists, you can make me look silly by simply presenting it. That's how it works when someone is stating that something objectively does not exist. IF I were to make the claim that nowhere in all of the natural world do squirrels exist, ALL someone has to do is show me a squirrel and I would have been proven wrong.
Present your rubric, friends. I LOVE to laugh at myself for making mistakes. Plus, you'll have HELPED me understand reality and presumably God better IF you just present your authoritative, objective rubric.
And I'm stating that there is NO data that the pages in the Bible have any authority. They are just dumb, non-thinking inert pieces of paper with words written upon them. The book of books has NO authority.
Again, if you have some proof that the book itself has "authority," just present it. I think the concept is rationally bankrupt. A collection of words is only as "authoritative" as one's ability to understand them and with NO rubric, then who's to say WE are the ones who rightly understand those words?
Craig:
The double standard always wins because it allows him to demand one thing from us, while not demanding the same thing from himself. Of course he, in his fantasy world, is always right. The standard of proof he applies to himself is as low as it can possibly be
There is NO double standard. IF I make a fact claim and you present data to prove it wrong, THEN I must accept the facts as you've presented them. IF YOU make fact claims that has no data to support it, then the burden of proof is on you. It would be on me, as well, if and when I make a positive fact claim.
IF I claimed that the Harry Potter books proved there was magic in the world, you could rightly say to me, PROVE IT. And I could either prove it or not with data. The claim itself is not proof. The words in the books, themselves, are not objective proof.
IF YOU make a negative fact claim (for instance, "There is no evidence anywhere that God is always opposed to slavery..."), then if I want to disprove that claim, ALL I have to do is present some objective data to demonstrate that God is always opposed to slavery. I can't do that, which is why I don't make it as a fact claim. Rather, I make the reasonable claim that slavery - owning and enslaving people for the owner's profit or pleasure - is always wrong because it is an affront to human rights.
Look, fellas, IF you have a rubric, if you have objective proof of your personal human opinions and traditions, WHY would you not point to that proof? IF it exists, surely it is out there somewhere because that would be HUGE news. You don't even have to prove it again. You just need to point to the hundreds/thousands/millions of geniuses who've objectively "proven" things like inerrancy, or TULIP, or PST Atonement, or God's opposition to gay folks marrying.
You all never even try to do as much as provide a link to any objective proof.
What does that tell you about your claims and your human traditions?
Craig:
His counter arguments, as noted, are simply him making ridiculous assertions about how X has never happened, then asserting that his claim is "factual" without providing any evidence beyond his assertion.
But if X is the reality - IF it NEVER HAPPENED that purple unicorns moved to the moon and started a colony there - THEN the only thing I CAN do is point to the reality that there is zero evidence that proves that theory objectively.
That's all one can do with a negative claim (absent some actual data).
You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist..."
You cannot claim that "deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
The Burden of Proof as presented below applies to claims that are cognitive and empirical. The principle applies to claims about what exists or does not exist...
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable...
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm
" The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable..."
WHICH is why I frame my words in the way I do: THERE IS NO DATA that objectively proves inerrancy, God's hatred of homosexual behavior, etc.
That is a rationally sound claim.
Again, if you gentlemen HAVE links to authorities that objectively prove inerrancy, for instance, PROVIDE it. I've looked and not found it.
Craig,
As to Dan highjacking the thread, in a very real way, his doing so validates the complaints about his behavior in the post itself...why I tried to post that to his comment thread on his DEI piece, only to see him delete it repeatedly. Thus, I allowed the highjacking knowing he'll supply me with ever more examples of his dishonest and dishonorable tactics in discourse. He's been so obliging in that regard.
As to his lack of rubric, no doubt his response would along the lines of "But that's the point! No one does and I don't push my opinions as fact1" which ignores his obligation to provide evidence to support holding the heretical opinions he does. Again, he's been very obliging.
Look what happens when you Google "objective proof of biblical inerrancy..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+there+objective+proof+of+inerrancy+in+the+bible&sca_esv=0a0afea8e69e4a8b&sxsrf=ADLYWILc5d1rC_EnqjERh8nNXPKdjoBQQQ%3A1734547271087&source=hp&ei=RxdjZ-u0AoTVkPIP972o-A8&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZ2MlV7TH3AuW3_uD93civbIAsx7B1me4&oq=is+there+objective+proof+of+inerrancy&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6GgIYAiIlaXMgdGhlcmUgb2JqZWN0aXZlIHByb29mIG9mIGluZXJyYW5jeSoCCAAyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIk1pQAFjpP3ABeACQAQCYAa0BoAHfKKoBBDAuMzi4AQPIAQD4AQGYAiegAtopwgIEECMYJ8ICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgsQABiABBiRAhiKBcICDhAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGIsDwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYqAMYiwMYmwPCAhEQLhiABBixAxjRAxiDARjHAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIUEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYowMYqAMYiwPCAgsQABiABBixAxiLA8ICERAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGIoFGIsDwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAg4QABiABBixAxiDARiKBcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAgUQABiABMICBxAjGLACGCfCAgcQABiABBgNwgIGEAAYFhgewgIIEAAYFhgKGB7CAggQABiABBiiBMICBRAAGO8FwgILEAAYgAQYhgMYigWYAwCSBwQxLjM4oAes3QI&sclient=gws-wiz
That is, the AI answer is, No, of course, not. It's a matter of belief, not something that can be proven.
But beyond that, there are no immediate hits of anyone even TRYING to objectively prove inerrancy, at least using the word "objective."
There are conservative religionists saying things like, "There is overwhelming support for inerrancy from history."
And you see, after the first or second google lead,
"Missing: objective | Show results with: objective"
In the first two leads (beyond the AI answer), you have the conservative Got Questions website and the conservative Gospel Coalition website. NEITHER uses the word "objective" within their answers.
I've used various words and never found anyone even TRYING to defend the premise. Why is that? What is your secret source you're not willing to point to where "scholars" and "experts" have objectively proven the human theory?
Craig:
Dan has no rubric at all
Can you all, at the very least, admit that there is NO authoritative, objectively factual rubric that exists in all of Christian history that can tell us which verses are literal, which verses are not? Can you admit that there is no rubric at all that tells us HOW to believe and interpret the Bible?
That it is up to each believer to do that for themselves, in the absence of any authoritative rubric?
This should be an easy answer, since clearly, not even conservatives believe in the existence of an Authoritative Rubric.
That's fair. It is a way of illustrating his commitment to a double standard which you do not ascribe to.
The problem is that when he states that his position is "objectively factual", "reality" or ends a claim with "period", he IS pushing his opinions as fact. If confronted, he'll likely hide behind his stock "opinion defense", but it's clear in his own words that he's pushing his opinions as "objectively factual". That actually is objectively factual.
Marshal (and Craig):
As to Dan highjacking the thread
The conversation meandered through our mutual discussion. To be clear, it meandered primarily due to Marshal and his unsupported claims. I just followed by respectfully answering his false claims to clarify the point. I was talking about the topic of the post, DEI, when Marshal early on made a personal attack upon me, saying I was corrupt, evil, awful ("In Dan we see everything wrong with the nation" ~Marshal).
I replied noting that the reality is I'm quite a decent person, if one just looks at my life. Me and people like me are involved in helping people in our jobs and families and daily lives. Then Marshal responded with another inane personal attack:
Dan responds to fact of his moral corruption by again listing that which no one here is likely to verify and that Dan can't.
Then Marshal brought up the off-topic issue of abortion, which I ignored, and the off-topic issue of human rights for LGBTQ folks, which I didn't address (at the time, anyway...) THEN Marshal continued HIS off-topic and rationally inept personal attacks by saying:
When we reference the fact of God having used human agency to destroy those whose sin merited such punishment, Dan will dare suggest that God...if the Bible has accurately recorded the events...is a moral monster.
That is, MARSHAL, not Dan, is the one who brought up the human theory of inerrancy and fanciful biblical stories that he tries poorly to take literally.
So, complain if you want about us straying from the topic of DEI, but know that it was Marshal who did it. I just followed HIS lead.
Craig incorrectly claimed:
The problem is that when he states that his position is "objectively factual", "reality" or ends a claim with "period", he IS pushing his opinions as fact.
It IS a fact that I've seen NO ONE, including you gentlemen, even TRY to present objective proof of your human theories. That is a fact, an objective fact. You all merely offering some Bible verses and your understanding of them is, likewise, not an objective fact. As a fact.
The fact is, when you google "objective proof of inerrancy" and other such searches in the googles, you get ZERO hits, ZERO people trying to prove that theory as an objective fact.
THAT, too, is a fact, as I've demonstrated.
Now, MAYBE, you all DO have some secret source that is kept vague and unknown that DOES prove your pet human theories and traditions objectively. But what I'm stating quite clearly, is that there is no known support for these claims about these human traditions and opinions.
Once again, ALL you have to do is provide ONE source that objectively proves inerrancy, that objectively proves "gay marriages=bad," that objectively proves your opinions on Atonement, etc... When you provide EVEN ONE source that objectively proves your theories, I will be undone.
In ~20 years talking with you fellas, you've never done it. In my searching for the "proof" (even back when I accepted it as a fact in my conservative days) I found no objective proof.
And that is an indisputable fact.
Now, as logic books and websites will say, that is NOT objective proof that there ISN'T objective proof of your pet theories. But it is objective proof that I've not been able to find any objective proof. As a point of fact.
I can't see what you all are failing to understand in this.
Marshal:
"But that's the point! No one does and I don't push my opinions as fact1" which ignores his obligation to provide evidence to support holding the heretical opinions he does.
1. As you fellas so clearly illustrate, there IS, in fact, NO RUBRIC. If you had one, you'd provide it. You don't. And yet, you fail to just be clear and say, "No, of course, no one has a rubric." Just be honest, gents.
2. I've of course provided reasoning/"evidence" for my positions over the years.
Re: the human theory of "inerrancy..."
2A. The Bible has no comments from the various human authors claiming that "the Bible" is inerrant." That's just a fact.
2B. The Bible, in fact, makes NO claims about "the Bible." Period. Just as a point of fact.
2C. The problem with the theory (ONE problem) is: What does it even MEAN for this book of stories, history, myths, parables, poetry and various teachings to be "inerrant..." without error? Are you suggesting that the humans who wrote/gathered these writings/stories were without error? The Bible nor the biblical authors never make that claim (quite the opposite, in fact). That God somehow magically/spiritually "autocorrected" on behalf of the human authors so that no human errors got in? The authors never make that claim... why would we believe that theory?
2D. This is the point where many humans will cite the human, Paul, who presumably wrote the second letter to his human friend, Timothy, where Paul says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God ay be thoroughly equipped for every good work." And that is, INDEED, one verse in the Bible that speaks of "All scripture." But what would Paul have meant by "all scripture..." The Old Testament is the most common theory, but maybe he meant ANY thing that was deemed of God. The point is that GOD and God's ways are trustworthy.
2E. The human theorists who point out this passage, THEN make the leap to say, "Well, if all the Bible (not proven) is 'God-breathed' then that means it would be without error." And that is certainly a theory. But it's not proven. It's something that some humans read into the text.
2F. And again, what does it mean, "without error..."? That all the stories literally happened as they are recorded/passed down? Well, that's a theory, but it's not proven by this text or any other text. Does it mean that every command that one can find in the Bible should be taken as a universal command from God? Well, Marshal doesn't think so, nor should he. Does it mean that the context of the place and time are irrelevant and that God's rules for ancient Israel are applicable for all times and places? Again, it might be a theory, but it's not proven. Does it mean that all the poems are perfect in meter and rhythm and rhyme? No.
So, what does "without error" mean in the context of the Bible? Here's the thing: No one knows or can say, not in an authoritative manner. There are a wide range of human theories, opinions and traditions on the topic (as, indeed, the notion of "inerrancy" is literally a human theory), but no authoritative answer.
If you had an authoritative answer, you'd have provided it. If there was an authoritative, objectively factual answer out there, SOMEONE would have written/taught/told us about it. It would be huge news and conservatives would be shouting that data far and wide.
It's not out there because it doesn't exist. Again, I don't see how "inerrancy" has ANY significant authoritative biblical source and here, I've explained (very briefly, but still methodically and rationally) why, yet again. It's literally a set of human opinions and theories. And NOT because the exact phrase "inerrant" doesn't exist (it doesn't) in the Bible, but because the TEACHING is not objectively in the pages of the bible. Not definitively and in an objectively proven manner.
Still searching for "objective proof" of your various biblical theories. I ran across this from the ultra-conservative "Institute" for "Creation Research..."
But can we prove the Bible? No—not in a strict scientific sense, especially as it relates to the unobserved past...
To understand its origin (a quite different enterprise than its operation) it would need to consult its creator's owner's manual which would also explain procedures to follow to function best.
And that's how we view the Bible [like a computer becoming sentient -DT].
It doesn't need to be proven, it just needs to be believed and obeyed. We can and should put it to the test (I Thessalonians 5:21). Since it is correct, it will pass that test, and far surpass all false "owner's manuals," like naturalistic evolution.
https://www.icr.org/article/can-science-prove-bible
They come to the factually correct conclusion: No, the Bible can't be objectively proven, any more than the various theories about various religious tenets. The problem is, like you, they insist on blindly "believing" what they can't prove objectively (and here, they are talking about human opinions about various tenets and beliefs). It's not even a rational starting point and it's self-defeating.
But at the very least, they have the intellectual honesty to admit they can't objectively prove their theories.
which ignores his obligation to provide evidence to support holding the heretical opinions he does.
...all of that last comment as a reminder that I've repeatedly made my rational case as to why I think my understanding of these ideas you all hold and what the Bible does and doesn't say... I've explained WHY I believe as I do and you can disagree with it, you can say that you don't find the case compelling, but you can't rationally say I have not MADE my case why I hold the opinions I hold... ones which you deem "heretical," but in truth, they are only "heretical" to YOUR specific human tradition. Not heretical to God or Christianity. Indeed, it is very faithful to the teachings of Jesus and is rationally and biblically consistent. Even if you don't understand why.
ATTENTION ALL READERS!!
Dan, being uniquely generous, has provided me with, if I'm not mistaken, ten comments with numerous examples of his disingenuous behavior in discourse. I intend to expose all the errors and lies within them in time, but time is a problem presently, what with the holiday season and all. I've no confidence I can go through all of it over the next day and half (at best), after which I will be unable to access my computer until 12/30 at the earliest.
As such, I would simply inform most that they can submit comments but likely won't see them posted until that date given, and I STRONGLY insist that Dan not even try until I've made my way through all of his comments. I'm sure he can find a post or two at Craig's blog at which he can misbehave, but the easiest thing I can do prior to the 30th is to delete his comments if he chooses to jump the gun.
So...that's the way it is, and if it is not liked, I care not. It would be easier if not for how much Dan chose to submit which was not support for his positions.
In the meantime...
December 18, 2024 at 11:59 AM
"I'm stating quite clearly that in ALL of heaven and earth, there has never been ANYONE who has found and announced an authoritative rubric to objectively interpret the Bible with no mistakes."
It doesn't at all matter. It's totally irrelevant. All which matters is whether or not YOU can debunk or refute any interpretation to which you object with something akin to evidence of some kind, hopefully from Scripture. You insist on playing this game when you should be addressing specific issues presented which give you the willies. All this crap about "rubrics" is worthless diversionary crap so typical of fakes like you who believe what you want not because it aligns with Scripture, but because it floats your boat.
"Now, IF it exists, you can make me look silly by simply presenting it."
You already look quite silly pretending you're debating when you're actually just tap-dancing around meeting your obligations to support your ridiculous heresies and corruptions. How does the existence or absence of a "rubric" absolve you in any way of your obligation to support your position or refute mine? Answer: None whatsoever.
"That's how it works when someone is stating that something objectively does not exist."
That's not at all how it works. It words like this: if you disagree with a premise, you argue against it with evidence of your own to support your objection or alternative premise. You don't jack around with irrelevant crap about "objective" proof for the inerrancy of Scripture. "Inerrancy" is pretty much a given for actual Christians, which is why you choose to distract with demands of "objective" proof of Scripture's inerrancy. Rather than support with Scriptural evidence your heresies, you distract with irrelevant crap about whether or not Scripture is inerrant and how that can or can't be proved.
"Inerrant" simply means "without error". A person claiming to be Christian assumes the Bible is reliable or such a person doesn't. If such a person doesn't, that puts in question the person's claim of being a Christian. But I'm quite confident you aren't a Christian, and this constant tap-dancing around the issues on the table affirm that opinion.
"IF I were to make the claim that nowhere in all of the natural world do squirrels exist, ALL someone has to do is show me a squirrel and I would have been proven wrong."
That's worse than a bad analogy of the conflict between us. Stop trying to compose analogies. You've proven yourself to be incredibly inept in that regard. There's nothing in any of my claims that are as insipid as this analogy proves you hope it will be regarded. It's your response to my positions and claims which are wanting.
"I LOVE to laugh at myself for making mistakes."
Then you should be hysterical throughout your every waking moment. If your parents felt the same way, they likely pee'd themselves anytime they looked at you.
"Plus, you'll have HELPED me understand reality and presumably God better IF you just present your authoritative, objective rubric."
Bullshit. You've been well schooled throughout all these years since 2008 and you continue to cling to your heresies. It's not any "rubric" which matters, but that each of your objections, criticisms and refutations have been appropriately answered with evidence necessary for the individual purpose.
And throughout it all, this is key: Not every claim to which you object is of the same type. Each "type" requires a different degree or type of response and/or evidence. If you say, "the Bible never says", and I present the verse wherein it does, you don't act the least bit honorably and concede the point. No...not little Danny-girl. Little Danny-girl raises the bar. Little Danny-girl questions my interpretation without doing a damned thing to provide an alternative interpretation and evidence to support it. Little Danny-girl just puts a greater burden on the person who's met Little Danny-girl's demands. She doesn't explain why what was provided falls short in any way. Hell no. Just bring more, as if bringing more will make a difference in Little Danny-girl's willingness to concede.
"And I'm stating that there is NO data that the pages in the Bible have any authority."
Ah!...the same old bullshit tap-dancing. You only bring this bullshit up when you've been proven wrong by accurate citations of Scripture. But again, no true Christian doubts the authority of Scripture. Thus, you've provided for us more evidence you aren't a Christian.
But again, this is the problem in dealing with your dishonest, sorry ass. You play this game in lieu of an intelligent alternative or of evidence which refutes my position. Demanding "rubrics" is pointless and a cheap diversion. Does the Bible say what I say it says or doesn't it. If the latter, make your freakin' case for a change.
But you won't because you can't. You damned well know your positions are crap and mine are totally in line with Scriptural teaching because you damned well know Scripture isn't mysterious and hard to fathom. It's just your dishonest game to suggest otherwise, because without doing so, you can't defend your heretical, unChristian positions.
And that's the true issue here, girl. Stop the bullshit and get to the obligation to defend your nonsense. Defending your nonsense requires forcing my concession to your better explanation. So long as I can critique your explanation, you've failed to provide a convincing one. It's not a failure on my understanding, but on your ability to make your bullshit sound like truth.
And of course, you once again default to this bitchy little nonsense that the Bible has to say in specific terms (now expressed as requiring "DATA") which justifies it having authority. The same old cheap Danish bullshit only a Christ-hater would respect.
"They are just dumb, non-thinking inert pieces of paper with words written upon them."
So I suppose if you got a note saying someone's beating the fuck out of your wife, you'll dismiss it as just an inert piece of paper with words written upon it. What a horse's ass you are! If this attitude was the result of two hundred years of "serious and prayful" study, it would still mean you're a theological moron.
It ain't the paper upon which the words are printed, dumbass. It's the message the word convey which matters. If you want to insist others are not understanding the message conveyed by the words on that paper, make your fucking case and stop wasting time with this irrelevant bullshit...bullshit put forth in lieu of an honest and intelligent counter to the truth I present. Until then, you're just a dumb, non-thinking inert asshole with no true devotion to Scripture. It's as I've long accepted is the case.
"Again, if you have some proof that the book itself has "authority," just present it. I think the concept is rationally bankrupt."
Of course you do. You NEED to think that, otherwise you must admit you're rebellion. To present "proofs" requires that you have the integrity and honor to accept what is true. Since 2008, you've proven no hint of such integrity. This fact is bolstered by your unwillingness to respond to all criticisms of you laughable attempts to make your case. You're just not man enough for the task, but it wouldn't matter because the task can't be achieved.
"A collection of words is only as "authoritative" as one's ability to understand them and with NO rubric, then who's to say WE are the ones who rightly understand those words?"
This is more bullshit. Either the collection of words are rightly understood or they are not. That debate can be made between two opposing sets of honorable people seeking the truth. That puts you at a disadvantage because truth is not a concern for you. Only your preferred narrative is. You think there must be some "rubric", but the real issue is that you have no way to defend your heretical, Christ-hating beliefs and positions. Moreover, you have no way to suggest, much less prove, that my positions are in any way in error. You just play your games.
"There is NO double standard."
This is rank bullshit. An outright, intentional lie. You NEVER act as you demand we must act. Don't ever dare suggest this lie again.
"IF I make a fact claim and you present data to prove it wrong, THEN I must accept the facts as you've presented them."
Except that you never do. Worse than that, you never provide any reason to suggest what data produced is insufficient or somehow in error. You just reject, dismiss or ignore it and pretend we've failed to meet your bullshit demands.
" IF YOU make fact claims that has no data to support it, then the burden of proof is on you."
And yet I ALWAYS present data which not simply supports the premise, but proves beyond your ability to dispute it. You simply say "Nyuh uh". And the most dishonest part is that if I've already presented support you've failed to address and refute, you pretend I need to do it again every time I re-submit the point already proven. It's just another way you lie.
"IF I claimed that the Harry Potter books proved there was magic in the world..."
Please stop trying to compose analogies. You prove yourself a fucking moron every time you try. Scripture is not fiction nor presented as if it is. Harry Potter is fiction and not presented as historical fact. Thus, you're lying again.
"And I could either prove it or not with data. The claim itself is not proof. "
Your dishonesty is blatant here. If you demand proof of what Scripture says, one only needs to provide the verse or passage which states what you don't want to accept as truth. THAT is "objective" proof to defend the claim to which you stupidly object. If you want proof that we can rely on Scripture to speak truthfully, which is really your argument, then stop pretending you're a Christian, because this goes way the hell beyond mere doubt, but a conscious rejection of the reliability of Scripture.
What's more, I NEVER pretend the claim itself is proof the claim is true. To suggest that at all is an intentional lie. That never happens.
"IF YOU make a negative fact claim (for instance, "There is no evidence anywhere that God is always opposed to slavery..."), then if I want to disprove that claim, ALL I have to do is present some objective data to demonstrate that God is always opposed to slavery. I can't do that, which is why I don't make it as a fact claim."
Which means you're a fucking idiot because God absolutely opposes enslaving people. This also exposes you as a liar for daring to suppose every mention of the word "slave" means what you need it to mean in order to pretend you're holier than others. Don't you dare try to take this discussion into another about your lies about Scriptural mentions of slavery. I'll delete that crap immediately.
"Look, fellas, IF you have a rubric, if you have objective proof of your personal human opinions and traditions, WHY would you not point to that proof?"
I support all my positions. You simply pretend I haven't because pretending I haven't is easier than providing a coherent, intelligent, evidence-based alternative to my position.
" You just need to point to the hundreds/thousands/millions of geniuses who've objectively "proven" things like inerrancy, or TULIP, or PST Atonement, or God's opposition to gay folks marrying."
Once again you purposely lump together disparate issues as if they are all of the same kind. You demand "objective proof" for inerrancy without providing a description of what that must look like. It's a fraudulent diversion anyway, but you just say shit and think we're compelled to kowtow to your bullshit demands put forth in lieu of legitimate arguments for your heresies or against our truths.
And just to be clear, God opposes all manifestations of that which He has unequivocally labeled and abomination. Stop pretending you've provided an intelligent, honest argument to the contrary.
"You all never even try to do as much as provide a link to any objective proof."
You're a rank, inveterate liar (big surprise!). I've supported, if not completely proven my positions. Indeed, I've done it multiple times. Conversely, you've provided no intelligent, honest or coherent defense for any of your positions, particularly your Christ-hating defense of fag marriage.
"You all never even try to do as much as provide a link to any objective proof."
Another abject, intentional lie. Typical of a progressive, fake Christian like Dan, who simply rejects sound evidence without adult response.
i>"What does that tell you about your claims and your human traditions?"
It tells me liars like you will crap on any expression of Biblical truth without the slightest effort to suggest any error in such expressions.
You are the LAST person I'd seek out for accurate, honest or intelligent presi>"There is NO double standard."
This is rank bullshit. An outright, intentional lie. You NEVER act as you demand we must act. Don't ever dare suggest this lie again.
"IF I make a fact claim and you present data to prove it wrong, THEN I must accept the facts as you've presented them."
Except that you never do. Worse than that, you never provide any reason to suggest what data produced is insufficient or somehow in error. You just reject, dismiss or ignore it and pretend we've failed to meet your bullshit demands.
" IF YOU make fact claims that has no data to support it, then the burden of proof is on you."
And yet I ALWAYS present data which not simply supports the premise, but proves beyond your ability to dispute it. You simply say "Nyuh uh". And the most dishonest part is that if I've already presented support you've failed to address and refute, you pretend I need to do it again every time I re-submit the point already proven. It's just another way you lie.
"IF I claimed that the Harry Potter books proved there was magic in the world..."
Please stop trying to compose analogies. You prove yourself a fucking moron every time you try. Scripture is not fiction nor presented as if it is. Harry Potter is fiction and not presented as historical fact. Thus, you're lying again
(Because of all the bullshit to which I felt compelled to address, somewhere along the line I unintentionally eliminated responses to what came after that which i have posted. Doesn't matter. It was just more of Dan's stupid attempts to pretend he has a point. Should time allow, I'll just resume with his next example of dishonesty and stupidity.
"It IS a fact that I've seen NO ONE, including you gentlemen, even TRY to present objective proof of your human theories. That is a fact, an objective fact."
No it's not. It's you asserting based solely on what "you've seen" that something is "objectively factual". Basing objectivity in your limited, and biased experience is not how it works.
That you don't like what we're "offering" is irrelevant. If you are going to assert something as "objectively factual", you actually need to prove your claim with something beyond your limited, biased experience.
"is that there is no known support for these claims about these human traditions and opinions."
Again with the unproven claim backed up with absolutely zero "data" except your experience.
"And that is an indisputable fact." " But it is objective proof that I've not been able to find any objective proof. As a point of fact.".
Well done, this massive goal post switch is one you should be proud of. You've gone from asserting that your position is "objectively factual" to now asserting that your earlier position wasn't what you were talking about at all. You're merely asserting that your inability to find something is somehow of supreme importance.
That you can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That you've admitted that you learned everything you ever needed to know about these things decades ago and just stopped looking doesn't make it seem like you really want answers. Just that you're satisfied with your ignorance and content to believe that being "seen" by you is somehow the most important thing ever.
what an idiotic bunch of bullshit to avoid admitting that you can't prove the claims you've made, or that the claims you've made are so self focused as to be worthless beyond your fantasy world.
FWIW , either leave Dan's comments in moderation until you are finished, start another post and block comments (delete his comments on other posts), or copy paste his comments into a doc and post them later when you're ready.
Art,
We both know that Dan isn't going to prove his claims or disprove anyone else's. He's just going to continue to assert that what he's "seen" is all that exists or is relevant, ignore anything and everything offered to him, and bitch about whatever you say.
FOR DAN TRABUE:
Dan,
As I type this, you have two comments in moderation. I will be deleting them per my request you chose to ignore. As I will likely be unable to address the many comments you've posted (I've only shredded the first one thus far), your choice to post so much requires that you sit tightly until I finish before daring to submit anymore comments which won't include a fulfillment of your obligation here, which neither of your two comments in moderation have provided. And since instead of providing, you'll have to wait until I get through all your diversionary comments (which I could simply write off for their failure to provide as well).
continuing from the previous Dan comment I somehow lost:
"IF YOU make a negative fact claim (for instance, "There is no evidence anywhere that God is always opposed to slavery..."), then if I want to disprove that claim, ALL I have to do is present some objective data to demonstrate that God is always opposed to slavery. I can't do that, which is why I don't make it as a fact claim. Rather, I make the reasonable claim that slavery - owning and enslaving people for the owner's profit or pleasure - is always wrong because it is an affront to human rights."
First of all, one can easily demonstrate God's position against slavery. What you don't do is recognize how the word "slavery" is used in the context one finds it. It's used in a variety of ways to express a variety of meanings. But again you demonstrate you aren't really devoted to the Word of God by pretending you can't find His prohibition and subordinating Scripture to your personal dislike of slavery. You making what you want to have regarded as a "rational case" is meaningless as regards establishing or recognizing moral quality in a behavior. What matters is God's Will alone. Your "rational case" is of even less value if not based on Scripture/God's Will.
"Look, fellas, IF you have a rubric, if you have objective proof of your personal human opinions and traditions, WHY would you not point to that proof?"
Because your demand some rubric must exist is irrelevant to whether or not a claim has merit or whether yours does. It's irrelevant to whether or not Scripture supports the claim or denies it has merit. The demand for a rubric is a ploy to avoid speaking to the claim directly because you can't refute it.
IF it exists, surely it is out there somewhere because that would be HUGE news. You don't even have to prove it again."
Bullshit. There's never been a proven claim for which you haven't again demanded proof when the claim is restated later. You never address the evidence provided but simply reject it without countervailing evidence of your own. Then, you later pretend the claim was never proven to be true. This is another common tactic of your dishonest behavior in discourse. Thanks for providing more validation.
"You just need to point to the hundreds/thousands/millions of geniuses who've objectively "proven" things like inerrancy, or TULIP, or PST Atonement, or God's opposition to gay folks marrying."
You just need to be an actual man, and a man of honor, and point to any place where you've bravely addressed directly the hundreds/thousands/millions of genius evidence-backed arguments on any of those or other issues.
BTW, God doesn't oppose "gays" marrying so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. It's illogical, stupid and an intentional lie to assert and pretend there's any possibility that God would not oppose SSM given the compulsions and their manifested sexual behavior is abomination to Him.
"You all never even try to do as much as provide a link to any objective proof."
"Objective" refers to facts and evidence. I alone have produced tons to support every claim I've ever made. You can't even define "objective proof" in a way which "objectively proves" you haven't seen any.
"What does that tell you about your claims and your human traditions?"
Nothing. It tells me you're unable to find error in any of it because your drivel doesn't ever address them directly.
This ignores the reality that there are hundreds/thousands of experts/theologians/scholars/etc that have written volumes on these topics. I guess this is the one time that we don't listen to the experts.
"God doesn't oppose "gays" marrying so long"
Making this claim (which may or may not be True) doesn't automatically prove that YHWH "blesses gay marriage". Further, by limiting the discussion to "gay marriage" (a topic on which scripture is silent), it allows Dan to ignore or minimize what scripture actually does say about "gay behavior". It's as if when YHWH does say about homosexuality goes out the window once you wrap it in "gay marriage". The whole focus of Dan on "gay marriage" is simply a way to distract from what scripture/YHWH do say on the broader topic of homosexuality. The fact that data shows that "gay marriage" is more likely than not to be non monogamous, suggests that "gay marriage" itself isn't what Dan wants it to be. I know, Dan will trot out an anecdotal story about a couple of elderly lesbians who have a "wonderful" monogamous "gay marriage" as if that one anecdote means that the real world data is meaningless.
This whole thread illuminates Dan's belief that everything revolves around him and what's personally seen or experienced. You'll note that his "proof" is virtually always a personal, anecdotal story which contains no verifiable details or anything that can be checked, or that he's "never seen" anything that says X, Y, or Z. It's possible that the reason he's "never seen" anything is that he's either not looking at all, or he's not looking in the right places. Of course, we'll never know that because Dan will likely never tell us.
December 18, 2024 at 12:09 PM
"But if X is the reality - IF it NEVER HAPPENED that purple unicorns moved to the moon and started a colony there - THEN the only thing I CAN do is point to the reality that there is zero evidence that proves that theory objectively."
First, if those unicorns exist on the moon, the next moon landing by human astronauts could prove the exist or assert they didn't see any. That you can't find evidence, or have the capacity to recognize and understand evidence, or the courage to accept evidence provided, you can only go that far. You can't say there's "zero" evidence.
"That's all one can do with a negative claim (absent some actual data)."
You say this as if you're not regularly and consistently provided actual data.
"You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist..."
You cannot claim that "deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
The Burden of Proof as presented below applies to claims that are cognitive and empirical. The principle applies to claims about what exists or does not exist...
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable...
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm"
This is funny. Is this supposed to back up your dancing around the issues? It actually puts the onus on you. YOU are the one claiming there's no evidence for our claims. To paraphrase the link's author:
" The claim that evidence does not exist is therefore unjustifiable..."
Moreover, it has absolutely no relation or relevance to the following statement of yours:
"WHICH is why I frame my words in the way I do: THERE IS NO DATA that objectively proves inerrancy, God's hatred of homosexual behavior, etc."
Again you group unrelated and dissimilar issues together as if related and the same. In any case, more evidence and support backs up my position on every issue we discuss than not, particularly God's "hatred" of homosexual behavior. You just falsely assert whatever you want to assert as if what you assert must be accepted as true, "reasonable", "self-evident" or any other crap which you think absolves you from making an actual case for or against whatever the issue is which is on the table
"That is a rationally sound claim."
No. It's just Trabue abdication of responsibility and obligation to support your contrary position.
"Again, if you gentlemen HAVE links to authorities that objectively prove inerrancy, for instance, PROVIDE it. I've looked and not found it."
Again, the issue is what constitutes "objectively proven" arguments? Is there such a thing as "subjective" proof? Either something is proven or it's not, but not everything needs to be proven absolutely. With regard to God and His Will or even His existence, most evidence there is can only go so far. Only being in His presence will provide us the absolute proof you demand in order to accept any truth you don't like.
In the meantime, you play this game rather than presenting sound arguments against the claim itself or for your preferred alternative. Until you get to either, all these words you've typed are wastes of time and wholly irrelevant to the discussion.
They do, however, validate the fact of your bad behavior in discourse. It further proves that it's not a matter of whether what I say is true and factual or not, but simply that you don't like it. You never get to dealing with whether or not my position is true or factual. You just give reasons why you don't have to. But this behavior doesn't even legitimize the idea that we can both be justified in holding the positions we do. You have no legitimate argument for holding any of yours nor for rejecting mine, as years of discourse OBJECTIVELY proves to all.
December 18, 2024 at 12:47 PM
In Dan's comment from the above date and time, he makes another baseless assertion that arguments presenting evidence for the inerrancy of Scripture must be "objective proof", because he demands no arguments which do not include the word "objective" somehow renders the arguments invalid and without merit in defense of the proposition. I don't know from where Dan pulled this "rule" justifying his self-serving demand, but it seems more likely that he made it up in order to allow him to dismiss anything in anyway related to the proposition of Biblical inerrancy.
But Dan's still not relieved of his obligation to support his rejection of claims I make, or to support alternative understandings of Scripture which I cite to support my claims. In short, it's just another dodge. There are many who have wonderfully argued for the inerrancy of Scripture. Those arguments include all the "objective proof" necessary, regardless of whether or not they choose use the word "objective". And of course we can use Dan's own nonsensical counter argument which would look like this: By what "rubric" can Dan insist one must use the word "objective" when presenting evidence or proofs supporting the proposition of Biblical inerrancy?
And still most importantly, "inerrancy" doesn't matter when discussing a given Scriptural citation. No one here has defended a position by merely saying "It's in the Bible and the Bible is inerrant". No. "Biblical inerrancy" is its own issue and I don't ever recall anyone posting a position on it.
December 18, 2024 at 1:17 PM
"Can you all, at the very least, admit that there is NO authoritative, objectively factual rubric that exists in all of Christian history that can tell us which verses are literal, which verses are not? Can you admit that there is no rubric at all that tells us HOW to believe and interpret the Bible?"
This is not only another diversion and deflection tactic, it is wholly untrue based on Dan's own rendering of how Biblical interpretation should work. He's done it many times in defending what he laughingly regards as "rational, reasonable" understanding when one confronts his unBiblical heretical positions.
To say that throughout all of history theologians didn't interpret Scripture in a particular manner and method common to the vast majority of them would be inane.
"That it is up to each believer to do that for themselves, in the absence of any authoritative rubric?"
What "authoritative rubric" would one need?
"This should be an easy answer, since clearly, not even conservatives believe in the existence of an Authoritative Rubric."
Well, since you just made it up, why would they?
Sooo... how will I know when you're done with your rambling responses that don't answer the questions put to you?
Dan
December 18, 2024 at 1:58 PM
"The conversation meandered through our mutual discussion. To be clear, it meandered primarily due to Marshal and his unsupported claims. I just followed by respectfully answering his false claims to clarify the point. I was talking about the topic of the post, DEI, when Marshal early on made a personal attack upon me, saying I was corrupt, evil, awful ("In Dan we see everything wrong with the nation" ~Marshal)."
At first, I was uncertain about which meandering conversation you meant, until the very end. So I went back and looked and, to my great surprise, you comment here is false...intentionally or not matters not. Your first words immediately make assumptions about me/us. The rest of it and the second comment are no better in that regard. In the meantime, you're absolutely emblematic of all that's wrong in this country.
"I replied noting that the reality is I'm quite a decent person,"
Most mobsters, thugs and crooks will say the same of themselves.
"...if one just looks at my life."
I look at what you say in these blog discussions. Your positions and beliefs clearly and directly belie your claims and self-praise.
"Me and people like me are involved in helping people in our jobs and families and daily lives."
Once again you regard yourselves based on only a portion of your deeds. When you eliminate your support for infanticide, sexual perversion, policies which result in more deaths, rapes, thefts and other forms of human suffering, you're a freakin' prince. Indeed, you might be able to make a case that you do more good deeds than I, but your evil deeds far and away overwhelm any of mine, in both quantity and quality.
"Then Marshal responded with another inane personal attack:"
"Dan responds to fact of his moral corruption by again listing that which no one here is likely to verify and that Dan can't."
That's not "inane", but a simple statement of fact, far truer than the many false assertions of reality we endure from you.
"Then Marshal brought up the off-topic issue of abortion, which I ignored, and the off-topic issue of human rights for LGBTQ folks, which I didn't address (at the time, anyway...)"
The following is the very first comment you submitted and was posted in this thread:
"Listen to the women, LGBTQ folks, sexual assault survivors and other decent humans who are routinely brutalized by vulgar false comments like yours."
"THEN Marshal continued HIS off-topic and rationally inept personal attacks by saying:"
"When we reference the fact of God having used human agency to destroy those whose sin merited such punishment, Dan will dare suggest that God...if the Bible has accurately recorded the events...is a moral monster."
You're clearly missing the actual point of this post and the comments which follow. It's about your many dishonest, deceptive and dishonorable ways of engaging in discourse.
"That is, MARSHAL, not Dan, is the one who brought up the human theory of inerrancy and fanciful biblical stories that he tries poorly to take literally."
Nothing about what you quoted and pretended was "rationally inept" has anything to do with Biblical inerrancy or even alluded to it. It simply states an example of how you respond to that which you don't like in Scripture...by attacking those who believe what Scripture presents or God Himself "IF" the Bible has accurately recorded the events. That is to say, you're eager to insist the Bible hasn't accurately recorded events if the implications of the passages in question are too much for your delicate sensibilities and your Trabue authored notions of morality and justice.
"So, complain if you want about us straying from the topic of DEI, but know that it was Marshal who did it. I just followed HIS lead."
Know that I just presented "OBJECTIVE PROOF" that you're wrong.
So, boys and girls, it seems that's all the time I have to spend on Dan's many most recent comments, which do nothing but seek to rationalize, albeit very cheaply, his avoidance of his obligations in discourse. Ironically, I find that he sought to submit a third comment after I warned him against doing so until I finish with all of his last ten comments. I believe I've only gotten through five of them, and despite having explained how this is going to go, he stupidly asked the following:
"Sooo... how will I know when you're done with your rambling responses that don't answer the questions put to you?"
This is a question asked for which an answer was already given. Considering how often he speaks of his "God-given reason", one might be tempted to think he could reason out the answer by simply reading my comments as if he cares to truly understand my positions, beliefs and decisions. But alas....perhaps the reasoning ability God has given us all is in now way equal. How dare God ignore "equity"! Dan's reasoning powers have long been suspect...to say the least.
Merry Christmas to all!
"there is zero evidence that proves that theory objectively."
The problem with this oft used "logic" is that there is "zero evidence" period. To assume that the fact that Dan has not seen evidence is not the same as saying that something does not exist. This is a variation on the argument from silence logical fallacy.
All his nonsense is precisely why I banned him from my blogs. I was tired of wasting time with him.
Post a Comment