tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post1514168217940248849..comments2024-03-28T19:11:42.225-05:00Comments on Marshal Art's: Just Answer The Question!!Marshal Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-15199124370983225262014-05-29T12:14:12.529-05:002014-05-29T12:14:12.529-05:00Marshall...
Ambiguity is essential to his belief ...Marshall...<br /><br /><i>Ambiguity is essential to his belief system. The more ambiguity, the easier it is to believe as one finds personally favorable. </i><br /><br />Of course, it is silly to say that "ambiguity is essential to my belief system." I am not ambiguous in my beliefs.<br /><br />On the other hand, I am not ARROGANT in my beliefs. Humility IS essential to my belief system.<br /><br />But then, humility is essential to ALL Christian belief systems ("essential" meaning, "of the essence of..." it is a clear, central tenet of Christianity.) <br /><br />Do you disagree?<br /><br />Do you conflate someone being humble - making it clear "this is MY opinion, I'm not speaking for God, nor am I speaking for 'all people...' - with being ambiguous?<br /><br />And, of course, my beliefs are NOT what "I find personally favorable." That would be a clearly false statement.<br /><br />I do not find it "personally favorable" to be mocked, rejected, abused and have my Christianity and decency constantly questioned because of some of the very hard positions I take because I think they are RIGHT, not because I find them "personally favorable."<br /><br />I don't find it "personally favorable" to have former friends and loved ones reject me because of my hard-fought belief systems, values and decisions I have reached in striving to walk in Jesus' steps.<br /><br />Why is it not enough to simply say, "I disagree with Dan's conclusions" rather than falsely denigrating my motives - motives about which you are wholly ignorant and factually mistaken?<br /><br />Marshall...<br /><br /><i>Conversely, few of Dan's questions are direct and simple. They often are leading questions that cannot be answered with a yes or no lest a wrong understanding results, which is pretty much guaranteed.</i><br /><br />Do you see how, when I want a direct answer, to you the questions are "leading" but when YOU want a direct answer, there is no excuse for not just giving a direct answer.<br /><br />As I have demonstrated at your next post, I can/could have EASILY answered a direct "Dan, what do YOU think is an essential Christian teaching?" if that was the question asked. I could easily answer, "Dan, to YOU, what is an obviously clear scripture?" with a direct, clear response.<br /><br />As it is, those were NOT the questions asked. Bubba was not asking me for my opinion. He wanted me to answer THIS question:<br /><br />"Dan, for ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, what is an essential Christian teaching?"<br /><br />Which is a different question.<br /><br /><b>Do you understand that this is a different question?<br /><br />Given that Bubba was not asking for my opinion, but for my opinion about what "everyone" thinks, my asking for a clarification was in order?<br /><br />Do you agree with me that there is no evidence for which I can give an answer "for everyone?"</b>Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-74920778803459805942014-05-29T12:13:49.471-05:002014-05-29T12:13:49.471-05:00Marshall...
Ambiguity is essential to his belief ...Marshall...<br /><br /><i>Ambiguity is essential to his belief system. The more ambiguity, the easier it is to believe as one finds personally favorable. </i><br /><br />Of course, it is silly to say that "ambiguity is essential to my belief system." I am not ambiguous in my beliefs.<br /><br />On the other hand, I am not ARROGANT in my beliefs. Humility IS essential to my belief system.<br /><br />But then, humility is essential to ALL Christian belief systems ("essential" meaning, "of the essence of..." it is a clear, central tenet of Christianity.) <br /><br />Do you disagree?<br /><br />Do you conflate someone being humble - making it clear "this is MY opinion, I'm not speaking for God, nor am I speaking for 'all people...' - with being ambiguous?<br /><br />And, of course, my beliefs are NOT what "I find personally favorable." That would be a clearly false statement.<br /><br />I do not find it "personally favorable" to be mocked, rejected, abused and have my Christianity and decency constantly questioned because of some of the very hard positions I take because I think they are RIGHT, not because I find them "personally favorable."<br /><br />I don't find it "personally favorable" to have former friends and loved ones reject me because of my hard-fought belief systems, values and decisions I have reached in striving to walk in Jesus' steps.<br /><br />Why is it not enough to simply say, "I disagree with Dan's conclusions" rather than falsely denigrating my motives - motives about which you are wholly ignorant and factually mistaken?<br /><br />Marshall...<br /><br /><i>Conversely, few of Dan's questions are direct and simple. They often are leading questions that cannot be answered with a yes or no lest a wrong understanding results, which is pretty much guaranteed.</i><br /><br />Do you see how, when I want a direct answer, to you the questions are "leading" but when YOU want a direct answer, there is no excuse for not just giving a direct answer.<br /><br />As I have demonstrated at your next post, I can/could have EASILY answered a direct "Dan, what do YOU think is an essential Christian teaching?" if that was the question asked. I could easily answer, "Dan, to YOU, what is an obviously clear scripture?" with a direct, clear response.<br /><br />As it is, those were NOT the questions asked. Bubba was not asking me for my opinion. He wanted me to answer THIS question:<br /><br />"Dan, for ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, what is an essential Christian teaching?"<br /><br />Which is a different question.<br /><br /><b>Do you understand that this is a different question?<br /><br />Given that Bubba was not asking for my opinion, but for my opinion about what "everyone" thinks, my asking for a clarification was in order?<br /><br />Do you agree with me that there is no evidence for which I can give an answer "for everyone?"</b>Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-21035792359780814742014-05-29T12:13:33.379-05:002014-05-29T12:13:33.379-05:00Marshall...
Ambiguity is essential to his belief ...Marshall...<br /><br /><i>Ambiguity is essential to his belief system. The more ambiguity, the easier it is to believe as one finds personally favorable. </i><br /><br />Of course, it is silly to say that "ambiguity is essential to my belief system." I am not ambiguous in my beliefs.<br /><br />On the other hand, I am not ARROGANT in my beliefs. Humility IS essential to my belief system.<br /><br />But then, humility is essential to ALL Christian belief systems ("essential" meaning, "of the essence of..." it is a clear, central tenet of Christianity.) <br /><br />Do you disagree?<br /><br />Do you conflate someone being humble - making it clear "this is MY opinion, I'm not speaking for God, nor am I speaking for 'all people...' - with being ambiguous?<br /><br />And, of course, my beliefs are NOT what "I find personally favorable." That would be a clearly false statement.<br /><br />I do not find it "personally favorable" to be mocked, rejected, abused and have my Christianity and decency constantly questioned because of some of the very hard positions I take because I think they are RIGHT, not because I find them "personally favorable."<br /><br />I don't find it "personally favorable" to have former friends and loved ones reject me because of my hard-fought belief systems, values and decisions I have reached in striving to walk in Jesus' steps.<br /><br />Why is it not enough to simply say, "I disagree with Dan's conclusions" rather than falsely denigrating my motives - motives about which you are wholly ignorant and factually mistaken?<br /><br />Marshall...<br /><br /><i>Conversely, few of Dan's questions are direct and simple. They often are leading questions that cannot be answered with a yes or no lest a wrong understanding results, which is pretty much guaranteed.</i><br /><br />Do you see how, when I want a direct answer, to you the questions are "leading" but when YOU want a direct answer, there is no excuse for not just giving a direct answer.<br /><br />As I have demonstrated at your next post, I can/could have EASILY answered a direct "Dan, what do YOU think is an essential Christian teaching?" if that was the question asked. I could easily answer, "Dan, to YOU, what is an obviously clear scripture?" with a direct, clear response.<br /><br />As it is, those were NOT the questions asked. Bubba was not asking me for my opinion. He wanted me to answer THIS question:<br /><br />"Dan, for ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, what is an essential Christian teaching?"<br /><br />Which is a different question.<br /><br /><b>Do you understand that this is a different question?<br /><br />Given that Bubba was not asking for my opinion, but for my opinion about what "everyone" thinks, my asking for a clarification was in order?<br /><br />Do you agree with me that there is no evidence for which I can give an answer "for everyone?"</b>Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-60173597938907785832014-05-14T01:37:00.163-05:002014-05-14T01:37:00.163-05:00You keep telling yourself that, feo. You poor pat...You keep telling yourself that, feo. You poor pathetic fool. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-55161914359089405192014-05-13T16:08:03.402-05:002014-05-13T16:08:03.402-05:00Books are not needed here. They're not even wa...Books are not needed here. They're not even wanted. Or understood.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-2374816232955159122014-05-13T12:49:19.580-05:002014-05-13T12:49:19.580-05:00feo has definitely taken to replacing Parkie as th...feo has definitely taken to replacing Parkie as the resident substance free troll. He no longer even tries. All that education. All those books...how sad.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-80923184167156047452014-05-13T12:11:58.718-05:002014-05-13T12:11:58.718-05:00The blind leading the blind.The blind leading the blind.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-9900388933109984422014-05-13T11:55:55.697-05:002014-05-13T11:55:55.697-05:00I don't know why, but Blogger seems to be acti...I don't know why, but Blogger seems to be acting up. It has always been the case that I get emails that show new comments to this blog. I can read the comments in my email inbox and then I'd see the comments posted here at the blog. Recently, I've seen comments post without my having first received an email, and one that didn't post despite having received and email. Just now, I got an email indicating that feo intended to post another of his famously idiotic comments and it hasn't appeared here at the blog. That's right and just on one level, but what if he wasn't the idiotic false priest he is and his comments were prized for wisdom and insights unique to a truly wise and insightful visitor? In that case, we'd lose. On the other hand, we lose anyway as we don't get to see feo's unique brand of baseless arrogance and projection, so mocking him isn't possible (well, we can, but why would we without one of his idiotic comments to provide the righteous justification for doing so?).<br /><br />I must investigate this technological malfunction. Perhaps Blogger has a new "idiot filter" feature.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-34222149245374383102014-05-12T13:44:45.927-05:002014-05-12T13:44:45.927-05:00MA, I agree that Dan's question "TO whom...MA, I agree that Dan's question "TO whom?" is interesting and worthy of discussion. However, the original question is clearly addressed to Dan and his desire to avoid committing compels him to engage in obfuscation by clarification by asking questions that lead the conversation away from actually answering the question. We've all seen this and shouldn't be surprised.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-736512637667249822014-05-12T13:14:19.829-05:002014-05-12T13:14:19.829-05:00I would say that Dan is married to his beliefs abo...I would say that Dan is married to his beliefs about what he likes and/or prefers to think Scripture says, so much so that he is wary of any discussion that force him to re-evaluate his positions. I think that explains his obfuscations and evasions, while at the same time, holding them up as straight-forward responses. But the two-step is clear and begins almost immediately. Take this, for example:<br /><br /><i>"Do you agree that the question "essential to WHOM?" is an important question to answer before answering the actual question?"</i><br /><br />No. <i>Absolutely and positively</i> no, especially when the original question is directly squarely at him. Bubba gives him some wiggle room though in not responding in this way (in my opinion). The question is predicated solely on Dan's worldview, so "essential to whom" is irrelevant and unimportant. If one finds nothing essential, then "to whom" is meaningless. It's already a given that there is disagreement as to the details.<br /><br />I don't know why it is so difficult for him to answer questions UNLESS he likes what he believes about what Scripture says more than what Scripture believes...if you get my meaning...and he is committed to those beliefs more than the desire to know the truth.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-8759421529327667632014-05-12T12:31:49.490-05:002014-05-12T12:31:49.490-05:00This is exactly why I say it is a waste of time de...This is exactly why I say it is a waste of time dealing with Trabue. He is unteachable.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-23844152075869899252014-05-12T08:24:21.776-05:002014-05-12T08:24:21.776-05:00I just checked on the thread at Dan's after an...I just checked on the thread at Dan's after an incredibly busy weekend. This conversation is becoming very close to one that has happened before and I've noticed a couple of troubling trends. First, Dan has already shifted to asking questions instead of answering and into I won't answer until you do mode. Second, he's laid out the foundation for the "I believe there are Truths (or Essentials or whatever), but that there is no way for fallible human beings to know those things with 100% accuracy". Third is the oldie but goodie the "Can we not agree on...". <br /><br />The second is one of Dan's positions which is logically unassailable from his perspective since so much of it relies on personal subjective experience. <br /><br />As of right now, I'm predicting that no clear direct answers will be forthcoming.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.com