Gossip, Slander, and Lies

Disclaimer:   This is going to be a bit strange because of the limitations of Dan's ability to comment here due to his refusal to answer certain specific questions in a post a while back.

Dan has been on a bit of a rampage lately because of a post Stan wrote about fairness.   Dan (is essence) doesn't think that God's view of what is fair and just should be different from Dan's opinion.   At several points over a couple of threads Dan pulls out his standard complaint that people are engaging in "gossip" "slander" and "lies" when they express opinions about the views he spouts.    The problem is that he doesn't seem to have a problem is wrongly characterizing the opinions of others in such a way that he can attack people for not responding to his false characterization of their position, rather than their actual position.    What I'm going to do is to copy/paste comments Dan has made that are either false, unsupported, or flat out lies. 

"I do tend to answer questions, unlike you guys."

Given Dan's a priori refusal to answer the specific list of questions that got his commenting privileges restricted, it's safe to say that in my opinion (based on specific interactions with him) this is just a self serving lie.

"Your position (that god is a monster who would condemn someone to eternal torture for one minor sin - and thus, you slander God by saying God is neither just nor perfect, but childish and whimsical and immoral as hell) is not one that can be defended rationally."

 "So, when reasonable questions arise from your insane sounding argument, you absolutely CAN NOT defend your position or answer the questions because, well, your position is insane and immoral. So, I would run and hide and refuse to answer questions, too, if I were called on such a crazy arguments."

These three are from a comment at Stan's.  The problem with the two above, is that they do not in any way resemble a position that has been taken, and cannot be supported.

 "You are using "justice" in a non-standard English way."

This is a common complaint, that is unsupported.   It also presumes (and we know Dan won't defend his presumptions, or at least hasn't so far)

"2. That because God is perfectly just, the reasoning goes, God can not "abide" or put up with ANY sin.
3. So, because God is SO "just," even one little lie is sufficient cause for God to send a person to an eternal torment and torture, as a matter of "justice..."

Neither of these is an accurate representation of either that position of anyone with whom Dan has actually conversed, nor do they represent Orthodox Christian theology or doctrine.

 "Part of the notion of justice includes proportionate punishment for sins/mistakes/crimes."

This is interesting because no one is denying the concept of proportionate justice.  What is being said is that sin is an active rebellion against the God who created and rules the universe and to try to minimize that willful rebellious aspect of sin by writing it off as a "mistake" is in itself seriously out of proportion.

 "So, while human beings are all sinful or imperfect in nature, do most of us do something so monstrous in our life as to merit an eternity in torment as an equitable "just" punishment?"

Again, this is a (willful) distortion of the Orthodox Christian position, as well as of the position in the post that started all of this.

 "Or, consider that we have been created imperfect by God (for those who believe we are created by God...) Is it rational or just that God creates us imperfect and then demands that we be perfect or else we'll be punished with eternal torment for being imperfect, as God made us!?"

I'm not even going to deal with the seeming denial of God as creator.   But, this is a complete (intentional?)  distortion of the Orthodox Christian position as well as the position of anyone who has interacted with Dan.

"God becomes whimsical, monstrous, unjust, uncaring... not the God most believers think of as a loving God."

As to the first sentence, no one is or has suggested that, as to the second I wasn't aware that God's nature is defined by how humans think of Him.

 "I would ask Stan or others who have made these sorts of statements:..."

There is a claim that "Stan or others" have made specific statements which correlate with the claims Dan has made about those alleged statements.   Of course, those specific statements are not quoted or referenced in any way that would allow someone to check the accuracy of Dans characterizations of the alleged statements.   So, Dan has attributed a lot of "statements" to "Stan and others" without actually proving the existence of the statements.

 "Every human is grossly immoral and JUSTLY deserving of eternal torture."

One more that can't be supported



I think that I have demonstrated a fairly consistent pattern with the above quotes and see no reason to add more of the same.

I am quite sure that there will be cries that it is not fair for me to post this about Dan without allowing him to respond.   I will respond by saying the following.

1.  Dan is well aware of what he needs to do in order to regain his commenting priveledges.
2.  Once Dan does what has been asked of him he will get those privileges back
3.  If Dan can provide specific documented (quote with a link for context) instance where any of his characterizations are correct, I will allow the comment to stand, edit the original post to remove my comment, and apologize for my error.