Fake News

All this excitement about "fake news" has me puzzled, it seems like there are two kinds of fake news.

The "bad" kind is when some fringe media outlet or blog comes out with an unverified, unsourced, story that is pretty unrealistic and that story gets spread via social media by folks who don't actually read it, don't actually check it out and are just gullible enough to pass it on uncritically.

The "good" kind is where that "mainstream" media latches on to some narrative that furthers their political agenda and continues to run with it even after it is proven to be false.  Some examples.

"Hands up, Don't shoot."
"The gentle giant"
"I flew in under sniper fire"
 
I'm sure there are plenty more, but those make my point.

So, why is "fake news" applauded, encouraged, and perpetuated when it suits one side of the political aisle, even when the objective literal reality is false?


EDIT

"The Russians hacked the electrical grid"
"The Russians hacked the election"

Irony

Isn't it somewhat ironic that the people who were adamant that Clinton's private e mail server couldn't be/hadn't been hacked are that same ones blaming her loss on the hacking of e mails?

Isn't it ironic that the same people who fight tooth and nail against various laws to prevent voter fraud on the grounds that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent are the same ones trying to do re counts because of alleged voter fraud?   Isn't it more ironic that the recounts have resulted in a net gain for Trump?

Finally, isn't it ironic that there are people who want the outcome of the presidential elections decided by the voters of California?

The Russians are coming

Recently there's been a big to do over the Russians trying to influence the outcome of the election by hacking the DNC e mails as well as Hillary's private server.   Historically, there are plenty of examples of various groups trying to affect election results in various ways.

1.   Various special interests and governments making donations and paying for speeches to family members or charitable foundations on candidates.
2.   Senate majority leaders who tell blatant lies about candidates failure to pay taxes.
3.   Campaign commercials that are false or distorted.
4.   Releasing internal campaign documents to the media.
5.   Manipulating the primary process to favor one candidate over another.

But even with all of that, and the fact that the actual hacking might be problematic, here's the deal.

The simple fact of the hacking and releasing of the e mail didn't have anything to do with the outcome.

It was to contents of the e mails.    It's the fact that the DNC and the democrat candidates campaign were exposed as the corrupt organizations that they are.   

Back in the 70's this kind of unearthing corruption was called investigative journalism and applauded, now it's just one more excuse for why Clinton lost.

Never let facts get in the way...

It's the time of year when the nativity narrative gets mangled into memes in an attempt to advance the leftist political agenda.   Y'all know what I'm talking about.    The ones where Jesus family is portrayed as "homeless" or "refugees" or whatever.

The fact is that Joseph, Mary and Jesus had a home.  They were compelled by an oppressive government bent on extracting more taxes from them (notice how nobody ever makes that comparison), to travel to Joseph's ancestral home in order to register for more taxes.  Clearly their situation is that of travelers being unable to find a hotel, than of the homeless.   Now, one could make the case that their flight into Egypt (later) is akin to modern day refugees, but certainly not the nativity story.

The newest version of this is the "unplanned pregnancy" meme, essentially comparing Mary to some girl who gets knocked up.    Of course, if one looks at the prophetic aspect then not only was this pregnancy planned, but it was planned and predicted hundreds of years before.   Oh, and wasn't Joseph's home in Nazareth?   But, wasn't the Messiah prophesied to be born in Bethlehem? 

Unplanned, homeless, refugees, really?  Sounds like God just might be sovereign after all.

Oh, and of course they were Jewish.  

Please

Dear DNC,

Please make Keith Ellison the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, please.

Sincerely,
Craig

Clean Water

Given the sudden interest in clean water in North Dakota,  doesn't it seem slightly strange that no one is protesting the lack of clean water in Flint?

Two claims

Recently I've heard people make a couple of claims, that evidence seems to show to be false.

1.  People broad brush all Republican candidates with the supposed "ism's" of Trump and therefore the GOP is becoming irrelevant.

Other than the obvious, that Trump won, the fact is that the democrat party lost ground virtually everywhere.  Congress, state legislatures, governorships, etc.   If the GOP is becoming irrelevant, this seems a strange way of showing it.

2.  Progressive theology is causing liberal churches to grow faster than more conservative churches.  Except that a new scientific study contradicts that notion.  The fact is that the folks the liberals think are the next generation of progressive christians are probably more likely to end up as "nones" than anything else.

Anybody recall...

Remember back when, one of the debate moderators asked Trump if he would abide by the results of the election?    Trump gave the only rational answer he could have which was in essence, "I'd have to wait and see what might happen before I make any decisions.".   The left, predictably, got their collective panties in a wad and tried to portray this as Trump preparing to stage a coup or something sinister.   (Let's leave aside the fact that the only recent high profile election results challenges were both by democrats.)

Now we fast forward to the actual election results and what do we see?

Angry mobs in the streets.
Calls to abolish the electoral college  (Because we want our president elected by San Francisco, LA, Chicago, NYC and a few other large urban democrat strongholds)
All sorts of vitriol on social media.

And, my favorite.

"Nothing like an election to shine a light on the actual pieces of shit in your family."

The above is from someone who claims to be a Christian, is publicly involved in a leadership role in a local church, and has young children.   Yet for some reason felt the need to publicly call one or more family members "pieces of shit" on social media.  

In what way is this mature?
In what way does this advance your political agenda?
In what way does this set a good example for his kids?
In what way does this remotely resemble the Christ he claims to follow?

It seems to me that it's possible that there are a bunch of folks out there on the left for whom liberal politics is effectively their religion.

One last great example.  Jim Wallis of Sojourners wrote a long piece about how we as Christians are called to love the marginalized etc.   Which is fine, as far as it goes.  But then he just couldn't resist turning this little epistle of love into a fundraising appeal.   That's class for you.

Post election fallout

There are a number of things that can be taken from last nights election.   An election in which I didn't really have a dog in the fight, and which absolutely blew my mind with the results.   I was at work for the bulk of the evening and I was shocked at how many of my millennial co workers were seriously and vociferously pro Trump.   Anyway, here's my first few thoughts.

1.  It seems clear that the election results were a big middle finger in the air to the establishment, especially the democrat establishment.

2.  It seems clear that the value of polls has got to be questioned.  Obviously the documented instances of over representing democrats out of proportion, plays a role.  But it appears as though there is an increased willingness of people to hedge or lie to pollsters because they are afraid of something.

3.   Calling people who's votes you hope to get names, is probably counterproductive.

4.   For all of Trump's faults, it seems safe to say that he doesn't lack energy or the will to take on challenges and to see them through.  I'm not sure that is enough to make for a good POTUS, but it can't hurt.

5.  It's been kind of amusing to watch my leftist (pastor/church) friends on social media trying to pretend that they haven't spent the last several months re-posting any unverified negative articles about Trump they could find,  referring to Trump in all sorts of negative and derogatory ways, and trying to make any excuse (other than that Clinton was a bad candidate) for Clinton's loss.  Instead, they are all about some faux "Let's all try really hard to love the bigoted, homophobic, anti-woman, uneducated folks that did this to us." postings.

6.  Also social media has been full of the hysterical "they're going to take away all abortion, and end gay marriage" posts.   These are both hysterical and wrong.  IF (yes, IF) Trump does get to nominate enough SCOTUS members to make a difference, and IF (yes, IF) they actually are presented with a case on either topic, IF (yes, IF) they vote the way conservatives would prefer them to.   (That's a lot of IF's)   The absolute worst thing that could possibly happen is that both of those issues would be put to the states to determine how each state would handle this issues.  In other words, through legislative or ballot measures at a more local level than national level.    So, how about we dial back they hysterical screeching and show a little patience and grace.

Reasonable 2.0

Is it reasonable to "put your trust" in something or someone who you deny the existence of?

For example, one of the most common examples of trust is a chair.  When we are ready to sit down, we turn around, and lower our selves towards the chair seat because we trust that the chair will hold our weight.

So how would you respond to someone who says that they deny the very existence of chairs, yet simultaneously tells you to have a seat in this chair right here?

Karma

Karma.
Karma?
Karma!

Karma Chameleon?

Autonomy

How much autonomy do we as humans have?

Is unlimited autonomy desirable?

Reasonable

Is it reasonable to believe that something's is objectively true based primarily on the fact that some person or people assert the truth of the proposition?

Is is reasonable to assert the truth of a proposition based on the fact that others also assert the truth of a given proposition?

Election stuff

I know that we've done a lot of discussion about the upcoming elections, and I certainly don't want to give the impression that Christians should not engage fully in the political process.

Even with that I keep being reminded that what really matters is not who is in the Oval Office, but who sits on the throne of God.   That earthly governments are established by God, and that while it might not make sense, God is going to allow whatever best fits His plan, despite what we might think.

Is it possible that, like in Israel, God will allow us to choose leaders that will lead us away from Him?  Is it possible that God will use the leaders we select as a form of "punishment" or correction because of decisions we have made as a society?    (Obviously, the US is not in any way a precise analog of the ancient nation of Israel.  But, It does seem logical that God will permit the consequences of human free will to affect nations in ways similar to individuals)

So, I just have to keep in mind that neither Hillary or Trump is evil, they're certainly not in the same league as some of the Kings of Israel.  I also just have to keep in mind that even though it may not seem lie it to me, that God is on the throne and that His will is being done.  

A Notice

A few years ago, I asked several of my African American friends what their preference was when referring to people on their race.  Their answer was "black".  So, I kind of decided that "black" was an appropriate way to refer to people of that racial group.  

As of now, I have decided that the term "black", is not the best option.  I've come to realize that the Muslim immigrant family from East Africa, and the family from the worst urban neighborhood in town share very little besides similar skin color.  

Given that fact, I will begin to refer to black people born in the United States as "African Americans".  I am less sure how I will refer to the first and second generation African immigrants.  Given that there are significant differences between Somali and Ethiopian immigrants I'm just not sure what makes sense.  What I will probably do is to use the term "East African" (or something similar) when I am talking about something where there is no real distinction between the various societies of origin.   However, if I am referring to something specific I will most likely use either Somali or Ethiopian.  

One final thought.  clearly any of these people who have become citizens should be referred to primarily as Americans, yet there are many who are not citizens or are not yet citizens.  Given that, I believe that accuracy is best served by making the distinctions between these groups, and not lumping them together based on something as superficial as skin color.

It's possible

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article110847327.html


The link above is to an article in the Kansas City Star, not by any means a conservative newspaper.  It details the story of an African American woman who is not voting for Hillary for a couple of reasons.

"Hypocrisy among Clinton supporters is part of what turned her away from the Democratic candidate. But there are other factors. The main one: education."

“I sort of have arrived at becoming a single-issue voter,” she says. “And I’ve made that single issue school choice.”

I find this one particularly interesting because this brings together a bunch of constituencies which have traditionally voted democrat.  1.  African Americans, 2. Unions, 3. the education/educators status quo/establishment.   Yet it seems as though on this issue (if none other) there should be a fair amount of attractiveness to the conservative position.

To be clear, when I talk about the conservative position I mean the desire to make the focus of education spending on the student, keep education as local as possible, expect measurable results from teachers/schools, reward success/dis incentivize failure.     Allowing the funding to follow the student, wherever the family chooses.   (Yes, I realize the irony of the "pro-choice" party denying millions of families the ability to choose, but...)

I live in a metropolitan area when the two largest urban school districts spent more per pupil than anywhere else in the area, yet serve African American students horribly.  In virtually any measurable category African American students are doing poorly.   Now obviously, some of this falls squarely on the shoulders of the students and the parents or guardians.  Yet somehow, tucked throughout the districts are little islands of success for African American students.  Private schools, charter schools, open enrollment to other districts, are all demonstrating that kids from the same backgrounds and races are capable of excelling in education.   Yet, the vast majority of African American voters continue to for for the status quo, why?   To me as a parent, a parent who's primary motivation when choosing a place to live was the quality of the schools, I don't understand why other parents would vote against the best interests of their kids.  Not only kids, but family, neighborhood, community.  Maybe there is a rational reason why this happens, but I've never had anyone provide one.   Usually it's just "Do you know how racist it sounds when you call every African American in the country stupid idiotic morons?", but never a rational answer to the question.

Anyway, back to the article.  This seems like one of the issues where the conservative position is a position that any African American parent would agree with.  Which raises two questions.

1.  Why don't more African Americans reach the same conclusion as Lisa Watson (vote GOP, not necessarily Trump)?
2.  Why won't the democrat party embrace a more flexible results based stance on education?

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article110847327.html#storylink=cpy

Polls

I know that polls are not always worth much, and that it seems obvious that at east some of what we see reported on is designed to generate headlines and clicks.  I realize that there is only one poll that matters.

Having said that I'm fascinated by the run of recent polling.  We either see Hillary up by double digit % points or we see them in a statistical (margin of error) dead heat.

Clearly one set of these polls is wrong, but it's amusing to watch the spin, especially by the Hillary camp. 

Two anecdotal things I keep hearing are that a significant number of people polled are embarrassed to admit that they will be voting for Trump and that there is a significant number of Black voters who will vote for Trump, but are afraid to say that publicly.   Personally, (given the vitriol directed any anyone claiming that they will vote for Trump), I can see why people might be hesitant to be honest about their voting plans.  I can also see that this might be additionally true in a community where it's virtually mandatory that you vote democrat.

Honestly they both seem a bit like wishful thinking and whistling past the graveyard.

But, just imagine the reaction from the Trump is evil crowd if he wins.  It'd almost be worth seeing Trump win just for the entertainment value.   Not to mention seeing that "If Trump wins I'm moving to Canada." celebrity crowd falling over themselves to come up with excuses not to move.

Here's my only serious election thought.

No matter what you think of the morons at the top of the ticket, please go ahead and vote the sown ballot races.

If Trump wins, he'll need a conservative congress to pass the positive elements of his platform, but also to corral him when he tries to get nutty.

If Hillary wins, we've seen the recent disaster of one party rule in DC and therefore we'll need at least either the House of Senate to keep her from imposing her will on us.

NEWS FLASH !!!!!!!!!!!!

This just in!!

Donald J. Trump talked about engaging in disgusting, vulgar, boorish, nasty, uncouth,behavior 11 years ago!!!!

I would have thought that his multiple affairs, divorces, and remarriages would have been enough evidence of the type of person he was in the past.

If a radical conservative racist saqys this, then he must be right

Quanell X, leader of the NBP Party in Houston, says it time for black voters to “reexamine the relationship” they have with the Democratic Party — and “truly examine” Trump’s outreach to the black community.
In reference to Trump’s speech in Milwaukee, during which he blamed Democrats for the plight of many of America’s blacks, Quanell X said:




“Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech. We may not like the vessel that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said, because it is a fact that for 54 years, we have been voting for the Democratic party like no other race in America.
And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them. We as black people have to reexamine the relationship — where we are being pimped like prostitutes, and they’re the big pimps pimping us politically, promising us everything and we get nothing in return.”


Quannel X also had a few thoughts about America’s first black president:

“Barack Obama, our president, served two terms. The first black president ever. But did our condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically, with education in our community, did things get better?  Are our young people working more than what is was before he came into office? The condition got worse. So now we as black people have to do and remember what the honorable Elijah Mohammed said. No politician can save the black community; we’ve gotta do it ourselves.”

I guess when I ask these kinds of questions I sound racist, but this guy?  Maybe he has enough street cred to ask the hard questions and have a real meaningful dialogue about how African Americans vote.

Hypocritical

Is it me is is it just the tiniest bit hypocritical for someone to claim that Trump's 100% legal, ethical, and common tax strategy is "unamerican"?

Does it make it in tiny bit more hypocritical for the person who said this to have been employed by tax exempt organizations for the majority of their working life, someone who's salary is entirely paid by people using the charitable deduction to avoid paying their fair share?  How about when some of these donors are really rich?

How indeed

Hilary asked how it's possible to lose a billion dollars in a year.  I don't know specifically, but it seems like being an insurance company in a state P-BOcare exchange is a good way to start.

Blue Cross/Shield lost half a billion in TN
Blue Cross/Shield lost 140 Million in Nebraska
Blue Cross/Shield lost half a billion in MN

In MN alone exchange customers are looking at 50-67% rate increases.

"If you like your Dr., you can keep him."
"If you like your plan, you can keep it."

That P-BO, he's just the best.

Christian Atheists

It's official, there is a "movement" to legitimize Christian Atheists as Christian.  To most, the concept of a Christian Atheist seems oxymoronic.  It seems self contradictory.  It seems, quite frankly, moronic.  

I know that some commenters here have fled from actually delineating a point where ones beliefs cross from Christian to something other than Christian, but surely one could surmise that denying the very existence of the deity the religion is named after is crossing that line.

I suspect that there are reasons why these folks won't accurately label themselves.

1.  Quite possibly they find some sort of comfort in the forms and rituals of Christianity, yet want to strip any of the meaning out or to insert new meaning more to their personal taste.

2.  They're simply afraid, or cowardly.

3.  In much the same way as Progressive Christianity has taken over many of the mainline denominations, because the imprimatur of a mainline denomination carried more gravitas that the UCC or one of the fringe denominations, this clinging to the term Christian is merely a ploy to attach this new "belief" to the coattails of historic Orthodox Christianity. 

4.  Either #3 or it's similar to those who attach themselves to traditions that can be more flexible in doctrine.  I believe that this is why so many progressive christians self identify as Anabaptist.  They latch onto the Anabaptist doctrines that fit their political (or other) agenda, while ignoring other doctrines which don't.

Personally, I don't understand this desire to completely reject virtually everything about Christianity but the name, but to cling to the name for dear life.  I suspect that some of it is purely naked financial self interest.  As long as pastor GLBTXYZPDQ of the PCUSA can somehow contrive a way to keep the term Christian attached to themselves, and get past the whole lying in their ordination vows, they can remain employed.  Keep the paycheck, the manse, the tax free housing allowance, the pension, and whatever other benefits that come with the job.

I'm going to guess that it's a lot easier to get folks to come to 1st PCUSA church, than the 1st Christian Athiest church.

Ultimately it's almost a sort of false "look at me being so incredibly brave and taking a stand", with little or no risk involved.   What ever happened to "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no."?

We all know that peer reviewed studies are the baisis of all scientific knowledge...

...or something like that.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/22/almost-everything-the-media-tells-you-about-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-is-wrong/

I guess if you find a report that summarizes 200 peer reviewed studies and reaches conclusions about the contents, that must mean that these conclusions must really be scientific and all that, right?

Memories

I seem to recall, that back in 2005 after Katrina hit New Orleans that there was a certain segment of the population that made much of President Bush's decision to inspect the damage from the air, rather than on the ground.

Now, anyone who's ever been around a presidential visit knows how much disruption is involved from a security standpoint.  I would argue that for Bush to have actually visited New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, would have been counterproductive and would have actually taken resources away from the relief efforts.  But, let's set that rational line of thought aside for a moment.

At the time much was made of the fact that Bush was insensitive to the suffering and here were even charges that there was some sort of evil plot by the Bush administration to try to wipe out the residents of New Orleans.   This conveniently ignores the massive failures of the local and state democrat officials, but again let's leave that aside.

THE TOPIC of this post, is the deafening silence regarding P-BO's unwillingness to interrupt his vacation in the Hamptons (you know where he can hang out with a bunch of rich white people) to even fly over as assess the damage caused by recent floods (I haven't really been keeping track since Friday afternoon, so it's possible that there has been a pause in the golfing, but I haven't heard much).   TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE TOPIC, I am not criticizing P-BO for his actions or lack thereof.  I believe that a president can deal with crises while on vacation, and I further believe that the taking of vacation is important.   What I am pointing out AS THE TOPIC, is the rank hypocrisy of those on the left who are quite content to give P-BO as pass while slamming Bush.   What I am also pointing out is that far to many on the political left, probably are blind to the hypocrisy and double standard they are engaging in.

As a final note, I have to acknowledge that we are seeing one one instance where it appears that not all black lives actually matter.  I've not, to this point, seen any effort on the part of BLM to offer aid or succor to those of a similar shade of melanin to them.   To be clear, my problem is not with their lack of care and concern for the flood victims, it's for the false advertising.  It's now increasingly clear that not all black lives matter equally to BLM, and the degree of how much black lives matter is in direct proportion to how any given life can advance their political agenda.

Personally, I'd think that the value of life comes from the fact that we are created in and bear the image of God, as well as the content of ones character rather than something as incidental as how much melanin one has.

Deniability

I've been following the story up here about a Somali woman running for state legislature.   There is apparently at least some reasonably credible evidence that she either married someone in order to get them a green card, or married someone while being married to someone else.  Either of these two things would violate the law.

One might think that these allegations could be quickly and accurately dealt with by simply providing the proper documentation and the whole thing goes away.  This method would also have the benefit of discrediting the source and enhancing her reputation for being forthright and honest.

But instead of simply demonstrating that the allegations are false, she/her campaign/surrogates have chose to frame this as an issue of prejudice.  Anti woman, anti-Somali, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, or whatever floats your boat.  They've also managed to portray those putting forth the accusation as somehow being another incarnation of Donald Trump.  They've also played the "They just want to stop the first Somali..." card.  Which would be fine if her opponent wasn't also Somali.

Now I have absolutely no idea if these allegations are true, even if they are and she's convicted, she'll still win the election given the nature of her house district, and the willingness of the left to vote for anyone with DFL attached to their name.   But, I have to wonder why she would choose to muddy the water and make this story drag out even longer by not simply demonstrating that the story is false.

Maybe it's a liberal thing.  I've had personal experience with folks on the left who (when faced with something they don't like) choose to obfuscate or ignore things rather than to simply provide the evidence that the other person in wrong.  It seems simple to think that if one can vindicate your position, and prove someone else wrong, that one would fail to do the simple obvious thing.   Why even give the appearance of throwing up a smoke screen?  It's simply beyond me.

"Take that Sxxx to the suburbs! Burn that Sxxx down"

I haven't been to active here recently, but over the past week or so there have been a number of things that have gotten my interest.

1.  The disproportionate coverage of one single Muslim woman fencer and how she had to battle to find a sport that was consistent with her version of Islam as compared to the multiple athletes who professed their Christian faith.  This combined with the virtual blackout of coverage Kim Rhode who has won 5 Olympic medals over 5 Olympic games.   Any idea why Rhode might be getting minimal coverage?

2.  The lack of coverage of recent events up here in the people's republic regarding a mob of 20-30 Somali Muslim young men threatening residents of a Minneapolis neighborhood with rape.  The only coverage seems to be from local station KSTP ( See this page for a link to the story.  http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/muslim-refugees-threaten-minnesota-community-with-rape/), with virtually no coverage beyond.   This would certainly make any rational person question the "religion of peace' propaganda, as well as the wisdom of unlimited immigration from Muslim majority countries.   The interesting thing is that this happened in the epicenter of a city, county, and state, run for years by white leftists.  These are the same folks who have brought their constituents a police department with a "systemic racism" problem, schools where black young people graduate at a rate of around 50% and aren't proficient at grade level material, as well as one of the most segregated cities in the country.  

3.  The  events in Milwaukee. 
      A.  The fact that the BLM folks couldn't be bothered to wait for the facts before they started rioting.
      B.  The fact that the body camera video apparently clearly shows the "victim", pointing a loaded gun at the officer as he fled.
      C.  The fact that the officer who did the shooting was not a vicious white racist pig.
      D.  The fact that the BLM folks have goon on a burning, looting, shooting spree which has left around 7 people shot, all by BLM folks (none by police).
      E.  The fact that when this "victim"'s sisters appealed for "peace", they really meant "...stop burning down black folks stuff and start burning down white folks stuff...".
      F.   The actual quote being "Burning down Sxxx ain't going to help nothin! "You're burning down Sxxx we need in our community.  Take that Sxxx to the suburbs! Burn that Sxxx down!".  
     G.  Given the picture of this gentle peaceful young scholar pointing a gun at the camera wearing clothing that might possibly indicate some sort of gang affiliation, it's likely that the left has jumped on the bandwagon of trying to make an example of someone who doesn't deserve it.


As I look at recent events surrounding police shootings; the Dallas ambush, the unlawful blocking of a highway and subsequent attack on St. Paul police officers, the siege of a police precinct in Minneapolis, etc,  I have to wonder how it is that people can't see the connection between the people (party) they overwhelmingly vote for and blindly follow and the type of government  that they've voted for. 

Oh, and Trump is still bumbling.  Hillary is still a horrible candidate.  

And it's apparently a horribly racist thing to suggest that Simone Biles birth mother was right in choosing to go against the trend in the African American community to abort it's children, instead choosing to give her up for adoption.

Personally, as an adopted child myself, I always appreciate it when one of us does something amazing.

First impressions

A couple of early impressions after Clinton's speech.

1.  Virtually everything she said needed to be fixed is stuff that P-BO ran on fixing.   If all of things things haven't been fixed after 8 years of P-BO, then doens't that suggest that the current president hasn't been particularly successful?

2.   Every analysis of the RNC talks about how much Trumps campaign is based on fear, Clinton's answer to combat the fear, be afraid of what might, possibly, could, maybe happen if Trump gets elected.

Bubba refugee camp.

Elsewhere, it has proposed that Bubba be banned from commenting on a certain blog thread.   This ban could be a result of mistrust of Bubba, or fear of what he might say.   I just don't know for sure.  

Therefore I am establishing this thread as a safe space where Bubba will be allowed to comment as he sees fit.

Think of this as a virtual refugee camp or a sanctuary city.

Remember when...

Remember when there were some investigative journalist types who managed to document multiple Planned Parenthood staffers  admitting to all sorts of unpleasant things?

Then do you remember how certain folks on the left jumped all over the fact that these investigative journalist types were indicted?

Then do you remember how this we trumpeted as proof that these folks were guilty of some horrible crime and how Planned Parenthood was a pure as the wind driven snow?


 Oops...


http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/26/texas-da-withdraws-all-remaining-charges-against-cmps-daleiden-over-planned-parenthood-videos/?utm_con

I guess there were some folks who jumped on the bandwagon a bit too early.

Remember when those folks apologized for being wrong?

Me neither.

The Choice we have for president.

The other day I saw a post on Facebook that got me thinking about what poor choices we have for president this time around, and people are responding to the state of affairs.  Just a few quotes from the post.

"The lesser of two evils is LESS EVIL"    (Of course, this means that you are choosing to vote for "EVIL", but whatever)

"I don't give a damn about anything Donald Trump has done. I'm concerned with what Hilary Clinton WILL do."

I don't know what I will do about the presidential race.  Fortunately (or not) the peoples republic up here will gleefully ensure that Hilary gets our electoral votes, which allows me to either not vote for president or vote Libertarian/write in. in good conscience.

Personally, I just can't understand this willingness to vote for evil or to ignore what someone has done in the past for purely political reasons.

FYI

Life has been incredibly hectic lately; work, home renovations, houseguests, 2 family members involving me in their car buying process, and the fact that it's the one week of the summer when it get genuinely hot up here, so that mean that blogging and commenting has taken a back seat.  I hope to at least get Dan a long promised "rational bases" for believing that God is real, that He communicates with us, and that we can actually correctly understand Him done this weekend.

Bubba

Since I have no idea which of my comments responding to you have been deleted, and since I didn't copy them they remain lost.   But I wanted to say a couple of things.

First thanks, your contributions have been welcome and well done.   You have done an excellent job pointing out many issues and problems with Dan's attitude and position.  

Second, regarding your ACLS,  I've been spending some time back with Scheaffer recently and he talks about our ability to know things about God that are True, but not exhaustive.  Seems like you are both in the same ballpark.

In order to stop the insane and hellish complaining, I'm doing this.

1. Yes, I get that you put your reason to the "litmus test" of Scripture, prayer, etc... BUT how do you assess what those things mean? DO YOU NOT USE YOUR REASON?

2. What do you have or how are you using your reason in ways that are different than what I am doing?

3. What is different from my way and your way?

4. CRAIG: "your underlying premise, (Reason is all we have) remains unproven."

As is the claim that we have some other Thing in addition to Reason, right?

5. What else, in addition to reason, do you use?

1.   I use every resource available to me including my reason, scripture, the counsel of others, the accumulated wisdom of my family, my community, as well as the breadth of accumulated wisdom and knowledge from the past.    So, as I have said, I use my reason as one part of the process but subordinate it when it disagrees with things I value more highly than my selfish desires.   I assess what things mean by using my ability to read and understand the English language.  If my reason tells me I should be graceless and derisive and my reading of scrfipture tells me otherwise, then I (should) subordinate my reason to scripture.  It's really not that difficult.

2.  I am subordinating my personal reasoning to other things or people, not elevating my personal, subjective, fallible, inconsistent, limited, human reason to superiority over other factors.   

3.  Since this is the exact same question you just asked, worded slightly differently I'm going to point out that you have this incredibly stupid habit of asking the same questions over and over in the same comment.  It's pointless, stupid and annoying.  I suspect it's a way to allow you to say that I didn't answer all of your questions.

4.  No, I have listed things other than reason that are all tools that I use.   You, still haven't proven that the claim of fact you use as your underlying premise is actually true.

5.  Again, you ask the same question twice in the same comment.  It's ridiculous, stupid and petty.  But since I've already answered it...


There.  Answers to Dan's questions.   They are statements.  They are not intended as a basis for further conversation, merely as a means to stop the constant harping and to allow Dan to misrepresent other things.  I don't really care if these answers are satisfactory to Dan, I don't care if his subjective worldview won't allow for this kind of diversity of thought.  I don't even make the claim that these are objectively true for others in the same way they are for me.   

But, they are answers, and they are the last answers I will give to these question.

It's interesting, the amount of pressure Dan is applying in trying to force me to conform to using his term of choice, "Reason".   He's complaining, that my answers aren't enough, of course ignoring the fact that of his 5 questions, two are simply repeating earlier question and one is simply an attempt to draw attention away from his unproven, unsupported, premise which he demands should be accepted without question.   Or at least declines to provide any evidence of.

It seems clear that his commitment to rationalism is incredibly strong, so strong that he is willing to go to significant lengths to insist that it is our only option.  In his commitment, he is willing to abandon the grace, and benefit of the doubt he claims to give others and is unwilling to even tolerate the possibility that someone would have the temerity not to agree with his unproven, unsupported premise.   

With that said, I'm sure that the pressure, lies, and demands will continue unless I simply capitulate and agree to use his terms and his definitions.   

It's strange that I (the closed minded , intolerant conservative) am willing to live and let live on this point.  Even though I find his worldview, limited, limiting, depressing, nihilistic, and self centered.    I find it hard to believe that one could base ones worldview solely and completely on the basis if ones personal, subjective, fallible, limited, human Reason, yet Dan claims to have done just that.  Have I been derisive? Demeaning? Ridiculed him?  Tried to bully him into conforming with my worldview or into using the terminology I prefer?   

It's becoming more clear that this rationalism that Dan is so committed to is something that he holds very deeply and given great value to.  It is something so dear to him that in a world where he holds virtually everything else to be subjective, this rationalism is the one objective thing he has to cling to.   I can see how it could be a bit scary when people don't blindly accept something that you cling so tightly to, but when you can't even explain why,( out of all the other things you find subjective) this one premise is so far beyond sacred that you can't even entertain the need to provide evidence for is a bit disconcerting.    

In conclusion Dan, I am well aware that you can read and comprehend English, so any further attempts at coercion or bullying will simply indicate that you have chosen to not read this entire post or that you have chosen to ignore it.

With the revisions above, I've given you all the answer I intend to, additional attempts at shame, coercion, bullying, ridicule and derision will simply be met with me pointing out your unwillingness to read the entire post.   I know that you don't like my answer, perhaps your don't understand it (earlier I compared this to my writing in Urdu or Tagalog).  But my answer is my answer, the only choice you have it this point is to continue in pressure, coercion, bullying, derision, and ridicule or to embrace the tolerance, grace, and benefit of the doubt you talk so much about.

Your call, will you embrace grace?

"
I will note that some people - many people - are so heavily invested in their human ideas and opinions that attacks on those opinions, to them, feel like attacks on them, or perhaps to their faith."

I will note that this has the appearance of an acute pot/kettle crisis.

You've blinded me with science. Or at least pointed out some scientific studies that don't help your case.

I'm not going to pull out quotes or anything, just post the link.  But, not the number of links to scientific peer reviewed studies that dispute the argument of some that same sex parents are just fine and dandy.

https://winteryknight.com/

I never ever delete comments.

In a startling change to his oft bragged about policy of (almost) never, ever, ever, (well occasionally maybe) ever deleting comments Dan has chosen to start deleting.

Now, I have no problem with a blog owner choosing to delete comments, I do it myself.   Personally, I usually give both a specific reason for and plenty of warning before I delete.   I also rarely make editorial comments about the content of deleted comments.  I will occasionally quote from or respond to specific sections of deleted comments, but will always make sure the quote is there.   I also cannot ever recall casting aspersions on the character of the commenter without the context of the comment to support my contention.

Having said that, I feel like I need to point out what's happening at Dan's and why I believe he feels the need to misrepresent the contents of the comments he deletes.

My statement that brought this about was;

"I do not rely solely on my reasoning to determine anything."

It's clear from my statement that "reasoning" is one tool that I use to determine things.   It's a simple uncomplicated declarative sentence.   The question my comment elecited was;

"What DO you us, [sic] if not reason to sort these moral questions out?"

So, I say that I use reason, and Dan asks what I use instead of reason.  There is a clear disconnect between the statement and the question.  In fact that question presumes that the questioner knows facts beyond the content of the question.

Now, I've answered this question elsewhere for Dan and his response was to ignore my answer and to insist that I used reason, in the same way he does.   When I've pointed this out to him he has accused me of "dodging" his question.   In fact, I have done quite the opposite, as the deleted comments would demonstrate, I have explained why I have chosen to not answer a question again when my answer has already been judged unsatisfactory.

When this disconnect is pointed out Dan demonstrates one of his classic tactics.  He "rephrases" his question to include all sorts of things that were not present in the initial question.   Such as;

"I've duly noted the "solely" question, noting that of course we pray, we read, we research... And THEN we reason out our understanding, using our reason to sort out the various input."

 "Again, noting that I'm counting prayer, Bible study, research, meditation, additional information as sources for data which we THEN use our reasoning to sort out."

Now it's clear from reading Dan's question that none of this later nonsense is either noted or expressed in the question, yet despite the clear and obvious evidence to the contrary he insists that it is.

Then, we get to the real point.   The answer is preordained.  There is no other option beyond this undeniable truth as we see from these quotes;

" What else is there?"
" Do you use something besides your reasoning to sort out moral questions?"

It's clear from those questions that Dan con conceive of no other options beyond Reason and that to even suggest any other option will be dismissed as a foolish notion.  Given this preconception of there being only one possible correct answer, why would I bother to do anything but explain why answering again would be fruitless and a waste of time.

I guess this is just one more example of how grace is demonstrated.

Unlike an earlier post where I closed comments, I will leave comments open on this.  Having said that any attempts (as judged by me) justification for this graceless behavior, attacks or disparagement of my character, accusations of lying or dodging, or anything that strikes me as being remotely annoying will be deleted.   Further, I will make an exception and make editorial comments on the content and nature of the deleted comments if the mood strikes me.

I really didn't want to have to do this, but my hand was forced.

Morality

There have been multiple assertions made about the nature of morality and I'd like to look at two of them.

First; Definitions.

Morality
1.   Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture,
2.   In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong.
3.    Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals.
4.    Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals.
5.     Conformance to a recognized code, doctrine, or system of rules of what is right or wrong and to behave accordingly. No system of morality is accepted as universal, and the answers to the question "What is morality?" differ sharply from place to place, group to group, and time to time

The first is that morality is subjective.   If one looks at the dictionary as well as what sociologists say the morality is subjective, at least at the level of the society or group.  So far no one is suggesting that morality is subjective at the individual level, which seems as though it would result in chaos.   But what does it mean to be subjective at the society or group level.   In practice that probably means that as long as either 51% of the society or group agree, or if there is some sort of intellectual or ruling "elite" who guide the society, that decisions about morality will be made by either of those two groups.   Personally the idea of 51% being able to impose their will on 49% doesn't sit well with me on some level.  Of course, neither does having some "elite" class doing the same thing.  The primary problem with this construct is that things change.  For example, in many cultures throughout history (even today in many Islamic nations) chattel slavery was a practice that was approved of by a majority of the population, which made it a moral practice based on the social mores of the groups in question.   Nowadays, many people regard chattel slavery as an immoral act and condemn it.   Yet, if one holds to morality as subjective and society driven, then both the anti slavery society and pro slavery society are moral as defined by their societal norms.    Or, what happens when a society changes it's mind?   Again take slavery.  For years slavery was considered as a moral act by much of western society.  Yet as attitudes changed, slavery was considered immoral.   This raises the question, can an act be immoral at one point in the development of a society, yet immoral at another point.

The second is that morality is self evident.   This one raises numerous questions.

1.  If morality is self evident, why do we see so much variation on moral principles from society to society and group to group?
2.   If morality is self evident, how do we explain the large numbers of people who act in immoral ways?
3.   How can morality be both self evident and subjective/
4.   How can one argue that protecting the right to live is self evidently moral, and argue that abortion is not immoral?   (That abortion is either moral or morally neutral)
5.   When people engage in acts that contravene these self evident morals, why do they engage in those acts?
6.   Are people simply unaware of these self evident moral standards and act from ignorance?
7.   Are people aware of these self evident moral standards, yet choose to act contrary to them?
8.   If a member of a society who considers it moral to randomly kill innocent people, acts in a way they (and their society) believe to be (subjectively) moral, what basis do other societies have to condemn those actions?
9.   Are actions moral or are individuals moral?

Finally, no matter whether you believe that morality is subjective and culture driven or that morality is objective and God directed, what morality really comes down to is simply exercising human effort in order to outwardly conform to some external standard of behavior.   It doesn't address motive or attitude.  It doesn't address acts in private.  It is simply peer pressure from either society or authority that forces conformity of action.     Don't get me wrong, "Don't kill innocent people." is a good moral standard from either perspective and I'm glad that most of the world agrees, but is it enough to simply exert enough control to avoid acting on our impulses?

Jesus never once told people to be moral.   Jesus told the one guy who bragged about how moral he was that his incredible morality wasn't enough.   Jesus talked about not just avoiding actually killing people, but about avoiding the internal hatred that is equivalent to killing someone, about the lust of the heart that is the equivalent of adultery.    Jesus commanded us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love others the way we love ourselves.   Jesus talked about how those who love Him will keep His commandments, He never mentions conforming to some societal ordained subjective list of behaviors.     Elsewhere we hear talk about faith and not works, lest anyone should boast about how incredibly moral they are.

I guess I conclude that subjective societal morality certainly plays a role in regulating behavior, but that if someone claims to follow Jesus then that bar just seems like it's much to low.  

Personally being moral doesn't seem like much to boast about, but if it's enough for some, then I guess it's better than nothing.

Incredible

Part of the root of this ongoing discussion about morality, is Dans claim that he is "incredibly" moral.  So I thought it might be helpful to look at what "incredible" (or" incredibly") means in the hope of providing some understanding.

INCREDIBLE

1.  Difficult or impossible to believe.
2.  Too extraordinary and improbable to be believed
3.  Amazing, Extraordinary
4.   So implausible as to elicit disbelief

5.   Astonishing, extraordinary, or extreme

6.    Beyond belief or understanding; unbelievable

7.    So extraordinary as to seem impossible

 

So, in reality, the claim being made is that Dan is so moral that the level of his adherence to a set of subjective societal rules is simply beyond the ability of people to believe, that he is so good at obeying subjective societal rules that it seems impossible that anyone could be that good at obeying subjective societal rules.

 

As an aside.  One of my cousins is an incredible musician, he has been compared to people like Jimi Hendrix, people who have literally changed how people thought about what can be done with a given musical instrument and genre.   The terms that others use to describe him are glowing, and incredible is entirely appropriate.    But, I can't for a second imaging him describing himself in the terms others use.   He is much mor humble and reticent when talking about his musical abilities.

 

I think that most of us are unwilling to make superlative claims about ourselves call it modesty, humility, realism, self deprecation, what have you that when someone actually makes such an outlandish claim about themselves that it comes off as jarring, like a note out of tune.

 

Had Dan simply said something like "I think I'm a pretty moral guy." or "I think that I'm more moral than the average person." then I wouldn't have had a problem.  It's the claim that "I'm so moral that people can't believe how amazingly, extraordinarily, impossibly moral I am."  that rubs me the wrong way.

 

Jesus encountered a guy like this, a guy who claimed that he'd kept every single law perfectly from the time he was born, Jesus punctured his balloon.   

 

I suspect that one way Dan has convinced himself that he is "incredibly" moral is that he has constructed a system of morals which happen to align with how he behaves.   He's clearly made comments in earlier threads that indicate that he does not believe that things like drug use, pornography, or abortion are immoral.  His point may be that he believes them morally neutral, but even that puts him at odds with millions of people.

 

In closing, perhaps modesty and humility is a more appropriate choice when describing ones self    

 

At least for now, I am not going to allow comments on this post.   This is simply my expressing my opinion and explaining why I have responded in the way I have to Dan's claim.   Given that I fail to see how comments will be useful.   Comments about this posted elsewhere will, of course, be ignored and/or deleted.

Beginnings

I suspect that most would acknowledge that everything that currently exists has an ultimate beginning.   I also suspect that how one views that beginning speaks volumes about their worldview.   Here are three options for what caused that beginning, each of which has ramifications for ones values and moral code.

1.   Everything that exists was created from nothing.  Absolute nothing.

2.   Everything that exists was created by some impersonal force.  Energy, matter, gravity, time, chance, whatever.

3.   Everything that exists was created by some personal force.  

Interesting racist drivel

A good piece, even if it is written by someone who is clearly racist.


http://freedomsjournalinstitute.org/latest-news/family/white-privilege-black-fathers/

Mass shootings

Lots of talk lately about mass shootings and how to stop them after the terrorist attack in Orlando.  Yet, one wonders why the attack below by an armed man at a club didn't get nearly the publicity of the Orlando attack.



http://www.goupstate.com/article/20160627/ARTICLES/160629757/-1/wire?Title=Lyman-man-charged-following-shooting-at-nightclub


I have a few thoughts on why, but for now I'll just let this stand.

Some things shouldn't be ignored

There is a wide ranging discussion spread over a couple of blogs that boils down to one's view of "regulated worship" and "Christian Liberty".   While both constructs seem to have significant basis in scripture, they are still an attempt to corral a bunch of widely separated scriptures and to give those scriptures a label to express a scriptural concept in a sort of shorthand.

At one of the blog I posited that this whole discussion really boiled down to how one answers a few questions, and listed the questions.   Since they were ignored over there, and since some folks who might not comment there might comment here, I'm going to list them here.

1. Are there any limits on what is appropriate in corporate worship at all?
2. If a book contains any rules does that automatically classify it as a "rule book"?
3. If a book, or compilation of books contain a number of different genres of literature, dose that fact automatically invalidate one of the genres?
4. Does the human construct of "Christian Liberty" automatically trump the human construct of "Regulated Worship", even though both have scriptural support? If so, why?
5. Does the construct of "Christian Liberty" have any limits at all?

I honestly think that #1 and #5 are the most significant, but that's just me.

Infant Baptism

Back in the early 90’s I spent a fair amount of time considering the concept of infant baptism when my first child was born.    I was a member of a church which practiced infant baptism and I felt like I needed to decide whether or not to baptize, dedicate, or skip the entire thing.   After a fair amount of investigation I came to a few conclusions.

1.       

• 1.       Most importantly I realized that baptism, while important, was not required for salvation.
• 2.       I concluded that the Roman Catholic position was problematic.
• 3.       The position of my denomination that allowed only for infant baptism or adult baptism was also problematic.
• 4.       Biblically, baptism was an act performed by adult believers.
• 5.       Infant baptism as practiced by the church I was part of was much more analogous to the Jewish ritual circumcision than to believer baptism.
• 6.       There is a certain value in having some type of ritual in which the parents and the church make promises to the child and acknowledge that both parties are accepting some responsibilities for the spiritual welfare of the child.

In short, while I think that calling what happens baptism is a poor label, I think that there is value in the sacramentally making a set of promises between the child, the family, and the local congregation on behalf of the Church.

Recently, I had the occasion to reflect on this and what exactly we as a congregation were promising.  In my experience, most people affirm the promise they make thinking that they might teach Sunday School or VBS of something like that and to engage in some general act that will generally help the child grow up in the faith.

A few weeks ago this seemingly theoretical question became immediately and crushingly real to me, when I got the call that my younger sister had died suddenly leaving two young daughters without a mother.   At one point during the week between her death and the funeral there was a prayer service at the church, at which someone brought up the point that this circumstance was the time when the church needed to step up and honor the promise that was made when these two girls were baptized.   Not in a “Hey I’ll bring cookies to VBS.” way, but in a real, deep, ongoing, and meaningful way. 

Obviously the family, both immediate and extended, has the primary responsibility, but that doesn’t let the Church off the hook.   

I actually am looking forward to see how this plays out over the next several years and to see some amazing people step into roles in the lives of these two girls in amazing ways and in ways that we can’t even imagine.     This is one of those areas in which the Church can and does step up and really shine and frequently does.

Not sure how to title this.

If someone says that they will do something.  If they specifically say "I will do thus and so...", and then fail to do what they said they would do, how does one refer to that?

Is it a simple oversight to be ignored?
Is it a lie?
Is it just confusion?


What if they fail to do what they said, then they act as if they did?  Does that make any difference? 

I'm just curious as I am in a situation where this is happening and I don't know how to deal with it and how far I should push it.

Shakira was right.

A few years ago Latin pop star Shakira had a hit song called "Hips Don't Lie".   As I have reflected on the recent controversy over folks who claim to be a different gender than their biology might indicate, the truth of Shakira's claim struck me.

One of the many biological differences between those who are male and female is the skeletal structure, especially of the hips.

I find it strange that so many who elevate Science to an almost god like entity and who so fervently grab on to what Science tells us, are perfectly willing (in certain cases) to completely abandon the hard science of biology and the numerous undeniable biological differences between male and female (down to the cellular level) in favor of advancing a political agenda with virtually no hard science behind it.   

So to put this in pop culture terms.  Folks have chosen to ignore the scientific fact that "Hips Don't Lie" in favor of "Man, I Feel Like a Woman".

Science

"Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder."


Wow, that's pretty harsh.  One must wonder what kind of person would make those sorts of comments

Ahhhhhhh, life in the Peoples Republic

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/25/minnesota-parents-sue-to-get-trans-classes-in-kindergarten/

It would appear that a couple of progressive, liberated, forward thinking parents in St Paul have decided to indulge their 5 year old child in it's desire to "be" a girl.   Not only that, but they are demanding that the child's school adopt their preferred curriculum and protect the child from bullying.   Now the school has a "no bullying" policy and so far there is nothing that I've seen that clearly demonstrates that the school has not followed the existing policy on bullying in this case.

But, just for now, let's leave aside the ridiculousness of parents demanding that the school teach a curriculum of the parents choice.   Let's leave aside the controversy over the entire "transgender" issue.   Let's leave aside the fact that "transgendered" folks have a disproportionately high suicide rate.    Let's focus on one simple fact.


This is a flippin' 5 year old child.   On what planet do responsible parents indulge a 5 year old in whatever feelings they happen to have on any given day.   Most rational folks would agree that a 5 year old does not have the mental capacity to fully comprehend all of the myriad ramifications stemming from their feelings.   There is a reason why we don't allow our children to make certain decisions until they are 18 (unless it's certain forms of elective surgery in which case they are not only allowed but encouraged to make life and death decisions without parental involvement).   There is a reason why we don't throw 12 year old's the keys to the Benz and say go have fun.   There is a reason why we have an age of consent.  

Part of the job of parents and society is to protect children from bad decisions based on their lack of maturity.  Part of the job of parents and society is to help teach children how to make wiser decisions as they get older and to encourage an increasing level of decision making and responsibility on the part of the child as they grow older and more mature.

(HYPERBOLE ALERT)

As far as I'm concerned, a case could be made that these parents are engaging in behavior which is the equivalent of child abuse.  

One wonders what else these parent of the year candidates are williong to indulge their 5 year old in.

I just found this in my draft folder. It's a post from way back when. It's one of the posts where I went through multiple questions from Dan and answered all of them in one place. I realize it's out of context, but I did all the work and figured that one more example of answering questions is always a good healthy thing.

One more in the series of answers for Dan, this one picks up on Oct. 17, 2014 and hopefully will get through the current discussion thread as of Oct. 29, 2014.

1. "What do you think it is a literal term for?" Actually, it is an English translation of the Greek work “Theopneustos” which is more literally translated “given by inspiration of God,”. So, if it is a metaphor, then it’s a metaphor for “given by inspiration of God”.

 2. "But by all means, demonstrate using your intense knowledge of babies what they are guilty of? Shitting their diaper?" I would agree with the historic Christian doctrine of Original Sin which suggests that all of humanity is born with a sin nature and that "all have sinned" means what it says.

3. "But “wow,” what? You find it somehow amazing that people have this CRAZZZZZZZZY notion that babies are, by definition, innocent and have not committed a sin? That IS NUTSO, eh? This questions misrepresents my position, and therefore is not worth any further attention.

 4. "Can you admit your error there?" No, because I cut/pasted your actual words and responded to your declaration.

 5. "Can you admit your error here?" Again, I have not made an error here to admit.

 6. "Or are you having a problem with reality?" You seem to be suggesting that your hunch is equal to reality, how can this be? can you demonstrate that your hunch is in fact reality?

 7. "Understand the error now?" Obviously I've dealt with this already, but by including it I hope to make the point that virtually no questions have been ignored.

 8. "Who says I need God’s definition of innocence to communicate an idea in English?" Since the idea you seem to be trying to communicative is that God considers babies innocent, it would only make sense that you understand what God considers innocent. Further, you have not established the fact that God is somehow bound by any English language definition.

 9. "So, why would you or I not use English words with their given definitions to communicate in English? What are you suggesting I/we do?" If your point is only that you, using an English definition of innocent. opine that babies are innocent in your eyes there is no problem. Where the problem lies is that were talking about how God views babies and there sin. Once you cross that line, then you have to provide something to underpin your hunch. You haven't.

10. "Am I mistaken?" Not in your mind.

11. "What is it you want me to “prove…”? That MW defines words as I’ve cited?" No, I would like to to demonstrate that your hunch is anything more than your hunch. You are suggesting that it is an objective fact that babies are innocent in the eyes of god, so demonstrate that your assertion is something other than your personal opinion.

 12. "I suspect that you all just want to bully people into accepting whatever definition you humans are assigning to these words as being equal to “fact” and/or “god’s word…” but why would we do that?" This appears to be rhetorical, so I'm treating it as such.

 13. "On. What. Basis?" On.The.Basis.That.You.Should.Defend.Claims.You.Have.Made.

14. "What claim do you think I made?" That babies are factually, objectively, 100% innocent and free from all sin from God's perspective.


 15. "By what authority do I say that a baby is innocent as defined in the dictionary?" OK you can read the dictionary, so what does a 2014 dictionary definition have to do with God commanding the Israelites to engage in certain actions? Again, we're talking about what God thinks, not the dictionary.

16. "Innocent means what it means. What the hell are you asking?" How many times must I repeat myself?

17. "Look, do you even recognize how crazy it sounds to say (if you are saying it) that babies are guilty of some crime/misdeed? They have not done anything but be born, poop and eat… what could they possibly have done? Are you suggesting that pooping is a crime/misdeed?? What have they done?" Why must I answer these things over and over?

 18. "Do you not recognize how insane that sounds?" I realize that it sounds insane to you that i might think that God has a different way to look at guilt or innocence than you do. But how things sound to you isn't really the point, is it? Do you realize how insane it sounds for to to demand that God be limited to a dictionary definition that you've cherry picked to try to bolster your hunch?

19. "Do you disagree that, just rationally, it would be insane to punish someone for something they did not do?" I think it's insane to try to limit the criteria that God might or might not use for judgement based on your definition of fair.

20. "Do you have a different guess?" I'll go with the historic doctrine of Original Sin, as well as the scriptural support you ignored earlier.

 21. "Do you think God holds babies accountable as “sinners” for doing nothing/making no conscious decision to do wrong?" Asked and answered.

 22. "Do you speak for God when you make your guesses?" No, I believe that the Bible speaks clearly enough on many things that to accept Biblical teaching is tantamount to God speaking for Himself.

 23. "Are your guesses equivalent to facts?" No.

24. "If so, on what basis would we grant that belief any credibility?" After you refute the Biblical/historical case I made at John's then we can discuss this. As long as you ignore things, I see no reason for mindless repetition.

25. "By what authority are you not understanding what I said?" I do understand what you said, I'm taking your words at face value.

26. "By what rationality are you dodging reasonable questions?" I've answered well over a hundred of your direct questions, while you haven't reciprocated. You continuing to make this accusation after being corrected is simply continuing to lie.

 27. "Do you disagree? If so, what wrong has a 1 day old child committed?" Asked and answered.

28. "On what basis would you make such a crazy claim?" I haven't made the claim, you keep insisting I have. It seems crazy to keep insisting that I have made a claim I haven't made.

29. "And do you not realize how detached from reality this line of grilling is on your part?" I was unaware that you have been deputized to define reality. It seems that insisting that I have made a claim that I have clearly not made, ignoring my explanations of why you are wrong, then repeating the wrong claim is truly divorced from reality.

30. "Who says that God is the only judge of ultimate innocence or guilt?" I'd start with the Bible. Do you have another option"

31. "Who says God has a “standard” by which he judges innocence and guilt?" One would presume that a judge would have a standard that is used to make judgements.

32. "And regardless, what does that have to do with what I’ve said?" You keep insisting that babies are innocent, and that God (by ordering the killing of entire populations) wouldn't order the killing of innocents. For your hunch to be true, you must demonstrate that the babies in question as innocent in according to God's standard. Failure to do so, renders your entire hunch unsupported guesswork.

 33. "So, in your opinion, God IS the only judge of guilt or innocence?" Who else would you suggest? I'd suggest that there is ample Biblical evidence to support the contention that God is the ultimate judge. Of course, if you deny this, it screws up your beloved Matthew 25 interpretation.

 34. "Is your opinion on this matter equal to fact, or is it just your opinion?" I never said it was.

 35. "On what basis would you presume to say your opinion is fact?" Since I didn't make the claim, I see no reason to defend a claim I didn't make.

 36. "What is the support for such a claim?" Already provided

 37. "Has God told you this?' In so far as the Bible is "the Word of God", the answer is yes.

38. "On What Basis?" Why don't you provide some basis for your hunches and stop asking this stupid question.

 39. "John, Craig, Marshall: Are newborn babes guilty of something? Of what?What did they do? Demonstrate, please with some hard data.On what basis would you claim that babies are guilty of something? Where is your support? Do you not recognize how crazy that sounds, how detached from reality?" Asked and answered.


As I went through and did some formatting I was struck by the fact that Dan is still asking the same questions today that he was when this was put together.   I was also struck by the fact that in this post alone (not to mention the others from the same time) I sought out and answered 39 questions from a series of posts in an effort to  demonstrate the falseness of Dan's "No one even answers my questions." claims.  I'll leave decisions of his veracity to others ("I answer 95% of the questions asked of me."), but I decided since I did the work on this post I should go ahead and put it out.