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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
61 comments:
Dan deletes my comments all the time. And of course, he will more often than not comment on the comment he deleted, as if all who read (assuming there are more readers than just you and I) must take HIS word on what it was he deleted. The latest case in point is his recent post entitled Pride Festival, 2016 (Friday, June 17, 2016). It was about an event at which he gathered with "a few thousand friends and strangers" to "take a stand for Love." (ain't that sweet?) My comment was along the lines of "you took a stand for 'lust'".
As we all know by now, anything short of total support and celebration of sexual immorality at Dan's blog will result in the severest of chastisements, because..."Grace". In fact, his "gracious" responses described my comments thusly:
"hateful response borne of ignorance"
"vile pollution"
"ugly and negative opinions"
"slander" (a Dan favorite)
"false claims"
"ad hom attacks" (another biggie for Dan)
"contemptible"
"disgusting"
"evil"
Of course, there is the charge that I'm saying mean things about people I don't even know. Imagine pointing out the hatefulness of a neo-Nazi parade and being told that! Incredible. The exchange ended in this way:
"Do you have anything to say on topic that is not an ad hom attack? If not, I'll invite you to move on.
~Dan"
(Me)
"I already did have something to say that was on topic and not an ad hom. You deleted it because the truth is abhorrent to you."
"So, that's a NO, you DON'T have anything to say on topic that isn't an ad hom attack? Got it. That being the case, move on.
~Dan"
An honest person, even if that person was to have objected to my comments, perhaps finding them inappropriate, would have allowed them to stand with an explanation for why the comments were deemed inappropriate to go along with the admonishment. Dan deletes, puts his singular spin on what he deleted so as to demonize as much as possible the person he deleted, and then has the great audacity to encourage the person to "embrace grace", as if he could even explain what that's supposed to mean. (I guess it sounds holy)
Those rare occasions when I delete comments are pretty much for the same reasons and circumstances that provokes you to delete. More generally, I prefer to let all view the character of the opponent, the types of comments published within our exchange and then let the reader make his own judgements. And since Dan's descriptions of what he deleted are incredibly hyperbolic and never accurate assessments, one is required to take Dan's word for it. But the deleted know how untrustworthy he is.
This is a comment that was deleted earlier today it was categorized as false claims and dodging the question.
"I'm asking, what else do you rely upon?"
you're asking that now, after it was pointed out that your first attempt failed to even acknowledge the statement you claim prompted your question.
It also ignores the fact that while I've explained my reasons for not engaging in this discussion again, you continue to falsely characterize my comments and falsely accuse me of "dodging" you, all the while erasing the evidence that would demonstrate the falseness of your accusations.
Quite the contrary to your presumptions about how I feel (you need to feed that pride somehow), I'm not at all intimidated or misunderstood. I've answered this before, you didn't like or accept my answer so I see no reason to repeat that pointless experience. This usually works better of you don't dismiss peoples answers before you get them.
This is a soon to be deleted comment. In the interest of accuracy it seems reasonable that the text of the comments that Dan is deleting be available if for no other reason that to compare it to his editorial comments and characterizations.
I'm asking, what else do you rely upon?"
I guess it's pointless to point out that this is a different question from the one you demanded I answer, and that you have yet to acknowledge this indisputable fact.
As with many things that problem is in the terms and the meaning. You have made it quite clear that fallible human Reason is "all we have", you've rhetorically asked "What else is there?", so it's clear that you place a high value on and a great deal of faith in your fallible, limited, human Reason. Given that, it's understandable that you judge things like scripture, prayer, theology, Christian scholarship through the lens of what you find to be Reasonable. This is so ingrained in your being that for anyone to suggest any possible alternative is met with derision and skepticism, not with acceptance and grace. So, if I were to say that instead of submitting scripture, prayer. etc. to the litmus test of what I find reasonable, I instead submit what I find reasonable to the litmus test of prayer, scripture, Christian scholarship, the counsel of the body of Christ, I might as well be speaking Tagalog or Urdu for all the sense this perspective makes to you. So, instead of adding to your confusion and making myself a target for your ridicule, derision, and contradiction, I choose not to play this particular game.
I realize that it gives you great satisfaction and pride to be able to delete my comments than falsely represent them. I realize that your commitment to your personal, fallible, limited, human Reason above all else gives you some sort of a sense of power or control, but since it's limited to just you it has no value in any larger context.
I completely understand that you feel like this one way exchange of me explaining things to you, you deleting them, and falsely representing what you've deleted represents a two way, Reasonable, mature, conversation while you pat yourself on the back for your incredible grace. While that may give you some sort of warm feeling, I'm just saddened.
One more probably destined for the chopping block.
"But Bubba, I don't think this is the problem. I could be wrong, but I don't think Craig was misunderstanding. He has said, somewhere, that I will only mock or tease him if he does give his answer. So, it doesn't sound like he's misunderstanding the question, but that he's afraid his answer will seem silly or mock-able."
In most evangelical Christian circles that answers that I have given you would be considered Orthodox, but with your tendency to ridicule and mock Orthodox Christian thought, my hesitation to engage with you again is understandable.
I have to note that in your version of this thread you somehow managed to give the impression through selective quoting that I have not answered or responded to any of your questions. Again, if this is what you believe Reasonable, adult conversation to be it just reinforces my concerns.
I have to say that you have admirably supported my contention that you consider your human, limited, fallible, Reason to be "all" you have. The simple fact that you have absolutely nothing else that you can rely on besides your human, fallible, limited, Reason is kind of sad in it's hubris.
So, while you reject all except your human, limited, fallible, Reason please understand that there others out in the world that choose not to limit themselves.
MA,
Of course he deletes comments, he does it all the time. Yet somehow he can, with a straight face, say "I hardly, never, ever, ever, delete comments unless they are insane, hellish, and graceless." or "I answer 95% of all of the questions I'm asked." in the middle of a series of unanswered questions. I could copy/paste once more some of the vile nasty things Dan has said about me, but everyone but Dan knows what they are and how vile and graceless he can be.
Look, if he wants to play the deleting comments game, that's fine it's his blog. But to pretend that he's on some kind of moral high horse while falsely representing the comments he deletes (destroying the evidence as it were), is really kind of pathetic and sad. It's kind of like when I've warned him repeatedly and specifically about something that will get his comments deleted, and he ignores my warnings. Then has the gall to blame me because he isn't mature enough to play by the rules.
It's the double standard that we constantly come back to, that he pretends doesn't exist.
MA,
I know this is off topic, but back in the thread at your blog when Dan and Feo were all worked up because Trump said something they considered racist? Apparantly one of the presidential candidates referred to someone as an "Fxxxxxg Jew Bxxxxxd", I wonder what kind of response that one will get.
Thanks for reminding me about that, Craig! As I immediately searched out details, it led me to this, which I posted at each of my two most recent posts (in the comments sections). It nicely deals with both allegations of Trump racism and his low character as reasons why Christians just can't cast a vote for him.
The delete button is probably coming back out, so here goes.
Dan,
If you want that to be the answer, then sure. As I said, it's more than that and I have no desire to try to explain something to you that you clearly haven't understood previously.
If you can accept and acknowledge the differences in our approaches and simply allow those differences to be, that would be great.
The simple answer is that you claim that Reason is "all we have", I'd suggest that there is more and that part of that more is prayer, scripture, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wise counsel of other believers, history, scholarship, and theology. The fact that you reduce everything to the "all there is" of fallible, limited human Reason doesn't mean that you are correct, it just means that that what you'll settle for.
Again, we're talking about two completely different diametrically opposite approaches here. While I understand yours and the rationale that leads you to your Reason is "all we have" approach and I disagree with it, I don't see any point in trying to explain any more about my approach given your inability to even admit that there is any possible option beyond limited, fallible, human Reason. If you can't even accept that there is another option, how could you possibly take any other proposed option seriously.
I'm sorry that your mind is made up. I'm sorry that you can't or won't open yourself up to anything beyond Reason. I'm sorry that you have such a hard time dealing with your frustration. I'm sorry that my previous experience answering this question has made me unwilling to deal with your dismissive ridicule again. Mostly I'm sorry that you can't conceive of any possible alternative beyond limited, fallible human reason.
As far as you being reasonable. I'm sure that you think that misrepresenting deleted comments is reasonable and shows grace. I'm sure you think that failing to acknowledge that your initial question ignored the content of the statement that you claim inspired it. I'm sure you think it's reasonable to ignore my repeated explanations for why I prefer not to go into detail on this topic. I'm sure you think every single thing you do and say is reasonable, because to you Reason is "all we have".
So, if you think the reasonable and grace filled thing to do is to resume deleting and misrepresenting my comments, go right ahead. I can't stop you, and don't care that much. From here on out, my comments will appear elsewhere so as to allow the possibility for others to compare your characterizations with reality.
I'll summarize.
Dan's view- Reason is "all we have", everything else is subject to Dan's individual, limited, fallible, human Reason.
Craig's view- Reason is but one tool in a larger tool box, but is ultimately valuable in so far as it aligns with what we know about God, His nature, and His will.
Strangely enough, about the time I started posting copies of my comments Dan stopped deleting them. Coincidence?
If reality matters, I have said that I very rarely delete, not never. If facts matter. And that is a fact.
Spam, attacks on others and belligerent, noncooperative commenters will often have those comments deleted. It's a fair rule, I think.
"attacks on others and belligerent, noncooperative commenters will often have those comments deleted. It's a fair rule, I think."
Fair? That would be based on YOUR idea of fair, correct? That is to say, you regard as attacks or belligerence pretty much anything that disagrees with your position, and worse if it is accompanied by facts and/or evidence. The same goes for "non-cooperative" commenters. It's based on your incredibly subjective and self-serving notions of what constitutes "not cooperating".
No, attacks on others is when a post is about a bunch of families and a community comes together - churches, neighbors, families, friends - to celebrate love and diversity and goodness... and then someone who does not know a SINGLE PERSON THERE, has the audacity to say that they are celebrating sexual depravity. That person is truly entirely ignorant of these people's motives and he does not know what they are celebrating or not. The attack on their character had nothing to do with the point of the post and it was entirely ignorant. That is an attack on innocent people and you may let it slide on your blog if you want, but attacks on innocent people will not stand on mine.
The point of the post was NOT, "What is your opinion of gay folk marrying..." or "what is your opinion of Pride Festivals."
These are amongst some of our most historically oppressed people and YOU, Marshall, may choose to continue the oppression and your evil ignorant charges on your blog if you so choose, but not on my blog.
You'll have to get over that.
As to Not Cooperating, when I have a frequent commenter who frequently does not answer the very specific questions I am asking and we are in the midst of a pretty important discussion and he continues to not answer a specific direct question germane to the topic and I politely insist, "Before you say anything else, please give your direct answer to THIS question... If not, I will delete your comments until you do so..." Is a reasonable request. ESPECIALLY given that this fella whines that I sometimes don't accurately represent his position. You can't simultaneously cry about misrepresentation AND refuse to answer clarifying questions. That just isn't reasonable adult conversation.
It's a reasonable request. Why would anyone refuse to cooperate if they are acting in good faith?
Subtle Dan, subtle.
The problem with your self justification is that it ignores several factors concealed by your deleting as well as by your false characterization of the deleted comments.
The 2 most significant factors you ignore are;
1. The fact that I have answered this very question elsewhere.
2. Your reaction to my previous answer to this question is directly affecting my willingness to answer it again.
The fact that you pretend as if I have not explained my reasons for not answering again, that you add snarky comments that insinuate reasons other than the specifics given. That is why I choose not to have this conversation again, not fear or whatever other made up crap you spout, it's a direct result of your past and current behavior.
So dpin and blame as much as you want, falsely characterize my comments and motives, rephrase my comments and twist them so you can make it sound like we agree.
You do whatever you need to bolster your pride and to try to inject something positive into your selfish, limited, fallible, subjective,, human Reason centered worldview.
Go ahead and boast about the whole two questions you responded to, while ignoring the questions in my post about the problems with your moral construct. We can just ignore the fact that your responses were just recitations of the unproven premise you've concocted and cling to. Because we wouldn't want to even hint that you're anything but incredible.
Seems to me that maybe a bit less pride and a bit more humility would be a good thing.
One last thing, as long as you repeatedly misrepresent the views of those you disagree with, it makes it hard to take you seriously and raises serious questions about how good your Reason really is.
I guess the deleting has started again.
It's probably because i pointed out that referring to someones opinions as "Insane and hellish legalism" was not a great example of how he does "extend some grace, some benefit of the doubt." to those who disagree with him.
I guess deleting comments that point out flaws in your positions is just one more example of extending "some grace, some benefit of the doubt.".
Of course now he doesn't have the unanswered question excuse, he doesn't have the "uncooperative, attacks on others" excuse all he has left is just a demonstration of his "incredible morality", "grace" and giving the "benefit of the doubt" to those who disagree.
Although maybe providing evidence of the lie of those claims is being uncooperative.
Unfortunately, I didn't copy them here so I guess "grace" wins out over truth this time.
Re: "It's probably because I pointed out..."
It's because, as I politely told you, I would like you to answer these questions I asked of you. Answer them, and you can post.
It's a reasonable request, politely requested.
"Grace" over truth. It's interesting that even after I've answered your questions you maintain the fiction that I haven't.
You gave a response to my questions but you did not answer the question being asked. Just go take a look at the first one.
You said you take all things into consideration the data, the Bible, other ideas and opinions, etc and submit your reason to scripture... or words to that effect.
I'm asking, how do you assess these other things if you do not use your reason. You assess them using your reason. Look again at the question being asked and the response you gave... take a breath, consider it. I think you will see you are not answering the question that is being asked of you. You are answering the question do you try to submit your reason to scripture and all these other things? I'm asking how do you assess these other things if not using your reason?
See?
Look, you're saying you submit your reason to the Bible and other things. Okay the Bible says the Earth has four corners but you do not take it to the Earth is literally square. Why not? Because you use your reason to understand that it is imagery. Jesus says do not store up Treasures on Earth. But you do not take that literally. Why not? Because to say that wasn't meant to be taken as a little command. The Quakers the Amish and other traditions for hundreds of years have read Jesus words is it clearly Jesus was a pacifist. You do not take those teachings literally. you do not agree with that traditional assessment. Why not? You use your reason.
The question was how do you assess those various things. I do not see any answer that you are giving except for using your reason.
I'm sorry the concept of comparing things is beyond you. It seems as if you really don't care what the answer is as long as you can twist or bully it or me into using the term you want me to use.
It's interesting that you apparently didn't read the entire post, if you had you wouldn't have wasted your time. If I was you, I'd delete the comment and characterize it in a way as to be as derisive and insulting as possible, but I'm not.
I've answered you. It's my answer and I'm pretty sure that I should be able to give the answer without having to conform to your demands.
It surprises me that you are so intolerant of people who hold different views than you. Intolerance seems like the antithesis of grace.
Once again, thank you ever so much for correcting me regarding what I do and how I go about things. It's like you believe that you know me better than I know me and that you are going to hector me into compliance.
I get that you want to hammer every square peg you can't grasp into your round hole of limited, personal , subjective , fallible, fallen human Reason and it frustrates you when people don't accept your unproven subjective pronouncements and act accordingly.
Again, perhaps a smidge of the tolerance,grace, and benefit of the doubt you're so proud of might be in order.
You have to have noticed by now that I don't buy your "Reason is all" approach, and you certainly haven't done anything to demonstrate that your claim is factual, but have I ridiculed you? Called your spproach "magical", "hellish", or "legalistic"? Done anything other than show you the tolerance to continue in your worldview, as ultimately hopeless and nihilistic as it seems to me? It's interesting that it's the tolerant progressive showing virtually no tolerance while the intolerant conservative is willing to live and let live.
I gladly leave you to your Rationslism if that's your thing. I may write a bit about the philosophy, ask some questions, but won't denegrate or ridicule you for your choices.
I'm sorry you've chosen a different path.
"No, attacks on others is when a post is about a bunch of families and a community comes together - churches, neighbors, families, friends - to celebrate love and diversity and goodness... and then someone who does not know a SINGLE PERSON THERE, has the audacity to say that they are celebrating sexual depravity."
So let me get this straight (no pun intended): You chastise me for the possibility that I may vote for an immoral guy when my clearly and repeatedly state motivations for doing so have nothing whatsoever to do with his immorality, which I also stated I most strongly oppose, and you have a problem with me questioning the motivations of people who are celebrating an ACTUAL immoral behavior, as described by the God you claim to worship. Got it. Are they no less proud of themselves for their behavior than Trump is said to be about his own? The difference is that the people you joined support and celebrate the same depravity that you do. Trump, apparently does not. I don't need to judge those people. They admit and take pride in their immorality, just like Trump does. They condemn themselves, or as God said. "their blood will be on their own heads." They are not "innocent" when they are guilty of celebrating sexual immorality.
"These are amongst some of our most historically oppressed people..."
Not even close, historically or otherwise. But that lie aside, what oppression they've endured due to their dysfunctional attraction is a result of their appeasing that dysfunction by engaging in the physical manifestation of the condition and being caught doing it. I don't have to condone the methods by which they have been "oppressed" (such as islam's methods for dealing with them), but that doesn't mitigate the fact that they chose to indulge their compulsions when they never had to.
MA,
As long as your comment is deleted, Dan can portray it in whatever way strikes his fancy as long as it serves his purpose.
For example, when I delete Dan's comments, if I say anything it is to reiterate what the behavior was that caused the comment to be deleted and to explain what needs to happen for his privileges to be restored. Occasionally I will respond to portions of a comment by quoting the section in context, but I can't think of a time when I have made editorial comments about what's been deleted. Again, it's perfect in that he can delete your comment, then portray it is virtually anything he wants because he's deleted the evidence.
As you know Dan just does this out of his incredible reserves of grace, tolerance, and benefit of the doubt.
Danny's quick on the trigger with deleting today.
"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."
"...to turn them from wrongdoing and keep them from pride,..."
"In his pride the wicked man does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God."
"Let their lying lips be silenced, for with pride and contempt they speak arrogantly against the righteous."
" To fear the Lord is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech."
"When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom."
"Pride brings a person low, but the lowly in spirit gain honor."
"The arrogance of man will be brought low and human pride humbled; the Lord alone will be exalted in that day,..."
"I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless."
"The pride of your heart has deceived you,..."
I'm sure this will be deleted, but it's maybe another look at pride.
This just went up on the gay pride post, let's see how long it is before this gets labeled as divisive and ad hom.
It IS ignorant and you have been advised to be on topic and future ignorant and off topic, hateful comments will be removed. I did allow that you may truly be ignorant of what you're speaking of and not deliberately attacking. So if you truly are ignorant and would like some education you may respectfully ask questions. I will not allow attacks on oppressed people or slander with people you do not know to go on the post though.
Really, ignorant. Looking at some of what the bible says about pride is ignorant. That's a new level of redefinition.
Examining what the scriptures say about pride in a post with pride in the title is off topic, really?
YES, Craig. Just like if someone at a conservative blog were talking about family values and someone cited child rape and forced marriages as a biblical example of family values. It is a lie and a slander and a distortion of the intent on the post.
Do you not understand that?
"Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things."
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
"You sit and speak against your brother; You slander your own mother's son."
"Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. "
"A perverse man spreads strife, And a slanderer separates intimate friends."
"With his mouth the godless man destroys his neighbor, But through knowledge the righteous will be delivered."
"The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart."
No Dan. As we try to get you to do, and constantly failing, is to explain how you could so badly misconstrue passages dealing with "child rape" and "forced marriages" as to believe they mean anything that spells "Christian Family Values". Craig isn't distorting anything with regards to verses about "pride". Homosexuals, and you, however, are perverting morality in order to take pride in being immoral. THAT form of pride is what all those verses offered by Craig rejects. It is more than relevant to your post. It is necessary.
Fortunately for the world, YOU do not get to decide what is appropriate for anyone else or anyone else's blog.
You all are attacking something that is good, noble, true, pure, loving, respectful and trying to treat it as if it is evil.
You are calling Good, "evil," and joining forces with the "accusers" who would attack the good and loving. Shame on you.
Embrace grace, men.
At the very least, educate yourselves so you're not speaking from a place of ignorance.
""Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things.""
How do unions based on the practice of a sexual behavior God tells us is an abomination align with truth, nobility, "whatever is right", purity, loveliness, admirable, excellent or praiseworthy? Indeed, it is the antithesis of all those things. It is the corruption of this verse to include abomination as worthy of those things.
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
And yet you call abomination good and the unions of those who practice it worthy of God's blessing, thereby inviting God's consternation. Woe to you.
"You sit and speak against your brother; You slander your own mother's son."
No slander. No libel. Only speaking the truth regarding the sexual morality you eagerly support and those who engage in it.
""Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. ""
Another pot/kettle example from Dan in a comments thread where we reviewed his own practice of the above:
"hateful response borne of ignorance"
"vile pollution"
"ugly and negative opinions"
"slander" (a Dan favorite)
"false claims"
"ad hom attacks" (another biggie for Dan)
"contemptible"
"disgusting"
"evil"
"A perverse man spreads strife," Yes, you do. "And a slanderer separates intimate friends." We're not friends at all, much less intimate friends, so your slandering hasn't separated what wasn't joined in the first place.
"With his mouth the godless man destroys his neighbor,"
So you'd do yourself a service to stop.
"But through knowledge the righteous will be delivered."
But you reject knowledge in favor of what you'd prefer be true.
"The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart."
What fills your heart is a desire to please the world and yourself, rather than to please God. This is proven by your constant defense of that which God prohibits. You bring forth evil by enabling immoral behavior and worse, you claim you're doing God's will. You're a textbook heretic.
You see the difference? I attack your words and ideas sometimes. YOU presume to know my heart and make false claims from a place of ignorance and arrogance. Truly, I seek to follow God and your words are false and slandering. I disagree with your hunches, not God, and I do not conflate your words with God's.
"Fortunately for the world, YOU do not get to decide what is appropriate for anyone else or anyone else's blog."
That might be a problem if I was presuming to make such decisions. But as you have a comments section that invites comments, I do get to decide what comments I leave. Mine were appropriate given the false teaching of your post. Some innocent might read your drivel and come to believe that sexual immorality is OK.
"You all are attacking something that is good, noble, true, pure, loving, respectful and trying to treat it as if it is evil."
And woe to you once again as you call what is evil "good, noble, true, pure, loving and respectful". Engaging in behavior God prohibits is evil. Homosexuals engage in behavior God prohibits, just as you do by calling evil good.
I am fully educated with regards the issue of homosexuality, both from a Christian standpoint, as well as medical, psychological and social. I don't lie about it. You lie and accept the lies of activists and enablers within various communities and organization, thereby becoming an enabler of sinful behaviors yourself. That's not embracing grace (whatever that means). That's embracing evil, sin, sexual immorality and the rejection of God's will.
"You see the difference?"
I see the truth.
"I attack your words and ideas sometimes. YOU presume to know my heart and make false claims from a place of ignorance and arrogance."
It's truly a matter of recognizing you by your fruit (no pun intended). You support that which is clearly forbidden, pretending without basis that there is some Biblical way to rationalize doing so. This compels conclusions that are a reflection of your heart. Even you can't bear how corrupt you are.
"Truly, I seek to follow God and your words are false and slandering. I disagree with your hunches, not God, and I do not conflate your words with God's."
There's nothing false in my words. You openly and proudly support that which is forbidden by God. What is forbidden by God is not a hunch of mind. What is forbidden by God is not my words. They are God's as so very clearly revealed in Scripture. You reject Scripture that conflicts with your love of the world that is greater than your alleged love of God.
I support what you think is a moron. I think it is Godly and good and loving and beautiful. That I disagree with you is not a sign I want to disagree with God. Do you understand the difference between disagreeing with Marshall and disagreeing with God?
what you think is immoral that should read.
"I support what you think is a moron/immoral."
Either way, you're wrong. You support what IS a moron, if you support either Hillary or Bernie. I don't support the third moron. I'm merely voting for him because your morons will be worse for the nation than the third moron.
"I think it is Godly and good and loving and beautiful."
No doubt. But what you think doesn't matter. What God says does matter. God calls homosexuality an abomination. Therefore, you think what God calls an abomination is good and loving and beautiful. You think what is evil is good, loving and beautiful. Woe to you.
"That I disagree with you is not a sign I want to disagree with God."
In all our years of discourse, I've never said it was, nor so much as hinted at it.
"Do you understand the difference between disagreeing with Marshall and disagreeing with God?"
Oh, absolutely. However, I don't preach what my will is. I don't speak about what I want morality to be. I simply restate what God has said. Homosexuality is an abomination. No union based on that behavior is good, loving or beautiful. It is evil, hateful toward God and ugly for its sinfulness. Real love does not involve engaging in prohibited abominable behavior with the person one claims to love. How is it loving to entice another to sin with you? How is it beautiful.
Real love would be the opposite. Real love would involve denying one's self the pleasure one might experience by engaging in behavior God tells us is an abomination. Real love for another would be to refuse to engage in such behavior with the person one claims to love. Real love does not involve the erotic. That's lust, as the event you attended celebrates.
And I don't "think" what you support is immoral. God has said it is immoral. Do you see the difference between what I say and what God says? What God says is clearly revealed in Scripture. What I say is not. To pretend that God would approve of any union in which the two engage in immoral behavior to consummate the union requires a special kind of liar to insist that saying, "I love you" legitimizes the underlying abominable behaviors. That would be you.
The problem Marshall is that God has not told you any of that. It is your interpretation your hunch your opinion you're thinking of what God wants. And I do not confuse God with Marshall.
Except, no one is talking about slander or forced rape, we're talking about some of what the Bible says about human pride. Surely you can't be so obtuse and committed to your position that you can't acknowledge a difference between pride and forced rape.
It's interesting that your random list of verses address your behavior as much or more than anyone else's.
One can only assume that you believe yourself to be "good" and the rest of us to be "evil" despite not having any objective or consistent standard to make those claims.
"You all are attacking something that is good, noble, true, pure, loving, respectful and trying to treat it as if it is evil."
This is rich from someone who thinks "hellish" and "insane" are terms of grace.
FYI, I attack nothing. I merely present a portion of what the Bible says about pride for consideration.
Of course, once again. you have no objective standard by which to label this event. Which would pose a problem for you if intellectual consistency was something you concerned yourself with.
"You are calling Good, "evil," and joining forces with the "accusers" who would attack the good and loving. Shame on you."
This is the second flat out bald faced lie in one comment. Either you provide actual, in context, proof of your claims (quotes and links) or I'll have to consider deleting. Disagree all you want, but once you start lying, you simply point out the hypocrisy of your proof texts.
"Embrace grace, men."
Again, we have a severe pot/kettle situation brewing. I hardly think lying about someone is to "embrace grace".
Of course one could make the argument that to share the biblical perspective on pride with a person or people who may not be fully aware of said perspective, is to show them grace. If knowing the Biblical perspective on pride helps even one person establish a healthy God centered view of pride then how could that possibly be bad.
"At the very least, educate yourselves so you're not speaking from a place of ignorance."
Presuming based on your prejudices that (despite my correction of this false impression earlier) you know better than we what our level of education/experience is.
" YOU presume to know my heart and make false claims from a place of ignorance and arrogance. "
Oh my freaking god. This is absolutely the funniest most amazing bit of hubris I have ever seen. Dan just gets finished telling us that (he knows) that we aren't educated enough, shortly after at least two clear blatant lies, then has the nerve to get on this high horse made entirely of BS.
I'm just glad the rest of your comments are directed at MA, because I don't think I can keep tying while I'm laughing this hard.
we're talking about some of what the Bible says about human pride. Surely you can't be so obtuse and committed to your position that you can't acknowledge a difference between pride and forced rape.
YOU YOU YOU, Craig, YOU brought up some random verses about pride found in the Bible and input it on what WE are speaking of. YOU are speaking of that, but that is not the sense or definition of pride WE are speaking of.
Do you understand that?
I merely present a portion of what the Bible says about pride for consideration.
Out of context and in a manner that slanders the real motives and actions of people you do not even know. WE ARE NOT USING PRIDE IN THAT SENSE.
I fully understand that there is pride in that sense/definition and THAT is not a good thing. I'm not using pride in that sense. I don't know how clear I can be. WHY would you presume that a bunch of families, church folk, neighbors, children and good moral people that YOU DO NOT KNOW would "celebrate" the negative sense of the term pride? Do you not see the Prideful arrogance in that, mortal?
My God.
one could make the argument that to share the biblical perspective on pride with a person or people who may not be fully aware of said perspective, is to show them grace.
Again, the hubris, the monstrous arrogance in saying something so obtuse is hard to fathom. Are you TRULY thinking that (and if you looked at the pictures, you might could tell) THOUSANDS of people you do not know in the least are not familiar with the Bible or the bad definition of pride? Do you see how patronizing and condescending that is?
No, Craig, that is the OPPOSITE of showing people grace, to speak down to them about something so basic that on adult would not be aware of. That is pride, defined, man. The BAD sense of the word.
Do you truly not see that? I'm just dumbfounded at this mockery of decent behavior.
Presuming based on your prejudices that (despite my correction of this false impression earlier) you know better than we what our level of education/experience is.
Line after line, it's like you simply don't understand a single thing I've said. "IGNORANT," in the very literal sense that you do not know a single person (other than me, and that only online and not very well-developed knowledge) at this rally. You are wholly ignorant of each and every person there and their values or motivations. That is just a fact.
Now that I've explained that to you, do you understand and can you agree?
This is absolutely the funniest most amazing bit of hubris I have ever seen. Dan just gets finished telling us that (he knows) that we aren't educated enough, shortly after at least two clear blatant lies
Okay, now that I've pointed out your error and that you misunderstood what I meant and that there are no lies, are you prepared to stop laughing and humble yourself and admit your simple error. There is no shame in admitting a simple mistake. The shame is in continuing down the mistaken road after you've been corrected.
As to one of your claims on my blog that I deleted because of your refusal to answer the questions asked of you and your refusal to repent when the false claims you made were pointed out, you said that photos of bikini-clad wearing women (I saw at least one and, so what? People wear bikinis outside in the summer... they weren't asking me for my fashion advice and I wasn't offering. Doesn't change the point that the point of the parade was to celebrate love, community, family, respect an end to oppression, civil rights, and other wholesome Godly values) and some sadomasochistic-wearing participants (I did not see any anywhere, as part of the parade itself, nor in the sidelines... but it's possible, these aren't all people who have asked me for my opinions on SM play - or whatever it's called, sort of out of my element, there) but if so, so what? That doesn't take away from the fact that the POINT of the parade was to celebrate and promote the wholesome healthy and Godly values I have pointed out repeatedly.
I wasn't going to address the off topic attack on my blog, but I thought I would clarify so far as I can.
"YOU YOU YOU, Craig, YOU brought up some random verses about pride found in the Bible and input it on what WE are speaking of. YOU are speaking of that, but that is not the sense or definition of pride WE are speaking of."
I posted a representative sampling of what the Bible says about pride, I'm sorry of the scripture offends you. I'm sorry if you have some other sort of good healthy pride and can say with such authority that you are 100% certain the the Bible isn't talking about the kind of pride you had.
"Out of context and in a manner that slanders the real motives and actions of people you do not even know. WE ARE NOT USING PRIDE IN THAT SENSE. "
Of course both of these accusations are wrong. As is presuming to know my heart and motives.
"WHY would you presume that a bunch of families, church folk, neighbors, children and good moral people that YOU DO NOT KNOW would "celebrate" the negative sense of the term pride? Do you not see the Prideful arrogance in that, mortal?"
I presume nothing. I merely offered a selection of scripture that offended you. I'm sorry scripture offends and angers you so.
"Again, the hubris, the monstrous arrogance in saying something so obtuse is hard to fathom."
The hubris of suggesting that there might be things of value to be gleaned from scripture. The hubris of suggesting that in scripture we find grace, wisdom, and moral guidance. The hubris of suggesting that it's not about us and our pride, but about God and His power.
"Are you TRULY thinking that (and if you looked at the pictures, you might could tell) THOUSANDS of people you do not know in the least are not familiar with the Bible or the bad definition of pride? Do you see how patronizing and condescending that is?"
Unlike you I don't presume to speak for what others are thinking, I merely presented a Biblical view of pride. If that offends you, I apologize. I'm impressed at how readily you feel this willingness to ascribe motive to me and to know what's in my heart.
"Line after line, it's like you simply don't understand a single thing I've said. "IGNORANT," in the very literal sense that you do not know a single person (other than me, and that only online and not very well-developed knowledge) at this rally. You are wholly ignorant of each and every person there and their values or motivations. That is just a fact. Now that I've explained that to you, do you understand and can you agree?"
Given the clearly, blatantly obvious fact that I have never, ever, not even one tiny little bitty bit claimed to be even hinting that I know the motivation of every single person there. You clearly are, but I'm not. But, please continue to lie about me, it's like a river of grace flowing around me. So, sure I can agree that I never made any claims about everyone at the parade, I didn't need you to explain that I would agree that I have not made a claim that I did not make.
"Okay, now that I've pointed out your error and that you misunderstood what I meant and that there are no lies, are you prepared to stop laughing and humble yourself and admit your simple error. There is no shame in admitting a simple mistake. The shame is in continuing down the mistaken road after you've been corrected."
Lie #1. " YOU presume to know my heart and make false claims from a place of ignorance and arrogance."
Lie #2 "You all are attacking something that is good, noble, true, pure, loving, respectful and trying to treat it as if it is evil."
Lie #3 "You are calling Good, "evil," and joining forces with the "accusers" who would attack the good and loving. Shame on you."
Now that I've pointed out your error, and have clearly documented 3 lies, are you prepared to stop laughing and humble yourself. If you're not when confronted with multiple specific lies, why would you think you have the standing to demand anyone else do what you won't?
As to your last comment, despite the actual pictorial evidence, from a pro gay source, showing a underwear/bikini clad woman trussed up in some sort of S&M demonstration, you're going to take the position that since you didn't actually see it, and since it wasn't really the "point" of the event that you're just going to excuse it is just a bit of harmless play for completely wholesome and appropriate for all of the young children.
The fact that you can't even condemn public sadomasochism in your attempt to portray this event as just good clean wholesome family fun severely undermines what few shreds of credibility you might have had left.
The last leaves aside the fact that my reference to the public sadomasochism display
was a part of a direct response to a question you asked about what happened at this wholesome family event. Only you would regard my providing with you with a factual demonstrable example of something that happened at the event, in response to a question about what happened at the event into an "off topic attack".
It's interesting, you've described a selection of scripture about pride, in a post about pride (or so one could glean from the title of the post) as "off topic". Then you describe a specific example in a specific response to a question you asked as both "off topic' and an "attack".
Sorry, I didn't put the word pride in the title of your post, and I certainly didn't truss up some young girl in complicate S&M bondage and hand her from a tree, but the fact remains that both of those are true and are on topic in a post about an event, what it purports to celebrate and what took place there.
In is typical, but nevertheless curious, how Dan thinks he can speak for all those how marched in that parade or all those who attended the event, but then when we preprint or restate the ACTUAL words of God from Scripture, we're "speaking for God".
I wonder, Dan, how many people does your poll indicate participated and witnessed the parade and subsequent festivities? What is the total?
What? You didn't take a poll? Then how can you ever say "WE" in reference to what is meant by "pride" at a "Gay" Pride event? How can you speak for them all if you didn't poll even 1% of all who were there?
In the meantime, I don't see the logic or sense in demanding that either Craig or myself (or anyone) must be intimately familiar with each person at a "Gay" Pride event in order to know with absolute certainty that they are there to celebrate a form of sexual immorality that God tells us is an abomination. It is clear as day.
Let's say Dan goes to a parade and picnic hosted by the local chapter of the KuKluxKlan. Can you insist that your attendance does not show support for the sinful attitudes, beliefs and practices of the Klan? Would you be so prideful to insist that they pride they have for who and what they are and what they do is of a different type of pride than that which homosexuals/lesbians have for who and what they are and what they do? If the Klan is wrong for taking pride in their attitudes, beliefs and practices, how are the homosexuals not equally wrong for doing the same thing, ESPECIALLY given the God's clear and unambiguous prohibition against engaging in homosexual behavior?
Oh. That's right. YOU know better than God what is moral and immoral. YOU believe you're serious and prayerful study has provided you with the teachings that have overturned those prohibitions on various sexual acts (no wait! just those you like), though you have yet to reveal them to all of us who have been waiting for several years to see them. All we've seen thus far are the deceitful contortions and twisting of verses, words and meanings to make them mean what no honest person can see on their own with the help of noted Biblical scholars.
how Dan thinks he can speak for all those how marched in that parade or all those who attended the event
I attended the event, I heard the speeches. The POINT OF THE EVENT, as I have pointed out, was to celebrate love, to celebrate family, community, liberty from oppression and violence. As I have said. THAT WAS THE POINT according to the people giving the speeches/the organizers.
Now you two, who were not there and are wholly ignorant of what took place, can GUESS "ya know, maybe they were celebrating arrogance, because that is a synonym for pride" but that would be a stupid ass, ignorant and arrogant guess.
That is what YOUR GUESS, coming from a place of ignorance, since you were not there, would be. That is not a personal attack on you, or a judging of your hearts that I don't know, it is a statement of fact.
It is stupid ass because of course, all these churches, families, citizens are not coming together to celebrate arrogance! Who does that? No one. It is ignorant simply because you all were not there so you simply don't know what took place and the few guesses you're making about it indicate that yes, you truly are ignorant of what took place. And it is arrogant because it suggests, "These poor, evil gay folk and their allies, they are just unaware of what the Bible has to say about pride..."
Now, it IS possible that the comment is not coming intentionally from a place of arrogance on your parts, that it's coming from a place of ignorance because you're wholly unaware that when you start talking about Pride-as-Arrogance in a post that has zero to do with that and is speaking of pride in a positive way, that you all are simply not savvy enough to know that bringing up Pride in that sense suggests that to rational people.
So, I will clarify that it is entirely possible that you are not striving to be arrogant, I'm not judging your motives. I'm saying THE STATEMENTS themselves are arrogant, whatever your intent is.
Now, I'm done. This is just too ridiculous to spend this much time trying to point out that a healthy, loving, positive, noble, good, pure effort such as this one is somehow done with evil intent from a place of arrogance. You all are welcome to think that, even though you weren't there and do not know a single person who attended, but I'm doing you a favor and letting you know, it is a stupid and evil suggestion (noting that it may be evil-from-a-place-of-ignorance, and not intentionally.)
showing a underwear/bikini clad woman trussed up in some sort of S&M demonstration, you're going to take the position that since you didn't actually see it, and since it wasn't really the "point" of the event
So, when a fella shows up at a GOP rally wearing a confederate flag, we can safely assume that the point of the rally is the enslavement of black people. Got you.
Now, I'm done.
"The POINT OF THE EVENT, as I have pointed out, was to celebrate love, to celebrate family, community, liberty from oppression and violence."
That might be the "theme" of the event, but a ""Gay" Pride" event's purpose is the promotion of the sexually immoral behavior we know as "homosexuality".
"It is stupid ass because of course, all these churches, families, citizens are not coming together to celebrate arrogance!"
Yet, that's what they are doing. It is arrogant, especially of "churches", to celebrate sinful behavior under the false pretense that somehow, without any Scriptural evidence that God has changed His mind about it, it is no longer sinful.
"speaking of pride in a positive way" does not include pride in willfully engaging in behavior God tells us is an abomination. There is nothing stupid, evil or arrogant in stating this truth. There is stupidity, evil and arrogance in saying there is in order to defend sin. You celebrate, support and encourage sin, Dan. That's the truth of it. Repent and be saved.
Here's my last comment posted at Dan's that he deleted. Still seeking an explanation for how it is off topic...or hateful...or ugly...or any of the other things of which Dan accuses us when we don't toe his false Christian line:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am still at a loss to see how my original comment was off topic. You said what the people there were celebrating. So did I, except that my perspective is more objective and truthful, while yours is whitewashing reality. You want to call it an attack, but it is no more of an attack than what you're doing to Craig and my by your mistaken (I'm embracing grace here) perception of what any "Gay" Pride event actually is from a spiritual, particularly Christian, point of view.
I can get behind any event that speaks against inhumane treatment of fellow human beings, even when those human beings are willfully engaging in sinful behaviors. That's a given. What is not is getting behind the willfully engaging in sinful behaviors. That's what homosexuality is. A sinful behavior. The ACT is sinful, and is so with no regard to the context or scenario in which it takes place.
Therefore:
"Prayer..? Because that took place."
Prayers for forgiveness for engaging in sexually immoral behavior and for the strength to triumph over the compulsion to do it again? I'm guessing no such prayers were uttered.
Prayers of thanks for the judicial corruption that led to the forcing of America to redefine marriage to include those between two of the same sex? I'm sure some prayers of this nature likely went up (like the smoke from Cain's sacrificial fire). But that's like thanking God for getting away with a crime. There's some unhealthy pride in presuming one's clearly immoral behavior is something for which anyone should thank God.
"Loving hugs and support? Took place."
Support for others who partake of the same sin one does is a bad sort of prideful act in the assumption that one is supporting something noble, pure, and godly, when God clearly prohibits the behavior that is at the heart of all "Gay" Pride events.
"A denouncing of the sort of senseless violence that took place in Orlando? That took place."
That does not require an event that celebrates what God clearly and unambiguously prohibits. Indeed, it is out of place and to a great extent, puts all who attend at risk for the very same act they denounce. It is, however, pride of the type referenced in Craig's posted verses in that they gather boldly as they do in spite of the risk.
"Families enjoying a fun walk in a safe crowd of loving people? Took place."
There's certainly a haughty pride in living sinfully, but in a manner that mimics God's ideal for human sexuality and family in order to appear as if there's no moral difference.
"Handing out condoms and health information to encourage safer, healthier sexual activity? That took place."
Why would two people who cannot impregnate each other need condoms, if not because of the much higher risk of spreading disease by people with little to no moral compass. If we're taking "family" (since you claim that's what this event is all about), there is no need for such things within a truly monogamous and faithful union of two people. What perverse pride results in people having sex so cavalierly when the risk of STD transmission is so high, or worse, very likely when at least some of those take those condoms are already infected?
"Coming together to support human rights and dignity? Took place."
Again, I think I can speak for Craig in saying that neither of us have a problem with standing up for human rights. But there is no right to abuse the notion of liberty in order to push for the legitimization of immoral sexual behavior and the redefinition of "marriage" to include it. What's worse, there is no dignity in the perpetrating of sexually immoral behavior. It is, however, sinful pride to asset either as a noble cause.
"A bunch of floats with fun, laughing people having a healthy good time? That took place, too."
A healthy good time promoting and celebrating proven unhealthy practices. Are you going to try and say thing fact is a statement of ignorance? I can cite any number of medical websites or medical professionals that confirm that homosexuality is an unhealthy and highly risky sexual behavior. But the pride of those who would celebrate such danger is beyond shameful.
"Which of these have ANYTHING to do with your hateful suggestion of the negative sort of pride you cited?"
Clearly, all of them to one degree or another. But YOUR pride resists the truth regarding the immorality you support and celebrate. YOUR pride seeks to demonize all who would dare remind you of God's unambiguous prohibition of homosexuality. YOUR pride insists you can reject God's Will on the subject and YOUR pride is satisfied that your incredibly weak and hole-infused defense of your position is good enough to rationalize it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope you don't mind, Craig, re-posting it here, since you've been re-posting your deleted comments here as well.
MA
I don't mind at all. Having said that this entire conversation is becoming more and more pointless. The fact that Dan is defending/condoning a young woman being sexually dominated and hung from a tree as appropriate for a wholesome family friendly event really says it all.
What I am going to do is either close or moderate comments on this post and move on to other things.
Based on what I've been reading recently, this discussion of rationalism and subjective morality is much more interesting.
It's been kind of an amusing diversion, and pointing out the double standard in operation is always helpful, but if I'm going to invest time I'd rather it be about something more significant than a wholesome family friendly S&M demonstration.
Although, de Sade did have some thoughts on objective/subjective morality and I bet you won't be able to guess which side he supported.
Tried to wrap up over at Dan's and among other things of dubious accuracy, he made what could be the funniest comment I've ever seen from him. In short, he informed me that I HAD to trust him in terms of how he was treating my deleted comments. Given the fact that he's falsely represented deleted comments both from MA and me, trusting him is the last thing on my mind.
Post a Comment