Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth;
an outsider, and not your own lips.
Stone is heavy and sand a burden,
but a fool’s provocation is heavier than both.
but a fool’s provocation is heavier than both.
The prudent see danger and take refuge,
but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.
but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.
Though you grind a fool in a mortar,
grinding them like grain with a pestle,
you will not remove their folly from them.
grinding them like grain with a pestle,
you will not remove their folly from them.
53 comments:
Is this you, finally taking a vague stand on your blog against Trump and his team?
No, I’ve already taken non vague stands on Trump and his team. It seems foolish to take a vague stand now.
But please, turn everything into a vehicle for your hatred of Trump. It makes you appear so rational.
Despite your strange obsession, there are other foolish people in the world.
Really? I don't think I ever caught your post talking about how truly awful - dangerous, even! - Trump is for the GOP, for conservatives and for the nation and the world... how his casual lies and complete ineptness and likely mental illnesses make his a disastrous president. Would you mind pointing that one out to me?
No, I don't believe you have posted about the disaster that is Trump and his supporters (who are the actual dangerous ones - who supports for a complete moral and rational degenerate?!). Just casual and vague "No, I'm not a supporter of the man..." Wow. Strong stand.
I don't hate Trump. I hate casual lies. I hate ineptitude of this epic level. I hate gross perversions and oppressions of the sort that Trump promotes and supports. Which is why I keep looking for rational and moral conservatives to come out strongly against him and in regular and increasing numbers. I mean, W. Bush and McCain, Corker and Flake have done it, but where's the mass evangelical conservative uprising against this atrocity?
Yes, you can call it irrational to be strongly opposed to casual lies and deep stupidity, but then, that's part of the problem your side is having.
Even now, as his team is under arrest and investigation, I'm still mostly seeing, "Why aren't they investigating Clinton? SHE's the REAL evil one!"
That's rational.
I wrote multiple posts about Trump starting in 2016, if you didn’t read them I can’t help you.
By all means, pretend that I haven’t been against Trump for at least 18 months if that helps you.
If facts matter, two people who were briefly worked for the campaign are under arrest for acts committed long before they worked for Trump. In conjunction with Clinton staffers/supporters. For acts that were totally unrelated to the campaign. But that’s only if you care about the facts.
I’ve allowed you to make some off topic comments, I’ve chosen to react with forbearance and grace to you leaving at least two threads hanging. But, this post isn’t about Trump or your obsession with him. So, how about you do one of the following.
Stay on topic
Respond to the threads you’ve gone MIA in
Crawl back into whatever copse of trees you’ve been communing with
I don’t care that much, but I have no use for your off topic rants and false claims.
Strange that you think the proper way to respond after being indulged with off topic comments is to “apologize”, then blithely continue down whatever off topic road you choose.
I love how you cherry pick things I’ve said out of context, just like you do with other things when you’re determined to make a point regardless of the reality.
For someone who spends so much time bitching and whining about off topic comments at his own blog, it’s strange to see your lack of concern about your off topic comments at other blogs.
The fact that you can’t engage in a conversation without making it about your obsession with Trump is concerning.
The fact that you continue with your off topic comments, is just one more example of the double standard you consistently demonstrate. It’s not unexpected, I’m just choosing to limit the amount of grace and forbearance I’m willing to show.
Finally, the fact that I’ve chosen not to couch my problems with Trump in the language of vitriol, hyperbole, and excess, doesn’t mean that I haven’t been critical of his character for more than a year. But that shouldn’t surprise you, I rarely resort to the vitriolic attacks you’ve been trading in recently.
Finally, if honestly and character were important to you, then you’d demonstrate them before demanding that others do so.
Nice job of staying enough “on topic” to avoid the automatic deletion.
You’re right about heeding the words of the author.
I like how you’ve just decided that the author is a “poet”, and apparently that he’s either divine or has enough authority to be promoted to “Poet”.
After reading your comment again, I decided that it's just a bit too transparent in it's attempt to be on topic. So, in the spirit of grace and forbearance I'm going to do so editing and re post it in an effort to help you out/
On topic, then, boy, I agree. Fools are bad. It's bad to be foolish. Amen.
And this from your post...
The prudent see danger and take refuge,
but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.
Yes, it IS wise to recognize and take action and speak out against dangers, taking refuge not meaning just hiding and cowering from the danger, but taking actions to mitigate and stop the danger. We SHOULD be doing this.
Amen to the Poet on that point.
The Poet knows of which he spoke. We should all heed the words of the Poet you cite in your post.
November 1, 2017 at 9:02 AM Delete
I'm not sure, but I think you just condescendingly referred to me as "boy".
I apologize for the amount of editing, but it seems clear that you were simply, cynically, st trying to reword you rant so it had the appearance of being on topic.
Given the amount of time you spend complaining about people who go off topic, I'm confident that you'll understand my dilemma.
1. I called the author "Poet" because Proverbs are classified, typically, as part of the Poetry of the Bible, along with Job, Psalms and Lamentations. Seems reasonable to me. Capital P, Poet, just out of respect for the unknown author.
2. My comment is/was on topic. I think that the Wise who watch for danger and take action in response to danger has real world applications to our world today, perhaps now as much as any time in recent history given our dangerous president! I think The Stupid/Simple-Minded Ones ARE facing great danger from their stupid acceptance/ignoring of the dangers posed today.
I would assume you, too, think the Bible isn't just pretty words, but has real world applications, right? Given that, I don't see why you would delete parts of my comments, but whatevs.
I explained why I felt the edit was necessary.
Because it was "a bit too transparent in it's [sic] attempt to be on topic..."?
Because I actually applied the biblical words to the real world?
Yeah, that makes sense.
No, because it was a thinly veiled restatement of your attack on Trump and those who you perceive as not vitriolic enough in their opposition to Trump.
It was creative and interesting, just a little too transparent.
If only you’d put the same effort into some of the conversations you’ve bailed out of.
I could have chosen to just delete it, I chose forbearance and grace.
Just out of curiosity, will you be withdrawing or modifying the false statement you made earlier in the thread, or just continuing to ignore where I corrected you?
I would dearly love to have you to point out a single false statement I have made.
These continued vague references to things you supposedly said, in lieu of any actual specific claim, are always intriguing and a great high point of my day! It's like a great Holmesian (or perhaps Lovecraftian?) mystery, spooky and unknown and generally unknowable.
Solve the mystery, dear man!
“Even now, as his team is under arrest...”.
I’ve pointed out the falsehoods once, can you be adult enough to either correct, retract, or modify your claim?
I guess the fact that I’ve pointed this out once just slipped past that steel trap of a mind of yours.
What I actually said was...
Even now, as his team is
under arrest
and investigation,
I'm still mostly seeing,
"Why aren't they investigating Clinton? SHE's the REAL evil one!"
Trump and his team ARE under arrest and investigation. What falsehood?
What you said in response...
If facts matter,
two people
who were briefly worked for the campaign are under arrest
for acts committed long before they worked for Trump.
IF fact matter, THREE Trump associates are under arrest. One is under arrest and has pled guilty for acts he did while working/volunteering for Trump, not for years ago.
The two whose alleged criminal acts were committed years ago lead them to be compromised and open to persuasion by Russia, which is the point of the investigation.
If facts matter.
So, now that I've demonstrated that my claim is not false, are you prepared to admit that there was no false statement and that you were wrong to make that claim? That the claim, itself, is a false statement?
" Though you grind a fool in a mortar,
grinding them like grain with a pestle,
you will not remove their folly from them. "
Oh, I’m sorry I misunderstood stood that 2 (at the time) people who briefly worked for/volunteered for Trump equaled his whole team. My bad. I guess the whole Podesta connection to Clinton just amounts to nothing.
The facts are that months and charges into this investigation, we still have no actual proof of the original claim of collusion.
It’s interesting how you did what I asked, you modified your claim, yet somehow still believe your original claim was true.
But, thanks for modifying your false claim to make it more accurate and especially for your gleeful hope of things not proven.
The fact that you’ve left at least 2 threads hanging waiting for responses from you, an entire bibliography virtually unaddressed, yet are bizarrely invested in commenting on this makes me wonder.
If you can’t admit the simple fact that your original claim was poorly worded (and as worded inaccurate and false), then I think we’ll just be done here. There’s no point in watching you trying to justify your mistake any further, when a simple, humble, “I worded my claim poorly, and was false as worded.”, would simply solve the problem.
You just can’t stop. I understand how difficult fit is.
Yes, no matter how hard you get ground you just can’t admit when you’re wrong.
I understand that you’ve modified your original statement, you’ve played the “what I really meant card”, and just generally bobbed and weaved in order to avoid admitting that your original comment was poorly phrased and as phrased was false.
You’re insistence on beating this dead horse while avoiding comment on the multiple threads you dropped out of is fascinating in and of itself. Your ignoring that elephant in the room is amusing.
But I’m sorry, as long as you equate 3 people with Trump’s “team”, I just can’t take you seriously. Especially when the three people in question have all been removed from Trump’s team. Even more especially when some of Hillary’s team is also in the crosshairs and you somehow fail to acknowledge that.
Your original quote is there for all to see. I’m sorry you feel more compelled to continue to justify your imprecise language and therefore false statement. But I’m not going to indulge you any further. I understand that it’s important that you demonstrate how right you are, no matter what.
I will allow that your “ what you should have said”, is at least closer to an accurate rendering of the facts.
But, that just means your doing what I asked, while trying to pretend otherwise. I know it’s hard for you to grasp, but I can’t judge what you say based on what you thought you meant to say, I can only judge by what you wrote. The irony is that now you want me to read multiple things that you comment doesn’t say, into what you actually wrote, when that’s one of your main complaints. (The we don’t pay attention to what you actually said and read things into your words.)
While you're deleting things, I'll offer this throwaway off topic point: I notice that Stan has asked you a question on his blog about your experience with "signs..." My guess is that your answer is yes, you think you have and that you won't answer Stan's question because you avoid giving direct answers that are potentially embarrassing for you.
Like you won't state clearly what you think about a 6,000 year old earth (my guess is that you think it's entirely possible) or about having direct "knowable" knowledge from God or, in this case, if you think magical type healing and speaking in tongues and those sort of charismatic things happen, not because you don't have opinions, but because you recognize your honest answers are embarrassing to admit/would bring shame to the church.
Delete on, good man, and carry on with the false claims if you must. Although I do hope one day you'll abandon such practices.
I answered Stan’s question. I answered your 6000 year old earth question.
I (like you), believe that an all powerful God capable of creating everything that exists, is not limited in how He can choose to create. I personally have seen some reasonable and compelling arguments for a 6/24 hour day creation. I’ve also seen some reasonable and compelling arguments for a day/age position. I’m comfortable with either because I don’t see it as a primary issue.
Of course I’ve said this all before and have never hidden my position. I have been trying (with little success) to get you to take a firm position on the origins of things, maybe someday that’ll happen. You are able to comprehend the difference between accepting the concept of an all powerful, sovereign, creator God who has the ability to create in whatever manner He chooses, and advocating for one possible means to the exclusion of all others. I have to note your obsession with redefining the issue. I’m trying to get you to take a position on origins, where things came from, and you keep kicking this YEC straw man as a way to avoid the issue you won’t take a position on.
As to your other condescending question, yes I’ve seen some things that I can’t explain absent some metaphysical cause. I see no reason to limit what God can do. God is beyond my ability to completely comprehend, I have no desire to force God into any sort of limitation based on my human limitations.
It’s interesting that for someone who has deleted and lied about the contents of deleted comments, to get so worked up when treated the same way you treat others. Of course the double standard is once more on full display.
I can only assume that you’ll apologize when Stan posts my comment with the answer to his question.
I guess this is a good time to point out that you’ve chosen not to answer Bubba’s multiple questions because you avoid giving direct answers that are potentially embarrassing for you, or that might come back to bite you when you contradict yourself.
Of course, it is a false claim that I have lied about anything. I've deleted comments sometimes to try to get people to ANSWER questions, not to hide anything. That has been my one way of trying to get direct answers to direct questions and so, I've embraced it.
It's also a false claim to say that I'm "worked up." I'm pointing out, calmly and respectfully, that you are making false claims about what I have and haven't said. That's all. Just a point of fact, no excitement or emotional distress (indeed, I find it extremely intriguing from a sociological study point of view...)
So, what miraculous signs have you seen?
Myself, I've seen speaking in tongues and people being "slain in the Spirit," but I don't call these things miraculous, necessarily. If it means something for the people engaged, fine, but not the sort of what we might call magical miracles... things that can't be explained except by some magic intervention (and I don't use "magic" in any demeaning sense, only that it's not possible within the realm of normally understood laws of physics and nature. Someone regrowing a leg, for instance, that's what I'm calling a magical miracle.
As to the 6,000 year old earth, then what you're saying is that YOU JUST DON'T know? A 6,000 year old earth is entirely possible? Maybe so, maybe yes. But all the known scientific data that dictates against it, it's all a misunderstanding of reality, possibly?
Do you think that the 6,000 year old earth is more or less likely than something more in accord with known science (i.e., a billions of year old earth)?
This is what I'm speaking of about being vague and indirect. I KNOW you (and I) think it is POSSIBLE for an almighty God to do anything, but I don't think it's likely that God created the earth 6,000 years ago, then planted false data to make it appear much older. I'm not talking about what we think is possible, I'm talking about what you think is most likely.
Old Earth, Young Earth, or you just are truly not in a position to be able to form an opinion?
As to your other condescending question, yes I’ve seen some things that I can’t explain absent some metaphysical cause.
1. I didn't ask any questions. I stated, with no condescension intended, what I THOUGHT your answer was and that I didn't think you'd answer, as indeed, you haven't yet, not directly. That is, WHAT "sign gift" do you think you've seen?
If me putting "think you've seen" is what you are interpreting as condescension, it's not. It's skepticism. I think it is reasonable to be skeptical when people claim that God has done this or that specifically and directly acting in the human world. If someone claims that God has grown someone's leg out, I might reasonably ask, "Did you SEE this happen or was it just reported? Is it documented?" etc. That's just skepticism.
My concern is that many of the "signs" people - and especially those who've claimed miraculous healing - have been exposed as charlatans. To my knowledge, God is not in the habit of growing back limbs. I have seen no data to support such a claim. The miracle claims have tended to be more vague and unprovable, like "I had back pains and now I don't!"
COULD an almighty God do such a thing? Sure, but I'm skeptical that God does operate that way, generally speaking. I just see no data to support it.
Glad to clarify that misunderstanding.
I can only assume that you’ll apologize when Stan posts my comment with the answer to his question.
I stated an opinion, that I doubt you'd answer that question. If you do answer it, I would be mistaken in my opinion. The opinion was not designed to offend, it was just what my guess was. If you were offended by me even raising it as a guess, I do apologize.
On the Young Earth question, just to be clear...
I’m comfortable with either because I don’t see it as a primary issue.
I'm not asking what you think is POSSIBLE.
I'm not asking if you're comfortable with either.
I'm asking if you think one is more likely than the other? If you think that the YEC is plausible, given the actual known data in the scientific world?
IF by saying that you're comfortable with either, you are saying
you truly don't know and
have no way of knowing!
That no one knows that the earth isn't much more than 6000 years old!
That it's just not knowable!
That it's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that the Earth is 6,000 years old...
...thanks for answering the question.
I think we do know that the earth isn't anything close to 6,000 years old and to suggest it is to deny known science and embrace as possible something we know - because of established data - can't factual.
It's like someone saying, "Well, I think slavery is wrong... BUUUUT... I don't know if it's wrong. God commanded it in some instances in the past, so maybe there ARE some instances where slavery is morally acceptable option today... we just don't know..." is embracing moral ignorance.
Or for someone to say, "Well, I sorta think that the earth is a globe... BUUUUUT... I don't know that for sure. I've seen Flat Earth Christians make a fair case for it biblically, so I just don't know for sure... either option is possible and okay with me..." is embracing scientific ignorance.
That's what I think. I assume you agree with at least the flat earth example, yes?
I guess this is a good time to point out that you’ve chosen not to answer Bubba’s multiple questions because you avoid giving direct answers that are potentially embarrassing for you, or that might come back to bite you when you contradict yourself.
I don't know what questions you think were not answered. In looking back at the last few times Bubba has engaged, I've answered his questions and he has not understood my answers, but that's not the same as not answering them.
I never avoid answering questions to avoid embarrassment. I DO sometimes abandon a conversation when someone is truly not understanding me in spite of multiple attempts at explaining and clarifying. I DO sometimes opt to not continue answering questions when someone is not understanding their mistake in my first answer. If they can't understand the first question's answer or they can't understand where they are diverging from reality, then on what basis would it make sense to keep devoting time to multiple questions that they will then not understand the answers to?
I am a finite man with finite time.
Dan,
It’s becoming more and more clear that you have no concept of or desire to stay on topic. It’s alsi clear that you are more interested in trying to control the conversation and drive it in the direction you’d prefer.
I’m going to respond to two things, then tell you what needs to happen before this goes any further down your road.
1. I’ve seen a couple of things including a healing that I am inclined to believe were not faked. I’ve also interacted with people for whom I have a great deal of respect who have spoken/interpreted tongues.
2. Regarding your YEC obsession, I’ve been clear, and I’m not going to restate myself.
Now, here’s what’s going to happen. You clearly think you have a strong case regarding age of the earth, but your problem is that you’ve jumped over the foundational issue. So, until you address the origins issue, there will be no more age of the earth comments. You can’t simply gloss over origins in order to harangue and interrogate me.
Oh, no more interrogation on the sign gifts, until you can prove that God doesn’t act in miraculous ways on occasion.
The problem with this whole conversation is that your are operating on several foundational assumptions that you can’t prove to be true.
But, your clearly finite, so until you deal with the above I won’t burden you any further.
"Do you think that the 6,000 year old earth is more or less likely than something more in accord with known science (i.e., a billions of year old earth)?"
That's not a completely inaccurate way to put it, actually. It is both more OR less likely. Which it is cannot be known while we live.
"I don't think it's likely that God created the earth 6,000 years ago, then planted false data to make it appear much older."
This is just your way of rationalizing your unwillingness to believe the Scriptural account so that you don't feel like a rube. You chose to presume that God would "plant false data", rather than acknowledge man's imperfection limiting his ability to truly discern the truth. That it "appears" to be older does not indict God as a willfully deceitful. But the suggestion does point to your greater faith in the ability of man than the ability of God. You're clearly a man of the world, rather than merely a man who is in it.
"I think we do know that the earth isn't anything close to 6,000 years old and to suggest it is to deny known science and embrace as possible something we know - because of established data - can't factual."
There is no established data that confirms the earth is older than 6K yrs old. There is only data that suggests the possibility. What tests confirm the suggestion as fact? There are none because there is no way to go into the past. And this assumes that the ability of man is such that it can make accurate guesses about that which cannot be confirmed. Some of prefer to put our faith in God with regards the unknowable. You prefer to put your faith in man. Just admit it.
Art, the issue really isn’t the age of the earth or origins, It’s God. It’s about His power, nature, and sovereignty. It’s also (as you point out) our desire to know things that can’t be known and to look at God as if He’s limited by our understanding.
It’s about worldview and scientism, it’s about ascribing a high degree of worth to the creation (in this case science), while minimizing the Creator.
Indeed it is. And it's evident in my comments to Dan that he puts his faith in man's ability to determine what cannot truly be known to us, versus putting his faith in God. He'd much rather presume that God would "plant false data" than to take for granted man's imperfection with regard to human capabilities.
We have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty that there was ever a universe before our current universe. This may be the only universe that has ever existed, and frankly, there's no reason not to assume this is true. In any case, we haven't the means to truly look back in time prior to human existence to confirm or affirm anything, including how the single creation event transpired or how evidence of it might look to our human observations. Thus, it is entirely possible that what we think we see with our man-made devices and methods, being based on what we do know, is not what actually happened. With this in mind, an actual 6 day creation might have taken place and leave behind that which appears to be a much longer process, without God ever having planned that we could truly determine the truth of it all. But those like Dan insist that God acts in a manner they can understand and be cool with or else they won't believe. Man over God.
Thank you for trying so hard to support what Art just said. You just placed Science as the thing that defines Truth in your life. Are you saying that it is objectively true that the earth is exactly 13 billion years old, and that this precise result is provable, testable, and falsifiable?
I love how, after I put out a challenge to you, you decide that it’s time for you to leave. I guess that just might tell me something.
Out of consideration for Art, I’m going to leave your comment, in which you don’t even attempt to pretend to be aware of what I said, I’m going to leave this until he has an opportunity to see it.
Thanks again, both for all your effort and for demonstrating that you can’t/won’t deal with the origins issue because your fixated on YEC. This is what happens when you stop reading about a subject decades ago.
1. Where have you definitely “dealt with” the origins issue?
2. Your the one relying on “Science”, yet aren’t virtually all Scientists humans?
3. Simply making an assertion isn’t dealing with anything.
I told you what needs to happen if you want to continue, you’ve chosen not to accept that challenge.
So, with the one exception as noted above, either provide the objective data that proves the Truth of your position on origins, and that proved your assumptions of naturalism and scientism are True.
I have seen your response acknowledging Dan's utter faith in man over God. But I'd like to address his comment anyway while we wait for him to not respond to your origins issue.
Dan,
No one's talking about a flat earth. This is an obvious error that you could spend a lifetime finding someone who actually supports it. It does not mitigate my point given that it is easily verifiable that the earth is not flat.
The age of the universe is another matter. It can't be verified. Evidence that we have only suggests an older age. It does not prove it beyond any shadow of doubt, especially given the inability of science to prove or disprove the miraculous. What's more, there are no Biblical claims that the earth is flat in the first place. Rhetorical flourishes, such as "four corners of the earth", do not constitute fact claims.
The faith we have is in the understanding that God is capable in creating the earth in whatever fashion He so chooses, and in whatever time frame, be it billions of years, six days or the blink of an eye. YOU, on the other hand, don't have faith in God that supersedes your faith in people. You reject what Scripture says because of what evidence people claim to have that contradicts Scripture, presuming that man just couldn't possibly be wrong in inferring from his data what he does. While we understand it's possible that man has succeeded in his quest to determine the age of the universe, we do not reject the possibility that he is completely wrong given how difficult it is for science to properly deal with the miraculous. You'd prefer to pretend God purposely planted false data to fool us.
Well said Art.
Post a Comment