"Let ME Tell You What YOU Think..."
On the rare occasions when I visit the cesspool, I find Dan and his pet troll often telling each other what other people (me, Stan, Art, Glenn, etc) "really" think, mean, or believe.
It seems strange to me that in a post dedicated to bitching about others telling Dan what Dan thinks, that we find Dan and his pet troll doing exactly what Dan is bitching about.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure why that surprises me at all.
34 comments:
Vague unsupported claims are precisely part of the problem you all have.
As always, AT ANY TIME that you can point out an instance where I've incorrectly identified what you all (or you, specifically) believe, ALL you have to do is tell me and I can correct it.
Of course, that presumes you're understanding what I've said correctly.
When, for instance, I'm trying to get at what you believe and I ask a series of questions, even going so far as saying, "It SOUNDS like you're saying X... is that right?" That is not an instance of me telling you what you believe. It's just the opposite: Me trying with great effort to get what you believe correctly. I think those are probably most of the instances of you telling me I've falsely stated what you believe.
Questions are not claims. Inquiries for more clarity from you are not claims.
But then, why does it not worry you the many times that you/you all incorrectly state what I believe... EVEN when I directly tell you: No, that isn't what I believe.
Since you're citing Stan and that one's easy to point to, I said:
do you realize that I/we are not saying that Scripture is unreliable? We're saying that we disagree with your human understanding of Scripture?"
And Stan responded:
No, Dan, that's not what you are saying...
But even you say that Genesis was myth, not real. You can't take it as written. You say that the Pentateuch was wrong about such things as sacrifices and sin. That would be too barbaric. You say that God didn't command Israel to wipe out that Amalekite clan.
EVEN WHEN I tell him directly, clearly with no obfuscation that this is NOT what I believe (that Scripture is unreliable) he doubles down and tells ME that I AM saying what I'm telling him I'm not saying. Can you see that this is a reasonable complaint on my part?
(And not a "reasonable complaint," as in, it hurts my feelings or I really care much... It's more about caring about understanding and when people presume to ignore you and tell you what you believe, that's problematic for understanding. In other words, I'm more concerned about the bigger picture. It's a critique of the practice and questioning why people do it.)
So, like that, he is clearly literally telling me I'm wrong about what I believe and say. That when I say, "Genesis reads like myth to me," that I'm saying, "THEREFORE, Scripture is unreliable..." as if disagreeing with him about the genre of writing is equivalent to saying the text is unreliable. Of course, that's not true nor is it what I'm saying.
Can you agree that he is literally misrepresenting me EVEN AFTER I directly, specifically clarified?
And like that, if you can present ANYTHING where I've misrepresented your beliefs, all you have to do is correct me and I'll apologize and make it right.
But I can't do that to vague, unsupported, unnamed charges. And that, too, is problematic on your part.
"I'm certain that he MURDERED A PUPPY! I can't say where or when or what puppy, nor can I give any evidence of it. STILL, he MURDERED A PUPPY!"
It's just gossip and slander when stated like that. A literal misrepresentation of what I've said and done.
Ah, here's an example of you saying I've misrepresented you. I had said (in the previous post):
"Your low opinion of people and our dear transgender neighbors is showing. You've bought into a narrative that is blinding you and making you live in fear. Stop the hatred, embrace grace. Be better."
You replied:
You see, when you make shit up and pretend like your made up shit actually represents what I've said, think of believe, it reinforces my conclusion that you do much better against straw men, than real ones.
1. To clarify, I'm not saying that YOU INTENTIONALLY hold a low opinion of transgender folks (in spite of your dead-naming - which I think you've done - mocking tone and otherwise belittling their concerns).
2. Indeed, I was quite clear and explicit: You have "bought into" a worldview, a conservative narrative and that narrative/worldview is "blinding you" to the harm your words have done.
3. So, IF you thought I was misrepresenting you by claiming that you intentionally hold a low view of transgender loved ones, that's literally not what I'm saying.
Thus, given no misrepresentation, there is nothing to apologize for.
Now, one might say I'm looking down on you thinking that you're blinded when (you think) you're not. But that's a different question.
For my part, I tend to think that you all are much like I was a long time ago when I said often harsh, critical and mean-spirited things about gay and lesbian people (transgender was nothing I was aware of at the time). I meant to ONLY be helpful and I thought I WAS being loving by pointing out how the sin of Sodom would end up destroying gay folk. I had bought into a worldview that blinded me to the harm such statements can and did cause. I was not intentionally holding a low view of gay and lesbian folk, BUT I was holding a low view of them, in fact, by not giving them the dignity of their self-determination, to know what's best for them. I suspect that most of you all are pretty much just like that. Intending to be kind and loving, but instead, causing harm with an unrecognized arrogance and presumption because I thought I was the one speaking for God and on the side of right.
"Of course, that's not true nor is it what I'm saying."
So, what are you saying? Explain it in detail? Is scripture a reliable communicator of the Truth about anything, if so, what? Does scripture contain any accurate information in the OT, if so, what? Why is your subjective hunch about the accuracy/reliability/Truth of scripture more likely to be correct than anyone else's?
"Can you agree that he is literally misrepresenting me EVEN AFTER I directly, specifically clarified?"
I fail to see how your clarification, which came after his original statement, misrepresents you. He's expressing his opinion, in language he prefers, at his blog. I'm not seeing anything from you beyond your vague, non specific, "No I don't." that demonstrates that he's wrong. It seems possible that his characterization could be correct, and that your problem lies in the fact that his characterization IS correct. Further, I don;t disagree that your notion, (which seems to be that scripture is inseparable from our subjective hunches about it, and that it is impossible to glean anything objectively True from scripture) is functionally no different that saying that scripture is unreliable. But that's my opinion.
"And like that, if you can present ANYTHING where I've misrepresented your beliefs, all you have to do is correct me and I'll apologize and make it right."
See above. Stop allowing your pet troll unfettered, unrestricted, access to misrepresent others.
"But I can't do that to vague, unsupported, unnamed charges. And that, too, is problematic on your part."
No it's not. It's just that you've ignored years of my pointing out your false statements and misrepresentations and are know using that as an excuse because I won't go back and hunt them down. If this principle was so sacred to you, you'd deal with these things when they're brought up and you'd not allow them at your blog. Or you'd at least point out where they happen and treat your pet troll as you treat others.
1. SO, you acknowledge that you've made up some bullshit fantasy of your about things you "think" I've done and your response to try to bullshit your way oyt of doing what you've clearly done.
2.Indeed, you did make that claim. Yet you offer no proof of your claim, no acknowledgement of the legitimate reasons that would lead me to my conclusion, just more of you assuming and ascribing your bullshit, made up, assumptions to me.
3. No. I thought the you were misrepresenting ,me by making up a bunch of bullshit and claiming that your made up bullshit was something I said or believed.
"Thus, given no misrepresentation, there is nothing to apologize for."
Look, Dan magically makes his misrepresentation go away by making up more self serving bullshit as if that solved the problem. Being so committed to a double standard allows one to magically make their own indiscretions disappear. Without the bother of admitting fault or apologizing. Whitemansplaining to me that you weren't wrong with your made up bullshit is just doubling down on you doing what you bitch at others for. YOU decided what my complain was, YOU simply asserted that the complaint you made up wasn't a problem, then YOU simply whitemansplained how I was wrong. Well done, thanks for such a graphic depiction of my point in such a timely manner.
"Now, one might say I'm looking down on you thinking that you're blinded when (you think) you're not. But that's a different question."
Here you go again. Whitemansplaining. The problem is you assuming that I'm "blinded", not your condescending attitude.
"For my part, I tend to think that you all are much like I was a long time ago..."
For your part, you choose to project your subjective hunches about yourself on me, and act as if your projections represent reality. The fact that your projections are more bullshit misrepresentations doesn't seem to have entered your tiny little brain. It's like you can't even conceive of the possibility that your projections can't be wrong and therefore don't even entertain the possibility.
The problem seems to be that you are congenitally unable to acknowledge that your bullshit, made up, misrepresentations are misrepresentations and can only respond by layering your projections on your bullshit.
Craig:
So, what are you saying? Explain it in detail?
I HAVE been explaining it in detail. You all appear to not understand.
1. I do not believe "the Bible" is unreliable. Period. Full stop.
2. I do not believe that books, generally speaking, are unreliable OR reliable. They're books. (Of course, there are books, I'm sure, whose author's claim to be passing on facts and yet they are not facts, THOSE books, taken as factual, are unreliable. But that's not the case with the Bible, not demonstrably. The "Bible" has staked no claim as to whether Genesis should be taken as history rather than myth. Humans have done that.)
2a. If I read the passage about the four corners of the earth and conclude that the Bible is reliably conveying the reality that the earth is a square and someone says, "no, that's clearly figurative" and I respond, "Are you saying the Bible is unreliable? You ARE saying that!" ...then I am mistaken. They're disagreeing with my interpretation, thinking MY interpretation is not factually correct. They're not saying the Bible or that passage are unreliable.
2b. ANY text is only as reliable as the interpretation(s) of the text. If someone reads the Bible (as they have) and concluded that slavery is sometimes a moral option, one that they think God relies, then they have reached what I think is a clearly unreliable opinion about God based on a poor understanding of text. If one reads the Bible and concludes it's the Sole Source for Moral Understanding and Authority, then I might conclude they've reached a poor conclusion based on reason and what the Bible does and doesn't say.
2c. Do you understand that much? I suspect that you can agree on the principle, am I correct?
cont'd...
Craig:
Is scripture a reliable communicator of the Truth about anything, if so, what?
You see, I think, in your veneration of the Bible, you're getting it somewhat backwards. You tell me if that's possible or not. What I'm saying is that TRUTH is reliable. TRUTHS are reliable. Whether we're reading a text correctly or not... our interpretations may or may not be reliable. But TRUTH just is.
If I read the Bible and come away thinking, "Wow, it sounds like they're promoting the notion of a just and perfect loving God who even though they ARE a God, they care about us..." AND if it turns out that this is a fact (which I think it is), then that Truth is reliable.
IF someone reads the text and thinks it justifies hating others who disagree with them and killing them and even running swords through their babies in a misguided quest to please an angry god, and it turns out that there was no angry god commanding that quest, then that understanding is NOT Truth and NOT reliable.
The book is just a book. It's not a magic book, it doesn't force an understanding of Truth upon us. It's literally just a book (or a book of books, if you prefer).
Does scripture contain any accurate information in the OT, if so, what?
I'm sure it does. We know, historically, that there is and was a people known as Israel. We have archeological and other records of it that bears this out. We know generally where they lived and that backs up what we find in the biblical record.
But we don't know that ALL the stories told in the OT are literally historically correct, taken literally. We don't know that the stories were INTENDED to be taken literally. We don't know the authors' intents. Just as a point of observable fact. We may form opinions, but we can't prove it.
We can reasonably say that the earth is not roughly 6,000 years old (as the biblical geneologies would suggest, taken as literally historic. We know that humans/homo sapiens have been around far longer than that, based on observable, testable, scientific testimony. We know there is no evidence for a global flood that covered all the land. Now, we COULD GUESS that there is a trickster god who magically altered the hard records in earth and what we can measure to give the earth and humanity the APPEARANCE of only being 6,000 years old, but we have no significant reason to guess such a trickster god exists.
That some humans have taken the text to be a historically accurate record does not insist upon the notion that the BIBLE, itself, is "teaching" that. Again, it's a book. A book to be interpreted, understood, evaluated. Or not. But human assertions about what "the book" is "teaching" are the assertions of those humans, not the book, not God.
cont'd...
Craig:
Why is your subjective hunch about the accuracy/reliability/Truth of scripture more likely to be correct than anyone else's?
Well, first of all, it's not as if I'm alone in making up a fantasy notion of ideas that can be observed. Measurable science shows that the earth and humanity are more than 6,000 years old. Now, we can assume a trickster god who magically planted fake evidence to give the earth a much older appearance than 6,000 years old. But the Bible doesn't teach that we should do this.
I tend to think the more rational, simplest answer tends to be correct. If the data shows the earth is not a mere 6,000 years old, it's probably not.
On other questionable matters - should we support slavery as a moral option or not? Should we consider it sometimes moral or acceptable to run babies and children through with swords to punish a nation - people can hold conversations. Neither of us can objectively prove that there is a "god" who might sometimes command people to slaughter a whole town/nation, including killing the children and babies, but we can talk through what is most rational and defensible.
That's what I'm trying to do. In matters of human rights (slavery, slaughtering children), I think that while we can't objectively prove it one way or the other, the moral answer is so obvious and the consequences of allowing such behavior so dire that it's vital to try to promote the most moral, rational conclusion we can reach.
Do you disagree?
"And yet, you can't point to ONE INSTANCE of a man dressing like a woman for the alleged advantage of playing in a women's league. Not one. THAT is the sitcom nature of your allegation. It's a fear of "...but, but, but... it MIGHT happen! I have a friend of my cousin who once was thinking maybe his uncle might do that...""
And yet, I have. You've just chosen to ignore them when I've previously done so.
Of course, the problem is that you are giving the lie to your claim that "Questions are not claims.". Yet you are choosing to respond to the question I asked, as if it was a claim. Maybe you need to read for understanding, not just commit to pushing your narrative.
"It's swamp gas, naught else."
It's a question, based on the fact that we've seen cheating/bending the rules in sports for years and on the instances we've already seen of this sort of thing happening. You clearly don't seem to understand that "Questions are not claims.".
"When one asks a pointed question of a traditionally, historically oppressed group (or casting aspersions at the group by implication of the question), one IS casting aspersions. "But isn't it the case that maybe some black men with criminal intent might come in and harm our white women??" That is a question, but it's a question with a nefarious attack built in."
So, once again, you choose to whitemansplain what I think based on some bullshit you made up. Well done, thank you for even more evidence that my conclusion is accurate. When you offer made up, unsupported, hunches as excuses for your failure to read correctly, it doesn't make you look any better.
"REALITY. Reality is to stop it. Sports is not a low-grade 80s sitcom with a brainless plot. People don't DO this. AND, should it happen, what's to stop it? REALITY. If someone is just playing at being transgender (ie, cross-dressing for the sake of a few dollars - or many dollars, even), it will come out. Scam artists might get away with scamming people for a while, but the truth will out."
Ohhhhhhhhhh, well as long as Dan has hunches about "reality" then we must uncritically accept his unproven hunches as Truth. I have to not that this isn't really an answer, although the acknowledgement that I did ask a question is a step in the right direction. A 50+ year old man, who had undergone zero surgery announces he is a teenaged girl and prances naked through a girl's locker room, and that wasn't stopped.
"And if you're talking about some male who identifies as a male ACTUALLY transitioning solely for the sake of money... Well, that just isn't going to happen."
Really? I should just accept your assertion. The amount of data, evidence, and proof you're bringing is impressive.
"Can I give you a million dollars to come cut your junk off and implant breasts in your chest, Craig? TEN million? At what price would you do that?"
If at first a false equivalency doesn't succeed, try again. What I would personally do is irrelevant. The fact that I wouldn't do something, isn't proof that nobody would ever do that thing. But, when you don't actually have anything else, you need this sort of bullshit.
"It is not happening in the real world. It's a gaslighting, idiotic question based upon a sit-com-level premise."
Again, because you say so, isn't really proof. I posted a while back about a biological male playing in a HS basketball game who inflicted so much harm on the opposing girls that they literally ran out of players for him to harm. But you're right, it's not happening.
I guess Martina Navratilova isn't nearly as smart as you are on this subject.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/11/on-with-kara-swisher-navratilova-on-trans-women-in-sports.html
"I HAVE been explaining it in detail. You all appear to not understand."
Which couldn't possibly be from a failure on your part to explain your hunches in a consistent way with ample evidence.
1. If you say so.
2. That's a relief.
2a. Well done, the old pretending that recognition of figurative language is a thing canard.
2b. Therefore, any text is only as reliable as the unreliable, imperfect, interpretation. In essence, the text has zero meaning other that what the interpreter pours into it, and you believe that you can correctly identify this poor interpretation in others. Got it.
FYI, you simply repeating the same vague, boilerplate, unproven, claims with no evidence isn't anything except you asserting that your subjective hunches are more correct than any others. Or that your subjective hunches are worthless beyond your tiny brain.
2c.I understand that you are making a bunch of claims, I haven't seen any evidence that your claims are correct beyond you asserting that they are.
"You see, I think, in your veneration of the Bible, you're getting it somewhat backwards. You tell me if that's possible or not. What I'm saying is that TRUTH is reliable. TRUTHS are reliable. Whether we're reading a text correctly or not... our interpretations may or may not be reliable. But TRUTH just is."
1. You see, when you decide for yourself that you can whitemansplain that you really know what I really meant when I asked a question, you're simply making my point.
2. How does your convoluted bullshit differ from saying that scripture is unreliable?
3. Are you really saying that "Truths" exist? That multiple, possibly contradictory things can be "TRUE" at the same time? Are you really saying that "TRUTH" might exist but that we are unable to reliably comprehend it? That "TRUTH" is constrained by our interpretation?
Got it. If the Truth aligns with your interpretation, then it's True.
"I'm sure it does. We know, historically, that there is and was a people known as Israel. We have archeological and other records of it that bears this out. We know generally where they lived and that backs up what we find in the biblical record."
So, there is "Truth" to be found, but only in broad general terms, nothing specific. So, if Israel existed is True, but Israel sacrificed children to Idols is not True, how is that not unreliable?
The "We just don't know." excuse. An oldie but a goodie.
"Well, first of all, it's not as if I'm alone in making up a fantasy notion of ideas that can be observed."
AT least you acknowledge that you exist in a fantasy world of your own making. Again, YEC isn't the gotcha you think it is.
"That's what I'm trying to do. In matters of human rights (slavery, slaughtering children), I think that while we can't objectively prove it one way or the other, the moral answer is so obvious and the consequences of allowing such behavior so dire that it's vital to try to promote the most moral, rational conclusion we can reach."
I'm aware that you are trying to impose your subjective hunches about what might be True, based on some level of vague, general consensus on the text according to your 21st century liberal leanings. That doesn't really mean anything objective, nor are your hunches relevant.
"Do you disagree?"
With your subjective, unproven hunches, yes. That you providing instances of areas where you consider scripture to not be a reliable communicator of Truth somehow disproves the notion that you don't consider scripture reliable...
Dan,
I think part of the issue here is that when "we" say unreliable we're trying to come up with a concise term that generally encapsulates your varied, nuanced, and sometimes imprecise explanations. maybe part of the problem is that you are taking a very semantically precise stance over the word reliable, filtered through all of the accumulated thoughts you have, instead of maybe offering a little grace and understanding over some semantic minutia. As I've shown, your nuanced explanations really do point to your view of scripture as functionally reliable. I also suspect that our view is colored by the notion that if scripture really is The Word of God is some meaningful sense, that scripture is a unique book unlike any other work.
FWIW
One need only visit conversations following the last half-dozen posts at Dan's Blog of Lies to see evidence of his double-standard regarding just this issue. The first thought which came to my mind was a recent comment of Dan wherein he asserts that I support the slaughter of babies in war. Nothing in any comment of mine...including those he deleted...could possibly lead an honest person to conclude I hold such a belief. Yet, he does such things repeatedly. He asserts racism, misogyny and homophobia compels statements of truth made by those like me. He won't address the truth claims, but insist I must be those things just by daring to type them out. However, when challenged to present any comment which justifies the charge, or explains why it might even be supposed true by people of even limited intelligence, I get bupkis.
This is not too dissimilar to the name-calling whine. To assert one is falsely representing Dan's opinion requires clarification by Dan and an explanation of how that clarification differs from the allegedly false comment. I rarely fail to explain...generally in great detail...why I say what I do and more often than not have brought the evidence already. Dan simply wants to pretend it's enough to say, "I never said that.." when the point being made is that he needn't have used particular words to imply what was concluded by what he did say.
It's difficult to lay this out in a less convoluted manner, but Dan's so steeped in convoluted discourse and face-saving, one is hard-pressed to do a better job of it.
I thought you said "Dan's blog of lice", my bad.
Obviously Dan's inability to distinguish between acknowledging that something YHWH commanded at one point in history, in a specific circumstance, for a particular reason, doesn't equate to supporting (present tense) such actions in every circumstance. Likewise, acknowledging that slavery in the Israelite theocratic period wasn't the same as, and served different purposes, isn't a general support of all slavery. Virtually anytime Dan attempts to describe a theological position he disagrees with, he does so in a manner that is misleading at best. AT worst, it's simply a fabrication.
It's hard not to be convoluted, because Dan's "explanations" are convoluted. He'll make a simple declarative statement, then spend time explaining what the exceptions or conditions are or simply contradicting himself.
"They'll often say to me, "So, you think that God could not give us a Bible that could be understood by regular people..."?"
Which seems like a reasonable question. Yet I don't recall an answer. Seems like if scripture is intended to be anything more that just a "normal" book, then it shouldn't be judged in the same way other works are. Or, if someone insists on judging/evaluating scripture on exactly the same criteria as other works, wouldn't that suggest that they equate the two?
I especially love the "the Bible never says XYZ about itself" in order to appropriate the liberty to reject what he doesn't like. For example, Dan insists the Bible must refer to itself as a history book in order to regard the recording and presentation of factual historical events as legitimate and deserving of recognition as such. He'll back that up with his rote rationalization of "modern history" nonsense which he derived from one person some time ago...a person he never provided any rational reason to give the dude the final word on the subject, as well as a guy who allows Dan and others like him to equate the Bible to other ancient tomes, as if because others are mythic, we can regard OT tales as mythic as well. Somehow, this kinda crap is supposed to be accepted as legitimate "hard data" supporting his wild-ass claims.
"Which seems like a reasonable question. Yet I don't recall an answer."
And what I endlessly wonder is, REALLY? You REALLY literally don't know my answer to this question?
How is it possible that rational adults with the knowledge of how to read NOT understand my position? EVEN IF I had never answered this question directly, how is it possible you've read my words all these years and, SERIOUSLY? You don't know/can't figure out my obvious answer?
Do you see how we question your reading comprehension abilities? Not that I think you all are in any way stupid, but more that it seems your partisan biases have caused some kind of rational blindness to reasonably understand basic writing and communication.
No. Of course, the answer is no. No, I do not think the Bible can not be understood by normal people. You can tell by the way that I've never said anything like that.
Dan
"I especially love the "the Bible never says XYZ about itself" in order to appropriate the liberty to reject what he doesn't like."
I think that this position requires ignoring certain texts, and how the NT writers+Jesus spoke about the Hebrew Scriptures. It seems germane to note that the NT writers+Jesus spoke of scripture that were specifically speaking of the Hebrew scriptures, and seemed to hold those in high esteem. It seems counter intuitive to take a position that seems opposed to Jesus on the Hebrew scriptures.
"For example, Dan insists the Bible must refer to itself as a history book in order to regard the recording and presentation of factual historical events as legitimate and deserving of recognition as such."
This ignores the reality that it is possible, and reasonably to record accurate history in forms other than those specifically labeled history. The Charge of the Light Brigade presents history in an accurate (though not exhaustively complete) manner, and uses poetry to do so. This is why I've resorted to taking about whether or not the things recorded in the OT are reasonably accurate or words to that effect. It's possible to accurately recount historical events, in various forms, while not including every detail.
"He'll back that up with his rote rationalization of "modern history" nonsense which he derived from one person some time ago...a person he never provided any rational reason to give the dude the final word on the subject, as well as a guy who allows Dan and others like him to equate the Bible to other ancient tomes, as if because others are mythic, we can regard OT tales as mythic as well. Somehow, this kinda crap is supposed to be accepted as legitimate "hard data" supporting his wild-ass claims."
I've provided ample evidence that his "modern history" stance is bullshit. The Chinese, for example, have accurate recorded history that goes way beyond when Dan claims. This also gives unwarranted weight to written history, as if oral history can't be passed down accurately. It also treats scripture as if it's any other, ordinary, work. Which is another bias.
"And what I endlessly wonder is, REALLY? You REALLY literally don't know my answer to this question?"
Well played. Answer a question I didn't ask, and answer that question I didn't ask with a question. That's obfuscation at it's finest. But, no. I have no recollection of ever hearing your answer to that question. I could assume that I know what your answer is, but you frown on that, until you demand that I assume your position on certain things.
"How is it possible that rational adults with the knowledge of how to read NOT understand my position?"
Because, you've never been specific and direct, nor answered the question to my recollection. I'm certainly not going to dredge through years of comments on multiple blogs to find information you could choose to provide in minutes. To borrow your frequent excuse. I'm a finite man, with finite time, and while I remember a lot I don't remember you ever answering this. Of course, you've also committed to moving the goal posts on this.
"EVEN IF I had never answered this question directly, how is it possible you've read my words all these years and, SERIOUSLY? You don't know/can't figure out my obvious answer?"
1. Because any time we use your voluminous and convoluted words to draw a conclusion about something you haven't answered specifically, you pitch a fit, get your panties in a wad, and bitch about it.
2. My not being able to decipher your theoretical answer, has nothing to do with my nothing that I don't recall you ever answering the question.
3. Given how uncomfortable and skeptical you are about YHWH ever intervening directly and supernaturally in history, I could guess.
4. Given your insistence that "We just can't know..." anything, I could also make a guess.
5. Or you could provide a simple direct answer. It's literally a yes/no question.
"Do you see how we question your reading comprehension abilities? Not that I think you all are in any way stupid, but more that it seems your partisan biases have caused some kind of rational blindness to reasonably understand basic writing and communication."
It's more that any time we try to draw conclusions/summarize or paraphrase your convoluted hunches about anything, you get your panties in a wad, pitch a fit, and bitch about it. So, I'd prefer not to provoke that sort of childish tantrum and allow you to speak for yourself. The fact that you choose obfuscation, insults, and diversion instead of clarity does seem to tell me something.
"No. Of course, the answer is no. No, I do not think the Bible can not be understood by normal people. You can tell by the way that I've never said anything like that."
Ok, you could have just said that at first. Instead you chose bullshit.
He must not regard us as normal people given how he rejects everything we say about what Scripture clearly and unequivocally says (without ever telling us what it really means and doing so with evidence).
Ok, you could have just said that at first. Instead you chose bullshit.
No, I literally didn't. My answer is obvious to anyone who reads my words with any degree of reason. I've never said that the Bible can't be understood by regular people. I am a regular person and I obviously think I can understand the Bible fairly well or I wouldn't offer commentary, would I? Plus, there are all the times I've stated quite clearly that I don't think the Bible or morality are a mystery entirely beyond our capacity to understand on at least a basic level.
The problem is not the obvious NO that is my answer. The problem is - as you are demonstrating right here and now - how can people of good faith who are intelligent read my words for well over a decade now and NOT know beyond all doubt what my answer is? It gets to the larger question of WHY do you all have such a hard time understanding my actual position?
No, of course I do not think the Bible is unreliable, as Stan alleged EVEN when I made clear that this was not my position by saying, "NO, STAN, I do NOT think the Bible is unreliable."
NO, of course I don't think it's the case that the Bible can't be understood by regular people.
NO, of course I'm not "ignoring certain texts" as you falsely/incorrectly alleged and YES, I DO recognize that the NT characters held the OT in high esteem.
YES, I hold both the NT and OT in high esteem, myself.
And on and on.
WHY do you all not know/believe these points, even when you've been corrected?
I suspect it's because of an allegiance to a worldview/belief system that insists, for instance, that you all know that Genesis is a relatively trustworthy collection of HISTORY stories telling literal facts.
In that case, when I then offer the reasonable opinion that early Genesis literally reads like myth-telling, I am
1. NOT disrespecting Genesis,
2. NOT disrespecting later peoples who refer to Genesis,
3. NOT saying that Genesis is therefore unreliable.
And on and on. And THIS seems to be confounding to you. "OF course," you appear to be saying, "If you don't agree with us on the genre of Genesis, THEN YOU MUST be thinking it's not credible or reliable."
But holding different opinions about genre identification does not in any way insist that those who HOLD those opinions think the text is unreliable. It just doesn't rationally follow. After all, you all identify Genesis as something more like history but you all choosing to identify it as that genre doesn't mean you think it's unreliable. You all identify Jesus' parables as not literally factual stories, but as parables and that doesn't mean you think they are unreliable.
IF that's what's confusing you (at least in this case) and making you think that I think the Bible is unreliable, the process for reaching that conclusion is flawed.
Again: IDENTIFYING a genre for a text does not mean you think a text is unreliable. EVEN IF you're mistaken, it doesn't mean you think the text is unreliable. It just means you're mistaken (as I think you all obviously are... and yet, I am not saying you think the text is unreliable).
You tell me: Is THAT the problem you're having in understanding me or believing my words when I tell you what I, Dan Trabue, actually am thinking/intending in MY head? Do you see how it can be seen as arrogant to presume that YOU all know best what I'm thinking/meaning, especially when I've made it clear?
"No, I literally didn't. My answer is obvious to anyone who reads my words with any degree of reason."
Yet you bored me with massive amounts of bullshit instead of getting right to the point.
"I've never said that the Bible can't be understood by regular people."
I'm not sure how the "understood by regular people" became the issue. My problem is the accuracy of the events related in the OT.
"I am a regular person and I obviously think I can understand the Bible fairly well or I wouldn't offer commentary, would I? Plus, there are all the times I've stated quite clearly that I don't think the Bible or morality are a mystery entirely beyond our capacity to understand on at least a basic level."
Obviously you think that. Anyone with your level of hubris about their Biblical knowledge would.
"The problem is not the obvious NO that is my answer."
You're right. Had you just given the simple, direct answer absent all the bullshit and demands the I guess your answer, there wouldn't be much of a problem. Unfortunately, you did what you did.
"The problem is - as you are demonstrating right here and now - how can people of good faith who are intelligent read my words for well over a decade now and NOT know beyond all doubt what my answer is? It gets to the larger question of WHY do you all have such a hard time understanding my actual position?"
I've answered this once, but here I go again. Because you seem incapable (until recently) of giving a simple, direct answer to questions and often give what appears to be a simple, direct answer, then immediately launch into all sorts of exceptions, conditions, or contradictions that negate the "simple, direct" answer. Because you get your panties in a wad and bitch when anyone draws any conclusions about what you've said if it isn't an exact quote of your exact words. Hell, you accused me of slander when I DID quote you precisely.
"No, of course I do not think the Bible is unreliable, as Stan alleged EVEN when I made clear that this was not my position by saying, "NO, STAN, I do NOT think the Bible is unreliable.""
Now, you decide to give simple, direct answers.
"NO, of course I'm not "ignoring certain texts" as you falsely/incorrectly alleged and YES, I DO recognize that the NT characters held the OT in high esteem."
You don't "ignore" texts that don't fit your hunches, you skip them or come up with fanciful interpretations that don't fit the plain text.
"WHY do you all not know/believe these points, even when you've been corrected?"
Because we read and understand the whole context of what you've actually said, and realize how many unanswered questions you leave in your wake that might help us.
"I suspect it's because of an allegiance to a worldview/belief system that insists, for instance, that you all know that Genesis is a relatively trustworthy collection of HISTORY stories telling literal facts."
When you start out with "I suspect", then need to invent something that sounds like a conspiracy theory, just know that the chances that you are wrong will be very high.
"In that case, when I then offer the reasonable opinion that early Genesis literally reads like myth-telling, I am
1. NOT disrespecting Genesis,
2. NOT disrespecting later peoples who refer to Genesis,
3. NOT saying that Genesis is therefore unreliable."
Yet, your subjectively "reasonable", subjective hunch, based on your subjective reading of the text filtered through your biases, preconceptions, and prejudices don't give your subjective hunch any weight.
"And on and on. And THIS seems to be confounding to you. "OF course," you appear to be saying, "If you don't agree with us on the genre of Genesis, THEN YOU MUST be thinking it's not credible or reliable.""
Again, with a false representation of my position.
"But holding different opinions about genre identification does not in any way insist that those who HOLD those opinions think the text is unreliable. It just doesn't rationally follow. After all, you all identify Genesis as something more like history but you all choosing to identify it as that genre doesn't mean you think it's unreliable. You all identify Jesus' parables as not literally factual stories, but as parables and that doesn't mean you think they are unreliable."
More self serving bullshit.
"IF that's what's confusing you (at least in this case) and making you think that I think the Bible is unreliable, the process for reaching that conclusion is flawed."
No, it's not. But given the fact that this is about you telling me what I think, it's amusing that you'd attempt to do what you bitch about so frequently.
"Again: IDENTIFYING a genre for a text does not mean you think a text is unreliable. EVEN IF you're mistaken, it doesn't mean you think the text is unreliable. It just means you're mistaken (as I think you all obviously are... and yet, I am not saying you think the text is unreliable)."
Since no one has said this, it's either you being stupid or obtuse or intentionally misrepresenting others.
"You tell me: Is THAT the problem you're having in understanding me or believing my words when I tell you what I, Dan Trabue, actually am thinking/intending in MY head?"
1. I've never told you what you think in your warped, little head.
2. I don't have any trouble understanding your words, except when they seem designed to obfuscate and confuse.
3. I have trouble believing that your hunches are accurate, Biblical, or widely accepted. I also have trouble believing that someone who displays such a lack of grace, spends so much time bitching about others and demanding what you won't demand of yourself.
"Do you see how it can be seen as arrogant to presume that YOU all know best what I'm thinking/meaning, especially when I've made it clear?"
1. Since I've never done so, I fail to see the point.
2. If you made things clear, there wouldn't be a problem.
3. If you provided proof for your hunches, they'd be more readily accepted.
4. Your "Reason" is a subjective measure (at best) and carries no weight outside of your tiny little head.
5. Then I guess you'd better accept the fact that your arrogance is part of the problem.
6. As long as you prate on about your subjective hunches, validated only by your subjective reason, while acting as if those subjective hunches are objective Truth or reality, no one is going to take you seriously.
2. If you made things clear, there wouldn't be a problem.
So, saying literally, "I LITERALLY DO NOT THINK AND AM NOT SAYING that I think Scripture is unreliable. NOR do I think it's not understandable by regular people..." Is not clear enough for you?
WHAT would it take to be more clear than that?
3. If you provided proof for your hunches, they'd be more readily accepted.
As I've been abundantly clear, I'm not any more able to objectively prove my opinions about unprovable matters than you are. Given that we can't objectively prove our moral positions, this claim seems irrelevant, doesn't it?
I mean, "If you just grew wings and flew, it would be easier to accept that you're flying." Well, yes, but I can't prove an impossibility any more than you can prove an impossibility.
Insofar as you're talking about impossible to objectively prove positions.
On the other hand, when I say that I am literally NOT calling the Bible unreliable, then that IS objective proof, as I know what I am and am not saying.
Understand?
What position, then, would you like me to offer "proof of my hunches" for, then? Something that no one can prove or something that is provable?
4. Your "Reason" is a subjective measure (at best) and carries no weight outside of your tiny little head.
Well, once again, GIVEN that none of us can objectively prove our moral positions - not me, not YOU - that, too, is a moot point. Right? I mean, do you understand that since YOU can not prove your subjective opinions on ANY moral positions you hold, that you're saying that your subjective opinions carry no weight outside your tiny little head?
Or do you harbor a secret notion that you DO have some secret arcane objective proof of your moral opinions? "Proof" that you're not willing to share for some reason?
If you recognize the reality that YOU have no objective proof for your subjective moral hunches, do you think we should just ignore obvious moral problems like slavery, racism, oppression? Are you a nihilist ("We can't prove anything objectively so people are free to do ANY atrocious behavior and I should remain quiet...")? OR, do you recognize the rational moral imperative to take actions on REASONABLY moral concerns, at least those that cause great harm like rape, slavery, oppression, murder?
2. I don't have any trouble understanding your words, except when they seem designed to obfuscate and confuse.
Great. I'm glad to hear it. Then you understand that I do NOT believe that the Bible is unreliable?
You understand that I am NOT saying that the Bible can't be understood by regular people?
By all means, don't obfuscate and confuse, make it clear. Do you understand these objective realities?
6. As long as you prate on about your subjective hunches, validated only by your subjective reason, while acting as if those subjective hunches are objective Truth or reality, no one is going to take you seriously.
So, you ARE a nihilist. You DO think, "Well, we can't objectively prove ANY of our moral positions so any behavior out there - rape, slavery, running swords through children - I, Craig, have no reason to object to it, as no one will take me seriously."
It IS the case that you think, along with perhaps Solomon: “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.”
...is that what you're saying?
By all means, don't obfuscate and be unclear. Take a stand. SHOULD we take moral stands against obvious moral harms like oppression, rape and running swords through babies? Or, given that you can't objectively prove these positions of yours (presumably), do you think you should remain silent and worthless?
Before I address Dan's comments, I have to note that Dan has decided to take this thread almost entirely off topic.
"So, saying literally, "I LITERALLY DO NOT THINK AND AM NOT SAYING that I think Scripture is unreliable. NOR do I think it's not understandable by regular people..." Is not clear enough for you?"
Yes and no.
"WHAT would it take to be more clear than that?"
Nothing. The mere fact that you have asserted something is all that is necessary.
Of course the topic of this post is how you and your troll engage in the very behavior you bitch about and I'm tired of indulging your off topic bullshit.
"As I've been abundantly clear, I'm not any more able to objectively prove my opinions about unprovable matters than you are. Given that we can't objectively prove our moral positions, this claim seems irrelevant, doesn't it?"
It might be if you didn't act as if these unproven, unprovable, hunches should be treated as if they weer True. If you didn't act as if your hunches are "reality", and as if your unproven hunches were true beyond your own subjective reality.
"Insofar as you're talking about impossible to objectively prove positions."
Again, if all of your words and actions were consistent with this claim, I might take you seriously.
"On the other hand, when I say that I am literally NOT calling the Bible unreliable, then that IS objective proof, as I know what I am and am not saying."
So, as long as you say something, it magically becomes objectively True? Or does it become "objectively" true for you? Is that not still an unproven, subjective, hunch? Are you just asserting that your belief is somehow objectively True simply because you believe it to be True?
"Understand?"
Sure, clear as mud. You just claimed that your unproven, subjective hunch was objectively True because you believe it.
"What position, then, would you like me to offer "proof of my hunches" for, then? Something that no one can prove or something that is provable?"
Let's start with any of your hunches that you've labeled as "reality".
"Well, once again, GIVEN that none of us can objectively prove our moral positions - not me, not YOU - that, too, is a moot point. Right? I mean, do you understand that since YOU can not prove your subjective opinions on ANY moral positions you hold, that you're saying that your subjective opinions carry no weight outside your tiny little head?"
I've never tried to unilaterally apply my subjective hunches to others, nor have I called people "immoral" or "evil" based on my subjective hunches.
"Or do you harbor a secret notion that you DO have some secret arcane objective proof of your moral opinions? "Proof" that you're not willing to share for some reason?"
Asked and answered multiple times.
"If you recognize the reality that YOU have no objective proof for your subjective moral hunches, do you think we should just ignore obvious moral problems like slavery, racism, oppression? Are you a nihilist ("We can't prove anything objectively so people are free to do ANY atrocious behavior and I should remain quiet...")? OR, do you recognize the rational moral imperative to take actions on REASONABLY moral concerns, at least those that cause great harm like rape, slavery, oppression, murder?"
Well done, you've just argued that it is imperative that you take action to impose your subjective hunches about morality on those who's subjective hunches are different than yours.
"Great. I'm glad to hear it. Then you understand that I do NOT believe that the Bible is unreliable?"
I understand that you are saying that with great deliberation right now. I also understand that this is more of a semantic game than anything else. You've been clear that the OT descriptions of events are not accurate according to some standard that you've concocted, yet also believe those accounts to be "reliable".
"You understand that I am NOT saying that the Bible can't be understood by regular people?"
Whooopie!!
"By all means, don't obfuscate and confuse, make it clear. Do you understand these objective realities."
This is interesting, given that you've spent multiple comments arguing about claims I haven't made, while acting as if I had made them, while using these off topic comments to obfuscate the actual topic of the post.
"So, you ARE a nihilist. You DO think, "Well, we can't objectively prove ANY of our moral positions so any behavior out there - rape, slavery, running swords through children - I, Craig, have no reason to object to it, as no one will take me seriously.""
Wow, I wouldn't have thought that in a post based on you bitching about other people telling you what you said or what you believe, that you would have been quite so blatant in engaging in the very behavior you bitch about. Although you've done this a few times in this thread, this is the most blatant example of you and your demanding that others do what you will not do. Well done.
"It IS the case that you think, along with perhaps Solomon: “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.”"
No, I don't think that taking Solomon out of context helps you at all, when you display your double standard so blatantly.
"...is that what you're saying?"
No. I'm saying quite clearly that as long as YOU advocate a subjective, unprovable, moral code based entirely in yoru subjective hunches about what is "reasonable", and in some magical consensus, that YOU have no standing to impose your subjective hunches about morality on others.
"By all means, don't obfuscate and be unclear."
OK, this post isn't about rehashing the same old bullshit you've been spewing for years, nor is it about your refusal to acknowledge that you have no standing to impose your subjective moral hunches on others. Nor is it about you attempting to move from justifying your insistence that you can impose your subjective moral hunches on others, to making up bullshit about things I've never said or claimed. I have no reason to defend claims I haven't made. You, by moving this thread far from it's topic and avoiding your claims by pretending that I've made claims I haven't, are doing an excellent job of obfuscating that topic of the post.
"Take a stand. SHOULD we take moral stands against obvious moral harms like oppression, rape and running swords through babies? Or, given that you can't objectively prove these positions of yours (presumably), do you think you should remain silent and worthless?"
Asked and answered multiple times. Off topic and offuscatory in this thread.
I'm glad to see how comfortable you are in your double standard.
Post a Comment