I embrace Truth. Unlike people who share political philosophies,worldview, theological perspectives, and opinions with Dan, I acknowledge the existence of transcendent Truth. I acknowledge that Jesus is The Truth. I even embrace Truth when it contradicts my opinions and prejudices.
What I have a problem with is faux truth. With lies masquerading as truth. With people who claim to speak truth, yet speak from a position of ignorance.
Truth is a wonderful thing, lies and personal attacks pretending to be truth, not so much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
Ironic that you would begin your praise of Truth with an attack on me that is based on a ridiculous falsehood. Of course, I have never said there is no such thing as Transcendent truth. Of course, Anyone who reads ms knows that I believe in Transcendent truth.
That I don't think you hold all truth is not the same as saying that I don't believe in truth. Of course I do. That is a stupidly false claim.
Given that this post is about truth, perhaps you should begin by telling that truth and admitting that you made a false claim. Even a stupidly false claim.
Again ironically, it would appear that you are in position of either NOT believing in Transcendent truths - for instance the slavery of people is always wrong - or you believe that sometimes slavery is a moral option.
I accidentally deleted a comment I meant to publish, I apologize and will gladly publish it again.
The irony here is started by you repeating your recent behavior pattern. You shoe up, make demands, then leave when things are expected of you.
With that bit of irony out of the way, please enumerate one thing that you consider a transcendent Truth. Followed by why that particular Truth is transcendental.
How many times are you going to pull this idiotic slavery gambit, and how many times am I going to have to tell you that chattel slavery is always wrong? Apparently the multiple times I’ve done so isn’t sufficient for you to wrap your closed mind around the simple Truth.
Just out of curiosity, in what societies are skated most likely to be held currently?
Wow, incredible weblog format! How long have you been blogging for?
you made blogging look easy. The full glance of your site is great,
let alone the content!
Anonymous, I’d appreciate it if you’d identify yourself.
Transcendent Truth definition: "Transcendent truths are those unaffected by time or space. They define the world, but are not defined by the world."
I believe that God is good, that God is love, that God is grace.
I believe that there IS a God.
I believe that slavery is ALWAYS wrong.
I believe that people should not harm or oppress others.
I believe that it is wrong to harm children.
I believe that people should live within our means, individually and societally.
For starters.
WHY do I believe God is good (to just choose the first one)? I find the notion rational... To be sure, it is influenced by my Christian upbringing and I tend to accept the Bible as a reliable testament about the nature of God and humanity and, given that love of and belief in the teachings found in the Bible, I see that the Bible teaches a good God. Given the teachings about God, FROM Jesus and present in the human history within the Bible, a Good God that is defined by love seems reasonable.
Or, for a second answer, WHY do I think that we should not oppress/harm others? Because the Golden Rule is ultimately the most reasonable starting point for dealing with other humans that I can think of. IF we don't believe and live into a "Do as you'd like have done to you" mindset, we're inviting a hellish world, one not suited for human life. I just can't imagine anything more reasonable.
Of course.
So clearly, of COURSE I believe in Transcendent Truth. As I've always been quite clear about. YOUR CLAIM, then, is false and stupidly false, given that I HAVE NEVER made the claim you made and that I've been quite clear that I believe in Truth. I oppose your opinions about gay folk because CLEARLY, I believe the Truth that gay folk are not evil for being gay or for wanting to marry the person of their choice. I oppose your opinions about how to interpret the Bible because I think you are teaching a version of the Bible that isn't consistent with Truth.
IF I didn't think there was Truth, why would I care what you say?
Now that I've demonstrated how false your claim is, can I expect that you'll delete your false premise?
So slavery is always wrong, then when GOD commanded (in your theology) the chattel enslavement of people, God was wrong?
It’s interesting that you define transcendent truth as that which “I (you) find rational”. You seem to be suggesting that your personal, subjective definition of “rational” defines transcendent Truth. In fact your entire response is 100% related to you. Nowhere do you actually assert the objective existence of transcendent Truth, you simply assert that you have opinions about certain topics. In short, you claim you believe in transcendent Truth, while failing to actually assert any sort of transcendent standard, merely what “I” find rational.
Not convincing.
I’m unaware of God commanding chattel slavery. At a minimum it contradicts His command of the Jubilee year. It also doesn’t fit with that actual practices of the Hebrews.
But, if you feel qualified to pass judgment on God, have at it.
I guess if your unproven notion is “transcendent Truth” you’ve managed to ground something transcendent in non transcendent.
Of course your entire response seems intended to provide a “transcendent Truth”, divorced from a transcendent source.
For example “I believe there is a God”, is simply a statement of opinion. It’s not even a unequivocal declaration of a theistic worldview. It certainly isn’t an unequivocal declaration of the actual existence of a god. It’s just one more unproven statement of your personal opinion. Yes, you explain why you find your opinion personally persuasive, but your aren’t actually making an objective claim or statement. It’s certainly not a claim of transcendence.
Nice try, but your inability to actually assert the premise of anything transcendent simply buttresses my original claim.
It’s interesting that you define transcendent truth as that which “I (you) find rational”.
I literally did not do that. I literally defined TT as "Transcendent truths are those unaffected by time or space." ...citing a dictionary definition. You asked me to provide some examples of something I CONSIDER a transcendental truth. I did that.
What do YOU consider a transcendental truth? Are you able to prove those things or are they your opinions, as mine are my opinions?
Nowhere do you actually assert the objective existence of transcendent Truth
Because we can't prove something that is unprovable. I can't and you can't "prove God exists." You simply can't do it, not with objective data. It is your opinion, not something you can prove, not authoritatively.
Do you recognize that reality?
I’m unaware of God commanding chattel slavery.
Yes, it does. That you are unaware of it (in spite of me pointing it out multiple times) only means you are ignoring that reality.
"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. "
Deuteronomy 20. For one example.
Sorry, I left off one verse of the passage I cited from Deuteronomy 20...
"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. "
THEY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO FORCED LABOR AND SHALL WORK FOR YOU.
Or there is the commandment about selling your daughters into sex slavery, where at the least, God does not call it wrong and just describes how to do it... But saying "hey, if you're going to rape your babies, then be sure to hold their hands and whisper sweet words in their ears..." IS accepting baby rape as an option... it's NOT saying that it's wrong.
In YOUR approach to the Bible, God allows things as permissible that you think are always wrong (IF you think slavery is wrong... Or do you give a pass to sexual slavery/rape?). That still does not help your case.
If you think slavery is ALWAYS wrong, then you think God gave a pass and allowed as permissible some evil behavior.
That's pretty messed up and does not seem to be a transcendent truth, in your worldview.
“A chattel slave is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold. Chattel slavery was supported and made legal by European governments and monarchs.“
Now that you have the actual definition of chattel slavery, hopefully we can put your ignorance to rest, and you’ll stop trying to pass judgement on God.
As to your first comment, you’re essentially arguing that transcendent Truth “exists” in a theoretical sense. But you can’t provide anything other than your opinions as to what this might constitute in real life. So essentially you established a distinction without a difference. What’s the point of asserting that there is a transcendent truth, without actually being able to identify one beyond your opinion.
Instead of rehashing conversations that have already been a habit, I will point out that I have offered you numerous examples of proof that God exists and am still waiting for you to demonstrate those to be false.
Good Lord, do I have to parse every single word with you?
The owning of another human being against their will is slavery. God commanded that slavery in the Bible, at least the way that you read it.
I'm saying that slavery as I described it above and as it is usually recognized is a great evil.
Do you agree that owning another human being against their will and forcing them to labor against their will or have sex against their will is a great evil?
Quit playing around, man. Stop looking for loopholes to defend your notion of a god and admit your god commands slavery and that slavery is evil.
Or perhaps for the better, change the way that you read the Bible so you can be rationally and morally consistent.
As a point of fact in the real world I believe in Transcendent truth. As a point of fact in the real world I never claimed otherwise. As a point of fact in the real world, your allegation that I don't believe in Transcendent truth is objectively and stupidly false.
Do you recognize that reality?
As a point of fact in the real world I believe that the idea that God is love is a Transcendent truth. Presumably you also believe this. A
As a point of fact in the real world, neither of us can prove this objectively. That we can't prove it objectively does not mean that we do not believe it to be a Transcendent truth.
Do you recognize this reality?
As a point of fact in the real world, you have never proven that God exists. Nor have you proven that God is love. Not objectively, demonstrably, authoritatively. You've offered your opinion. And opinion on that matter with which I agree. But you have not proven it as a point of data as an objective fact. Not in the real world.
If by parse, you mean that you have to acknowledge the fact that words have actual meanings and that to use those meanings to convey specific thoughts is important, then yes apparently you do. Your relationship with things like definitions is delightfully fluid. When you feel like you can benefit from grasping on to a particular definition of a word, even when that definition excludes other definitions, you do so fiercely. But when the definition of a word constrains you, or doesn’t help you, all of a sudden you complain. Words mean things, and those meetings are important.
The fact remains, in the real world, I have offered you multiple instances of proof of gods existence. The fact remains, in the real world, that you have not addressed, argued against, or debunked any of them. It’s just one more instance where you’ve been asked to do something and you’ve chosen not to engage rather than to do what you’ve been asked. It’s not new, it’s not a surprise, and I don’t expect it will change. But you don’t get to define reality.
Dan,
As usual, this won't affect your comments being posted or responded to, but I want to clarify some things before you get worked up. In my very first comment on this thread, I asked you a question (auto correct made it a weird question, but it was there), which you have, as far as I can see, not answered. So, in the interest of fairness, I'm going to respectfully ask that you answer that question, as well as two others.
"Just out of curiosity, in what societies are slaves most likely to be held currently?"
Do you consider the YHWH of the Jewish and Christian scriptures to the the same being (entity, God, Idea, Spirit, or whatever word you prefer) as the Allah described in the Quran?
Are you equating "transcendent Truth" with morality?
As I pointed out, choosing not to answer these questions won't prevent your comments from appearing, but I will choose not to answer any direct questions from you until they are.
I'm sure you understand and agree that it's important to answer questions when asked.
"The owning of another human being against their will is slavery."
I note that you move the goalposts with ease.
"God commanded that slavery in the Bible, at least the way that you read it."
I don't see anyplace where God commanded chattel slavery. So, clearly your hunch about how I read scripture is wrong.
"I'm saying that slavery as I described it above and as it is usually recognized is a great evil."
I'm saying that you don't get to define chattel slavery. I'd ask that you define "usually" given that approximately 40 million people are currently slaves. I'd also ask how you arrive at an objective definition of "evil".
Again, I could ask, but I won't because those are just your opinions.
Using the term chattel slavery is YOUR invention. The Bible does not use that term.
The Bible simply describes slavery. The owning of another human being for forced labor or rape. That is what I have always been calling wrong. It's what everybody calls wrong.
Do you agree that forced labor slavery is a great moral evil? Do you agree that forced sexual relationships is a great evil? It is literally what is described in the Bible as either a command from God or a legitimate option that God allows as not immoral. At least the way that you read the Bible.
The fact remains, I believe in Transcendent truth. You are factually mistaken and wrong to make the false claim that I do not believe in it. I have been quite clear that I believe in Transcendent truth. And yet, you maintain the false claim. That's the facts. That's the truth. If you want to honor the truth, then change your words. Admit your false claims.
I’ve been quite clear about two things. Chattel slavery is evil (I see what you did there, you realized that your claim that the Bible mandated chattel slavery was wrong, and instead of acknowledging that fact you simply moved the goal posts and ignored your gaffe.)
I’m not going to answer your questions until you answer the three I’ve asked.
I have to wonder if you’ve actually read all that the OT says about slavery and the limitations on slavery. But I also have to wonder why you’re getting so bent out of shape over something that’s just a myth. (Or revenge fantasy, or legend, or borrowed from another culture, or epic, or whatever you want to call it.). Why out of the entire OT, you’ve chosen this one thing as the instance where you’re prepared to accept that God actually spoke.
Or, your going to make up claims about what I believe, and argue against your hunch about what I believe.
Yes, you claim to believe in some sort of theoretical transcendent Truth, that you can’t articulate without being equivocal.
" in what countries are slaves most likely to be held today?"
I don't know what that has to do with anything but the answer is I had no idea. So I looked it up it looks like to me that India China and Pakistan in the top three nations ...
India 18 million
China 3 million
Pakistan 2 million
Why?
" do I believe God is the same as Allah?"
I believe in one God. Creator above all. A god that is defined by love and grace. In Arabic, the word for God is Allah. To the degree that anyone is speaking about the one true God, I don't care if they are speaking about Allah or God or Ralph the Wonder llama. If they are speaking of the god of Truth and Love and Grace I don't care what they call God. If on the other hand trauma they are saying, "God, you know, Jesus...? like in the Bible, The God Who is okay with and sometimes commands slavery and selling your children into sexual bondage... it's okay with god..." I don't care what they call that entity does not the loving God that I believe in. Why?
"Am I equating Transcendent truth with morality?"
No. Why do you ask? My first example was God is love. That isn't immorality oh, it's just an opinion about a Transcendent truth.
Which gets us back away from answering your rather off topic questions and to the point of Truth. As a point of Truth I believe in Transcendent truth and your claim to the contrary is stupidly false. Do you recognize that now? Are you prepared to speak the truth and repent for the false claim?
It seems the accidental deletion could have been my comment which follows:
"Oh, but that's your truth, Craig. And that's not the same as my truth. Don't you know that?
Truth is truth. It can sometimes be hard to see, but not so nearly as often as some would have us believe. What truth is can be debated, but opposing positions require evidence to support the differences, not just personal preference. Truth is a problem for those for whom truth is inconvenient. Yet it remains the truth for those who are honest."
Seems it would be out of place now, but if you want to post it or not, either is fine with me.
"You claim to believe in some sort of theoretical Transcendent truth, that you can't articulate without being equivocal."
I believe God is good. That is straight and clear as can be. There is nothing equivocal about it. That would be another false claim from you. Just pile it on top of the other false claims.
In your post about truth.
The irony is just so funny, yet sad.
As noted, no goal posts have been changed by me. I have always said slavery is wrong. What I mean by slavery is what most people mean by slavery, the owning of another human being.. Forcing them to do labor or raping them against their will.
You know, Slavery.
You are the one who has added chattel to the conversation. That's not from the Bible. It's not from me. That's from you.
Do you recognize that?
Craig, " I have to wonder why you get bent out of shape over something that's just a myth..."
1. I'm not bent out of shape.
2. I have concern for the fundamentalist approach to the Bible (and for that matter, the Quran) because people have used text in the Bible to defend slavery, for instance. Or to defend not giving equal rights to gay Folk and mistreating or oppressing gay Folk. Or for keeping transgender women out of the proper bathroom and otherwise oppressing transgender people.
People have used the Bible to justify oppressing women, denying them jobs, or even abuse.
Because people have misused and abused the Bible to defend all sorts of awful and oppressive Behavior, I remain reasonably wary about Fundamentalist approaches to the Bible. Especially given their tendency to say they are the ones who hold that they are the one true possessors of Truth.
Craig, you begin your parody of Truth by saying and I quote, "unlike Dan I believe in the existence of transcendent truth."
You have not defined that, by the way.
I told you you quite clearly that I do believe in Transcendent truth. But merely asserting that is not enough.
And so, I gave you an example per your request. I believe that God is good. That IS a Transcendent truth.
Still, somehow that is not enough for you.
What do you mean by Transcendent truth?
Do you think the something has to be affirmed as objectively provable to be considered a Transcendent truth? Because that is not the typical definition of transcendent truth.
Art, how foolish of me to forget that we all have our own truth. Of course Dan seems to be denying that.
Anonymous, If you want to post here please share your name.
Dan, I’m sure you are just confused. Or perhaps you are setting the table for your exit in high dudgeon.
Of course when you said that the Bible commands chattel skavery, then redefined what you mean by slavery twice, that wasn’t goalpost moving, no.
I get that, in your opinion God is good, so what. Are you claiming that God is transcendent or that His good is somehow transcendent.
Or are you just stating your opinion.
I've answered your questions. Your turn to start answering some questions. My questions, by the way, are dealing with facts and observable data that are relevant to your post on "truth" (or was it an intentional parody of "truth..."???). As opposed to yours which are, well, I don't see that they are relevant to the post or anything I've said.
Of course when you said that the Bible commands chattel skavery, then redefined what you mean by slavery twice, that wasn’t goalpost moving, no.
Again, YOU BROGHT IN THE TERM "chattel," NOT ME. NOT the Bible. That is YOUR term. If I used it, I used it in deference to your choice to bring it in. I am fine with just the term Slavery, which I don't think is confusing to anyone.
Indeed, I don't know that chattel slavery is confusing to anyone. Here's one definition of that...
"Chattel slavery is what most people have in mind when they think of the kind of slavery that existed in the United States before the Civil War, and that existed legally throughout many parts of the world as far back as recorded history. Slaves were actual property who could be bought, sold, traded or inherited."
Or this, from MW...
"What is the Difference Between chattel and slave?
The word chattel is encountered in two main senses. The earlier of the two is primarily technical and refers to property, specifically property that is distinct from real estate holdings. The second meaning of chattel can excite considerable emotion, as it refers to humans as property, i.e., slaves."
Nothing in those definitions that limited "chattel slavery" to those held in perpetuity or whatever it was your definition offered.
Are you saying that ONLY slavery that includes the descendants of people held forcibly as slaves is bad, but as long as they are freed after a few years of forced labor, then THAT slavery is not bad?
It really is your turn to start answering questions, since you're the one dodging the ones relevant to this conversation.
At any rate, THAT is what I'm talking about. People who are forced into slavery against their will and who are "property" of another human being, forced to do labor or engage in sex (as when your god said he was okay with you selling your daughter to men to be raped/"be married" or at least TRIED OUT for marriage... but if that rapey marriage didn't work out, there were RULES about how to free her from that bondage back into the chattel custody of her father...) THAT sort of slavery (WHATEVER you want to call it - the Bible only refers to slavery, not "chattel slavery...")
I get that, in your opinion God is good, so what. Are you claiming that God is transcendent or that His good is somehow transcendent.
So what? YOU ASKED me to offer an example of a something I hold to be a transcendent truth. I DID. That isn't good enough for you because... why?
I'm stating that I hold the opinion that many Christians hold... that God is Good. I believe that to be a classic example of a transcendent truth.
Or are you just stating your opinion.
You ASKED ME FOR MY OPINION, so YES, I gave you my opinion. I TOLD you that I do indeed believe in transcendent truth and that your claim is therefore mistaken and not only mistaken, but stupidly false. And I GAVE YOU an example of something I BELIEVE to be a transcendent truth.
Why is that not good enough for you?
Maybe if you offered something YOU believe to be a transcendent truth, I could see what it is I'm doing wrong by simply and directly and clearly answering your question without a single hem, haw or equivocation.
But no, you prefer making false claims to actually answering questions.
Thank you for answering, I know it’s difficult for you.
1. There are roughly 40 million slaves in the here and now, the vast majority of those in non Judeo-Christian countries. Yet your focused on a relatively tiny number of people thousands of years ago, recorded in a book you deny accurately represents history.
2. I suspected that you might try this diversion so I’ll ask a more precise version of the question.
Do you believe that the Allah described in the Quran is the same entity as the YHWH described in the Juddo-Christian scripture.
3. Because you made the connection in your second comment.
Once you clarify, I guess it will mean that I will be stuck answering your hundreds of repetitive, redundant, and obfuscatory questions.
I guess when I do rarely get what I asked for, I shouldn’t complain.
WHAT question do you think is unanswered? This?
Do you believe that the Allah described in the Quran is the same entity as the YHWH described in the Juddo-Christian scripture.
I don't KNOW the Quran. That being the case, my answer is the SAME as the first time I answered your related question.
There is ONLY ONE GOD.
GOD IS A GOOD, LOVING, GRACIOUS, JUST CREATING GOD.
IF SOMEONE BELIEVES IN A GOOD, LOVING GOD, THEN THAT IS THE SAME GOD I BELIEVE IN.
IF SOMEONE IS READING THE QURAN AND FIND ALLAH/GOD TO BE A GOOD, LOVING GOD, THAT IS THE ONE TRUE GOD.
Why is that? Because God is ONE. ALL things that are good, loving, true, gracious, etc ARE OF GOD.
IF SOMEONE IS READING THE BIBLE OR THE QURAN and interpret a god that believes in and commands slavery, rape, murder, abuse of the poor or otherwise act in a way contrary to being Good and Loving, that is NOT the Good God.
Any PERSON who reads ANY TEXT and interprets that it is good to do bad or that God commands bad is not following the true God. So, that is why it's difficult to answer your question directly because, 1. I have not extensively read the quran and 2. It's really more about what someone has to SAY about a text or how they interpret a text than what the text says. At least that's how it works with the Bible with which I am familiar.
At what point will you acknowledge your lies and start answering questions?
Again, when you write a short story to answer s yes or no question, it appears to be obfuscation. Especially for someone who’s been so vocal in praising Islam, it seems strange that you make those claims while knowing very little of the book that underlies the religion you seem so supportive of.
Perhaps you could just admit that you don’t know? Perhaps you just are unable to give a simple direct answer.
I’ll have to think about whether this is a good faith attempt to answer or obfuscation.
Just a hint, continued demands and accusations don’t really help your cause.
You can get away with that shit in your safe space, it’s less successful elsewhere.
“IF I didn't think there was Truth, why would I care what you say?”
Excellent question, I have no earthly idea what motivates you beyond hubris.
“Now that I've demonstrated how false your claim is, can I expect that you'll delete your false premise?”
Perhaps you are using the word “prove” in a nonstandard way or are referring to to part of my post that I edited to be more precise.
“What do YOU consider a transcendental truth? Are you able to prove those things or are they your opinions, as mine are my opinions?”
I have no argument with the definition you offered. Transcendent Truth is Truth that is rooted in the very nature of a transcendent God. In much the way that God identifies as “I Am”, trancenndent Truth “is”.
“Do you recognize that reality?”
I realize that you consider it to be reality, but until you deconstruct some of the proof of God arguments,it’s really more of your opinion than reality.
There, I asked you three measly questions,?ive answers more than that. I’ll get to others later.
This should at least stop your bitching about answering 3 whole questions.
Except, you didn't.
Devastating response. It’s so powerful in its denial of the reality that is right there for all to see.
You have not answered my questions. As a point of fact in the real world. It has not happened.
You've given responses to the questions asked, but they weren't answers TO the questions asked.
Some key questions that you have not answered...
1. I literally have never suggested there is no Transcendent truth. I literally believe in Transcendent truth. That's the fact of it. You said I don't believe in Transcendent truth. I do. You are factually wrong.
Do you understand that reality?
2. What do YOU consider a Transcendent truth? Give an example of a Transcendent truth you believe in.
3. You asked me for an example of something I consider a Transcendent truth. I did. I consider God is good to be a Transcendent truth. Thereby demonstrating that I factually believe in Transcendent truth.
Why is that not good enough?
4. Are you saying that only slavery that extends beyond the slaves lifetime is bad slavery? You are the one that's defining slavery as chattel slavery and that you are saying chattel slavery is bad.
5. I'm saying that owning another person against their will and forcing them to do labor or be raped (be "married")is always grossly evil.
6. You've repeatedly criticized me by asking the question or is that only your opinion? Iclarified, yes I'm giving you my opinion to the question that you asked. You asked me for an opinion and I gave it to you. Why is my opinion insufficient when that's what you ask for?
Anyone reading this can see that I've answered your questions and that you have not answered mine. Anyone reading this can see that you have made multiple stupidly false claims and been very weaselly and dodging answers and being vague and indirect.
You may be fine with that. I don't know. You may not even understand that you're not answering questions. I don't know.
At this point, I'm beginning to wonder. Maybe you truly don't understand. Which is why I've repeatedly backed away from engaging with you. I just think you're not sufficiently able to engage in adult conversations. Indeed, I could explain these things to a child at some level and they would understand them, even if they were only in middle school or grade school. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not unable to understand and even grade school level. I can't help you understand anymore than I have.
Dan,
You're right that I didn't answer every single one of your questions. I quite clearly pointed that out. It's interesting that you get this worked up when your demands aren't met, but clearly are not as interested in answering as in demanding answers.
"Do you understand that reality?"
I understand that you claim to believe that transcendent Truth exists.
"What do YOU consider a Transcendent truth?"
That Truth is inextricably bound the the nature and existence of YHWH.
"Why is that not good enough?"
As an example, it's fine. I never claimed it wasn't a good example. Where I have a problem with it is that I've seen how you perceive God's goodness, that you tend to define it based on your opinion about what might be good. If, as you are now claiming, God's goodness is a transcendent Truth, then you'd (at a minimum) have to allow for the possibility that God may see good differently than you do.
"Are you saying that only slavery that extends beyond the slaves lifetime is bad slavery? You are the one that's defining slavery as chattel slavery and that you are saying chattel slavery is bad."
No, I'm saying that the term "slavery" in that place and time covered a variety of different arrangements. I'm further saying that not all of those arrangements are equal, and the presence of various manumission laws also makes the subject more complex than "Slavery is evil." You appear to have couched this in simplistic terms to maximize your "God commanded evil." argument, and to maximize the emotional impact of your claims. This ignores the fact that you don't have an objective standard or morality or of evil to make the blanket statement with any authority.
" I'm saying that owning another person against their will and forcing them to do labor or be raped (be "married")is always grossly evil."
Then do what you demand others do and provide proof. Provide a universal, objective, moral code that supports your claim. I'll wait.
"You've repeatedly criticized me by asking the question or is that only your opinion? Iclarified, yes I'm giving you my opinion to the question that you asked. You asked me for an opinion and I gave it to you. Why is my opinion insufficient when that's what you ask for?"
Maybe this is what has you confused, maybe I wasn't clear enough in my request. I asked you for examples of transcendent Truth, I didn't mean to ask for your opinions. Maybe that helps, If I wasn't clear, I apologize.
You're right. Anyone reading this can see that you responding to my questions. But as I pointed out earlier, your long, vague, response to a yes or no question indicates obfuscation, not clarity. When you ignore the facts that are visible for everyone to see it doesn't help your cause.
But, if you think that insults are better than grace, that demands are better than conversation, that expletives and better than gentleness, I can't help you.
You're asking for objectively factual examples of transcendent truth I believe in? Throughs that are demonstrable and provable objectively to anyone and all? Perhaps if you gave me an example like that, I can see what you're saying. The ones that spring to my mind right off are not objectively provable. God is good, for instance, it's not objectively provable. It is an opinion.
Do you recognize the reality that Transcendent truth is not typically required to be objectively provable? That's not part of the definition or common understanding of the word anywhere that I've seen.
It doesn’t matter what I ask, how I ask, or why I ask. Your reflexive response is going to be negative. I should just accept that and stop asking.
I honestly don’t have the time or patience to endlessly hash things out.
I’ll point out that this is virtually exactly how I characterized your position earlier. You claim to believe in transcendent Truth, but it’s more of a theoretical belief than a belief than anything else.
On the reading my comment, I actually didn’t ask what you said I asked.
Just noting that you're still not answering questions. At least you removed the overtly false claim from your post.
Of course, you replaced it with a less overt false claim or at least a false implication.
Using that devious model, I can say that people who believe as Craig does want to beat women and rape them to keep them in their place and believe the black people are monkeys.
...Implying that I'm associated with a group of people who believe something different than what I believe. A false implication is still a false claim even if it's trying pitifully to be sneaky.
And in spite of apparently recognizing that your false claim was stupidly false, there is no apology forthcoming for making the false claim. This is the way of modern conservatism, unfortunately.
Oh for the days of a clever lie. The stupid false claim of trump-types are just banal and boring.
1. I've answered multiple questions.
2. I've edited my opinion to be more precise.
I apologize that being associated with others who identify as "progressive christians" is so offensive to you. However, when the things you as and write align with what others in certain groups say and write, it's only logical that I'd make the association.
Of course when you choose to associate me with others (Trump supporters for example), it's apparently perfectly fine for you to do so.
I'd say that you'e got the clever lie thing covered, but I'd nevr call your lies clever.
You'd be better off, if you were concerned about truth, with citing someone specifically who says they don't believe in Transcendent truth and talk about that person and what they specifically said.
I'd wager you probably can't identify too many people who don't believe in some basic Transcendent truths. Finding some outlier and trying to associate a large group with the actions or beliefs of an outlier is the mark of a stupidly false demonizer. Someone who only wants to stir up trouble and be divisive rather than seek truth.
Dan,
Just because you choose to be unaware of the folx who share the “progressive christian” label with you doesn’t mean I have to dumb things down for you.
If only you applied this same litmus test to you and your pet troll.
Post a Comment