Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

Some excerpts from an article from a researcher on the depth and depravity of lies told by this current administration... which comes as no surprise to anyone who isn't blinded by an unhealthy sort of partisanship.

I Study Liars, And I've Never Seen One Like Trump

I spent the first two decades of my career as a social scientist studying liars and their lies. I thought I had developed a sense of what to expect from them. Then along came President Donald Trump. His lies are both more frequent and more malicious than ordinary people's...

In Trump's first 298 days in office, however, he made 1,628 false or misleading claims or flip-flops, by The Post's tally.

[!!! Holy Shit! This is not normal nor should it be acceptable! We can't just casually pass this insane bit of data by! ~DT] 

That's about six per day, far higher than the average rate in our studies. And of course, reporters have access to only a subset of Trump's false statements — the ones he makes publicly — so unless he never stretches the truth in private, his actual rate of lying is almost certainly higher.

That rate has been accelerating. Starting in early October, The Post's tracking showed that Trump told a remarkable nine lies a day, outpacing even the biggest liars in our research.

But the flood of deceit isn't the most surprising finding about Trump...

Trump told 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind ones. That's a much higher ratio than we found for our study participants, who told about double the number of self-centered lies compared with kind ones.

The most stunning way Trump's lies differed from our participants', though, was in their cruelty. An astonishing 50 percent of Trump's lies were hurtful or disparaging...

By telling so many lies, and so many that are mean-spirited, Trump is violating some of the most fundamental norms of human social interaction and human decency...

Read the whole story...


Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.                            

~Proverbs 12

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

~Exodus 20

But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come
evil thoughts,
sexual immorality,
false witness,

These are what defile a person.

~Jesus, reading a laundry list of an average day in the Trump White House (with the possible exception of "murder...," so far as we know...)


Marshal Art said...

He's got nothing on you,or the Clintons or the Obamas. You continue to feign alarm and concern for that which honest people regard as altogether insignificant despite being regrettable and unfortunate, while disingenuous people like you (I'm being gracious here) never so much as passed gas over the far more serious lies and behaviors of those you support.

Indeed, you end this muckraking drivel with the type of rhetoric you would add to this vast list of Trump lies had he said it. Jesus was neither reading a list, nor was he referring to Trump.

Anonymous said...

I would enjoy reading a debate among y'all on voter ID laws. So consider this a request for a future blog post, Dan.

~ Hiram

Marshal Art said...


I would enjoy (sincerely) greater participation on your part in any discussion. The herd has thinned greatly in recent years and I say, the more the merrier.

Just sayin'.

Dan Trabue said...

I have no huge amount of information or opinion on voter ID laws. Generally, I support making voting EASIER to do with FEWER limitations.

IF voter ID laws are restrictive, then because I support easier access to voting with fewer limitations, I'd be opposed to them.

Seeing as how the data demonstrates we have almost zero problems with serious voter fraud in our nation, it seems to me more of an opportunity for some to demonize and stigmatize and disenfranchise the poor, the marginalized, the immigrant. It's creating a problem and expenditure where no problem exists.

Except, the cynical might say, the problem of some that more voting might equal less votes for THEM.

But beyond that, i don't really have anything to say.

Anonymous said...

As far as the herd thinning, I am thinking Mr. Glenn Chatfield has been mighty quiet around these parts.

~ Hiram

Marshal Art said...


Glenn's but one, and the most recent. I think blogging in general might be on the wane. I never had many left-leaning blogs on my blog role. But of those, Dan's is the only active one that remains.

As to ID laws, there's far more than those who oppose them will ever admit, nor will they admit there is next to zero expense to implement them...neither for voters or states to enact them. Almost all states provide some means of acquiring state ID for free if a citizen claims the average $15 cost he could have scraped at least two years to gather is prohibitive. The only people who would lose are those who aren't legally entitled to vote. Most of those vote for Democrats, and most who oppose ID are Democrats. Firming up the inegrity of the voting system doesn’t work well for Democrats.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

Craig said...

Given that voting is a privilege, which has restrictions, I see absolutely no problem with requiring that people demonstrate their qualification to vote. As Art mentioned, the bar for getting the free state issued ID is so low that it’s absurd to claim it prevents people from voting.

As long as there is a mechanism for a free ID and it’s applied equally to everyone, I think it’s perfectly acceptable.

Marshal Art said...

I don't necessarily think it must be free. Again, it's at least two years between elections (some not voting except every four when the presidency is up for grabs), and as I looked at costs in each state for IDs, I found one at $45 dollars. How long would it take for anyone who takes voting seriously to save up $45 for an ID? Even at two years? That's a little more than $.06 per day.

But that's only one state. The next most expensive was about half that at most, and usually around $10-$15. Yet still, at the same time, most states, if not all of them, offer them for free for those who somehow can't scrape together a few cents per day.

Voting is TOO easy these days. You don't have to identify yourself. You don't have to leave the house. You don't have to wait until voting day. And too many leftists don't even require you to be a citizen. One side of the political/ideological divide considers voting to be a serious responsibility of every American who truly cares about their country. The other side are leftists.

Craig said...

I live in a state with voting day registration and all you need to register is someone (who also doesn’t have to identify themselves) to “vouch” for you. Essentially, if you can rope someone into saying you live in the precinct, you can vote.

I would clarify that, I think the significant identification and verification should take place when you register to vote, then the ID at the polling place is just confirmation.

I’d point out, that both “the poor” and “immigrants” (immigrants who are citizens and thus eligible to vote) would need an ID that would allow them to vote for numerous other activities and programs. So it seems absurd to think that they wouldn’t already have an acceptable ID.

Dan Trabue said...

It's not always as easy as the well off and mainstream may realize...

Craig said...

You do realize that the folks you mention need an ID for numerous products and services (prescriptions, Dr appointment or hospital visits, otc medication, various welfare benefits, tobacco and alcohol to name a few. Are you suggesting that there is a problem with requiring ID for those things?

Craig said...

You also realize that it’s possible that circumstances have changed since early 2016.

Marshal Art said...


The story you posted focuses on extreme cases, and no system is perfect. But having no system at all just so just anyone can vote is worse. There must be controls that insure the integrity of the vote. Your side of the divide allows for those who shouldn't be voting, for legitimate reasons, to vote anyway, and that's what makes the Democrats giddy, because such people are most likely to vote for the party that will give them stuff at the cost of everyone else.

At what point are adults expected to be adults and ensure that their own personal affairs are in order? If one is less than dedicated to such things, I don't have any pity that they might have to burden themselves in these ways in order to make things right. It's what adults do, like it or not. To call such expectations "a poll tax" or "disenfranchisement" is a lie from the pit of put in terms you have no problem using. I feel bad for the people who are victims of clerical errors, but why they weren't caught at the time it happened is not an argument for the state ignoring the need for ensuring voting system integrity.

Craig said...

Why is lying wrong?

Dan Trabue said...

I'll be glad to give you my opinion in answer to that question if you'll offer your opinion on the question first.

Craig said...

Interesting, I’ve not written a post based on the premise that lying is wrong, nor have I claimed it’s wrong. Yet, your asking that I provide an answer to a question regarding the premise underlying your post.

Nonetheless, I’ll start with the obvious.

1. “You shall not bear false witness”

You know what, as a Christian that’s reason enough.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a moral monster or that you're not a sociopath and that you, like most normal people, think that lying is wrong and, since you asked, I was giving you the opportunity to give your reason.

So, for you, it's wrong because there's a line in the Bible and that's what you need to think something is wrong?

So if, for instance, you read the lines about God commanding the enslavement of people, or the forced marriages of women, or the slaughter of people, because it's a line in the Bible, does that mean you DON'T think those actions are wrong?

For me, lying is wrong - to the degree that it is wrong - because of harm. If someone lies about, for instance, having abused women or sexually harassed women - women who have charged that person with those actions - then he is causing great harm to their reputations and to sexually harassed and assaulted women everywhere, because it downplays the ugly damage of sexual harassment/assault. Or the person who lies about a contract that he's made, promising payment to someone... he's causing financial harm to the person cheated of money.

Or the person who lies about a news story, calling it "fake news" when in fact, it was a factual news story... that person is doing damage to a Democracy that relies upon a free and working press to survive and flourish.

So, many lies are wrong because they cause harm.

Or how about the lies we tell ourselves? "I can have another beer/soda/cigarette... I've only had a couple this week..." when, in fact, he's had two dozen that week and the over-consumption of these products causes harm to their physical health. These sorts of lies cause harm, too.

On the other hand, a person who lies to Nazis who are chasing some Jews, saying, "Nope, no Jews are in our house..." when in fact there ARE Jews hiding in the house, that does NOT cause harm. Indeed, it prevents harm. So that lie is not a moral wrong, it seems to me (and, I suspect, most people who are concerned about morality.)

You see, I don't think picking a line out of a sacred text and having that as our sole reason for saying something is moral or not is an adept or moral approach to handing morality. Which sacred texts are we going to rely upon for giving these rules? Within a given sacred text, which lines are indeed moral universal rules and which ones are not? Who decides?

I think harm is a more reasonable (and biblical) reason for calling something wrong.

Craig said...

Thanks. Just to be clear, you’ve read a considerable amount into my response that’s not there.

But, your response was pretty much what I thought it would be.

Dan Trabue said...

You asked a question with a rather obvious answer (obvious to most, I think).

I told you I'd answer it, but politely requested that you answered it first.

You responded as if I were asking a rather strange question, or as if you didn't agree that lying is wrong.

You then gave your "start with the obvious" one point answer.

I asked you, "So, your theory is that we lying is bad because there is a line in a sacred text..."?

And then I gave you my reasonable answer: We shouldn't lie if it causes harm to others because harming others is reasonably wrong.

IF you wanted to give a more complete answer and make yourself clearer, I GAVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY. You mostly declined, apparently.

But you can't blame me for "reading into your response" when you didn't give much of a response. AND, I didn't "read into" your response... I tried estimating what your position was based on the little information you gave, and put that estimation into the form of a question, to give you a chance AGAIN to be clear.

You can't blame me for asking a clarifying question or be unsatisfied that I dared to ask a clarifying question based on a very brief answer.

If you want to be clear, by all means, make yourself clear.

But you can't keep being vague and generic and expect people to walk away with a clear understanding... and THEN complain that people are walking away with less than a clear understanding.

You can't have it both ways.

Not rationally, anyway.

Craig said...

I’m not. I’m pointing out that your version of my reasoning contained a considerable amount of you reading things into it. I’m not complaining, just pointing out the obvious.

I did ask a question, you are correct, but I don’t think the answer is as obvious as you think it is.

For example, someone who is a disciple of Darwin and a committed materialist could/would argue that lying in order to advance the species is a good thing. A more utilitarian perspective would be that a lie that benefits the largest number of people might be a societal good.

In any case, your answer was exactly what I thought it would be.

FYI, did you consider the possibility that your quid pro quo demand might have influenced my answer? That dealing with a reasonable, rational, respectful question in that way might not be the best choice?

Dan Trabue said...

Look at what I asked you, in response to your one line vague "answer..."

So, for you, it's wrong because there's a line in the Bible and that's what you need to think something is wrong?

So if, for instance, you read the lines about God commanding the enslavement of people, or the forced marriages of women, or the slaughter of people, because it's a line in the Bible, does that mean you DON'T think those actions are wrong?

Do you see the question marks?

So, when you say...

I’m pointing out that your version of my reasoning contained a considerable amount of you reading things into it.

There IS NO "your version of my reasoning..."

Instead, there are, me, asking questions of you to try to get you to clarify your position.

And yes, my answer SHOULD be predictable, because I'm consistent on this point, and it's a reasonable position to hold, one found common by many if not most rational moral people.

did you consider the possibility that your quid pro quo demand might have influenced my answer? That dealing with a reasonable, rational, respectful question in that way might not be the best choice?

Did you consider that you often do this, ask questions to which you're not willing to respond?

For instance, have you EVER responded to your own question on your blog about if slavery was wrong?

Well, well, I just looked and, surprise, surprise, no, you have not answered your own question.

So, perhaps you can understand, given your history of asking questions you're not even willing to answer yourself, that I'd request this upfront.

You'll note that I don't do this for everyone (I never have for Hiram, for instance). I only do it with people who have a history of not answering questions.

Seems reasonable to me.

Craig said...

You mean like you not answering why slavery is wrong? Like you hiding from a series of questions for months. What a load of crap.

You tried this tactic, and you don’t like the way I responded to your tactic.

I know this won’t make any sense to you, but if your going to make assumptions part of your questions, it’s not a good way to get answers.

Usually when someone accuses others of behavior they themselves are guilty of, its called projecting.

FYI, the reason I haven’t answered the question about slavery was that I was waiting patiently for you to answer the clarifying follow up question I asked. I was hoping that I might get a response from you untainted by anything from me. I guess that’s one more...

Craig said...

FYI, the answer you gave that I expected, was that lying is only wrong to the degree you perceive that a lie “causes harm”.

Dan Trabue said...

And, without being sure because you still haven't answered your own question clearly and directly, the answer you APPEAR to be giving is that lying is only wrong to the degree that you perceive some lines in the bible tell you that it is... with the caveat that you are the one interpreting those words and you do so rather whimsically, haphazardly, without a reliable arbiter of which lines you randomly take literally and which ones you make figurative or otherwise deem not literal.

But you tell me... I could be wrong because you will not clarify. You will not man up, take a position, explain that position and stand by that position. You instead continue to engage in vague and irrational and whimsical non-answers.

So, there we are.

Craig said...

And the goal post changing, how predictable. You asked for an answer, you got an answer. I’m sorry that you didn’t ask for chapter and verse, you got what you asked for.

Look, your “A lie is wrong when I perceive that someone has been harmed”, is simply a cop out. It allows you to tell or ignore lies told about those you perceive to be harming people, while criticizing those same people.

Craig said...

But seriously, I appreciate the answer.

Dan Trabue said...

Asking if you want to answer your own question and assuming you might answer your own question is hardly moving the goal post.

But seriously...

Craig said...

I did answer my question, adding to my question is moving the goal post.

Marshal Art said...

I would submit that to lie to, say, a nazi to prevent his finding a Jew, is harmful to the nazi from the nazi's perspective. Harm is therefor still inflicted, and based on the "do not return evil for evil", one paints one's self in a corner.

Craig said...

Good point, it’s a reasonable position to take that a lie always harms someone, which means that it all comes down to personal preference when deciding who to lie to.

Of course, if lying produces an evolutionary advantage for some that is also a reasonable justification.

This illustrates the problem with placing things like lying into a subjective realm.

Dan Trabue said...

I'd suggest that reasonable people who are concerned about morality would not think it immoral to lie to someone to prevent them from hurting someone else. That such a lie is, itself, not only NOT immoral, but it would be immoral or wrong to tell the truth, IF it caused harm to the person being hunted, for instance.

Now, IF it's the case that the person doing the hunting would be harmed himself for, for instance, being unsuccessful in finding the hunted, we STILL have an obligation to aid the hunted ones from harm, because they are only seeking NOT to be harmed, whereas the person hunting them is seeking to CAUSE harm to them.

Consider the scenario: A Nazi soldier has been told that Jews are in your house. He is to find them and kill them. IF HE DOESN'T, he's been told by his bosses, then he'll be killed.

They come to your house and what is the moral, right thing to do?

If by lying, you can keep the Jewish family safe, should you lie? Yes, of course you should.

Do you really disagree?

Now, if that Nazi soldier tells you that he'll be killed if he doesn't find them, what I would say would likely be something like, "Is that a cause you really want to work for? Look, do the right thing. Refuse to kill this Jewish family that you're hunting. If your boss comes looking for you, I'll lie to cover your tracks as you go into hiding, too."

Something like that.

The point is, it is not immoral to lie to protect people. While none of us can "prove" that this is right (any more than you all can prove that God wants us to do this or that, to oppose lying in all circumstances or to oppose gay guys marrying or whatever...), I think most rational people can agree that these are reasonable principles.

We don't have to have 100% positive facts "knowing" that something is wrong to stand opposed to it. Being sure enough is good enough, because it's all we have.

Craig said...

Thank you for essentially re stating what I just said. I always appreciate it when you do.

Marshal Art said...

"I'd suggest that reasonable people who are concerned about morality would not think it immoral to lie to someone to prevent them from hurting someone else."

I'd suggest that it is quite clear that morality for too many is a subjective matter...relative to the person making what is to him a "moral" judgement. The nazi has a different view of morality. He does not have to live under threat of death in order to hold a view espoused by the leaders of his party. While you narrowly describe a hypothetical that supports your subjective opinion of the "harm" of lying, I've put forth one that deals with a true nazi who agrees with the need to destroy Jews.

So while you protect the Jew by lying to the nazi, you harm the nazi by interfering with the furtherance of his goals which are seen as moral an necessary for the world he's trying to create/preserve. Thus, my point is not to say that lying is not wrong, but that its wrongness being based on "harm" is subjective and fluid as "harm" is in the eyes of the beholder. Basing it on the Word of God is objective in that it has stood for thousands of years without regard for harm, but simply because God said not to do it. This does not preclude lying to someone who is clearly acting in conflict with God's Will (as nazis did), but does not rely on subjective notions of "harm". As such, it is pure and concrete, while your subjectivity is fleeting.

Dan Trabue said...



You DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL OPINION on morality. Do you understand that reality?

Come on, guys, you can't be this obtuse.

Don't say anything else beyond "YES. I understand that I can't prove my opinions about moral issues. They ARE MY human opinions, not anything that I can prove to be factually correct."

Don't say anything else but that. Or, if you can't admit to reality, then just move on.

If you don't understand that it IS reality, then just move on and take my word for it.

If you can't take my word for it, just move on, anyway and maybe you'll learn better one day.

Dan Trabue said...

And don't be a moral monster, Marshall. Refusing to cooperate with someone to cause harm to others does NOT make you culpable of any harm that comes to him. The person who was cooperating with the Oppression System brings the harm upon themselves, in that scenario.

Basing it on the Word of God is objective in that it has stood for thousands of years without regard for harm, but simply because God said not to do it.

This is, of course, HUMAN OPINION. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat an unproven human opinion, Marshall, it remains an unproven human opinion.

For hundreds/a couple thousand of years, people relied on the human opinion that slavery was acceptable because they found lines in the Bible that suggest it wasn't a universal wrong. That human opinion was not right and it didn't matter that people based it upon the Bible, it STILL wasn't right. It was human opinion and most of us recognize it as WRONG human opinion.

Same for the oppression of minorities, for the oppression of women and for a variety of other topics where church tradition was wrong over the years.

And it was wrong because it was based upon flawed HUMAN OPINION, not "god's word."

Craig said...

This goes back to various conversations about morality and how it’s defined. In this case, if one accepts the definition of morality that says morality is defined by societies (as Dan has appeared to in the past), then one is confronted with a problem. If morality is subjective, and if it’s defined by society, then Dan has no basis to do anything but opine regarding the morality of the NAZI. He’s clearly staked his position that the NAZI isn’t (can’t be) objectively morally wrong, because objective moral wrong doesn’t exist.

Just like the materialist would argue that lying can be good, one who demands a subjective morality, can’t argue “moral wrong” because they’ve eliminated that as a category.

Much like the slavery example, the very fact that societies exist that consider slavery to be moral, eliminates the possibility to make any blanket statement that slavery is a moral wrong.

The most that can be accurately claimed when one demands (vehemently and with expletives) that morality is subjective, is their opinions about various behaviors. But the one who demands subjective morality has no basis to claim that an action is “not right”. Unless, that claim is merely flawed human opinion, in which case it’s meaningless.

Of course, if one is applying a subjective moral standard to lying, then...

Craig said...

I’m not sure Art was saying that not lying to the NAZI implied culpability as much as pointing out that if “harm” is the (subjective) standard, then there is harm to someone no matter if you lie or not.

Marshal Art said...

Good gosh, Dan! I'm clearly NOT saying that I agree with the nazi. But it's because I don’t use a subjective criterion such as "harm". Indeed, in the spirit of "the truth hurts", doing good can be harmful and I'd say routinely is so. Workibg to earn a living and to support my family is a good, but the stress on both my aging body and my mind & spirit is real harm. This is just one of a host of examples I could've used, and often these things are "in the eyes of the beholder", as it were, and so the harm to tge aforementioned nazi is real to him and immoral to him based on HIS concept of morality. But HIS concept of morality is NOT the same as God's as It is clearly revealed to us in Scripture.

Moving on, you continue to act as if there is some requirement that I prove to you, one who claims to believe in God and is an alleged atudent of Scripture, the God exists and that His Will for ys has not been in existence for thousands of years. It maaters not that throughout history that many have willfully or ignorantly corrupted Scripture to rationalize bad behaviors. That doesn't mean His Will is not an objective and unchangable reality...that His truth does not exist as an objective morality.

Dan Trabue said...

if one accepts the definition of morality that says morality is defined by societies (as Dan has appeared to in the past), then one is confronted with a problem. If morality is subjective, and if it’s defined by society

You all are giving the wrong answers, indicating a lack of understanding of reality, but I'll give you half credit for maybe trying with this bit of nonsense.

Craig: I'm asking YOU if YOU recognize that morality IS subjective? It is, as no one has indicated otherwise. I'm just asking you if YOU recognize that reality?

Whether it's "church society" deciding they know what is and isn't moral from THEIR human perspective or OTHER societies, it's still humans making up their minds about what is and isn't moral and, as a human understanding, it remains subjective, not independently, authoritatively, demonstrably proven.

Do you recognize that?

Marshall, when you refer to what YOU AS A FUCKING HUMAN MAN think is "clearly" revealed in Scripture, you are STILL operating based upon YOUR FUCKING HUMAN REASONING to reach those conclusions.

Do you recognize that reality?

It's a simple question I'm putting to you. I'm using strong language to try to make it so fucking crystal clear that you can't miss the point unless you're just determined to be an asshole or you're just hopelessly delusional.

Craig said...

I realize that there are, in general, two views on morality.

1. That it is objective, external, and eternal.
2. That it is subjective, transitory, and defined by the social mores of various societies.

What you are demanding in your expletive laden rants, is that I acknowledge your opinion as being objective fact with no proof beyond you using all caps and dropping F bombs. Even if your foul mouthed claims are correct, what harm does it cause if I choose to believe and live as if morality is objective.

Where you err, is that you are drawing a distinction between the nature of morality and our understanding of morality. Morality may be objective, yet our understanding and articulation of it isn’t.

So, by all means, provide proof of your expletive laden claim.

Personally, I believe that this whole expletive laden rant is a diversion to draw attention away from the actual points I’ve made.

I’d be happy to grant, for the sake of the discussion, that morality is subjective and that the sociological definition is correct. (That morality is the codification if an individual societies social mores) If you would acknowledge the reality that you’ve then opened the door for societies to engage in “moral” behavior that you don’t like.

If morality is subjective (as you demand) then by what standard can you claim that something is “not right”? (Right and wrong generally being considered objective terms).

Craig said...

Earlier, you complained about the slavery post at my blog, the conversation you disappeared from.

This is the reason why I framed the question the way I did, asked you the specific follow up clarifying question that I did, and have been waiting for you to be clear and specific before responding.

Anonymous said...

It's a simple, reasonable question. Forget about "morality" as a general principle for a second and concentrate on the question being asked of you two. Then directly answer the actual question that is being asked:

1. When someone says that Genesis 1 says that God created the heavens and the earth, and that on day one, God separated the light from the darkness. This person says that this is a literal description of creation, which happened about 6,000 years ago.

THIS is a human opinion. It's not debatable, it's not questionable, it is literally a human opinion for which he has no proof to establish this claim, this interpretation as a known fact. IT is literally a human opinion, NOT an established fact.

Do you recognize this reality?

2. When someone looks at the various passages in the Bible that touch on "scripture" or "God's Word" and takes them all into consideration, then that person says, "Therefore, we can know that the Bible is inerrant, without error, can not be wrong..." that person is literally offering a human opinion, NOT A KNOWN FACT. It is an interpretation of some passages, NOT "God's Word" and incapable of being mistaken. It is literally a human opinion and NOT an established fact.

Do you recognize this reality?

3. For any given point, teaching, interpretation that you may think is "abundantly clear" in the Bible as far as it being "clearly" the "right" interpretation, no matter HOW clear you may think the interpretation is, it IS a human opinion, NOT an established fact.

Do you recognize this reality?

If you are truly delusional and think that SOME of your human interpretations and opinions about what God wants are established facts, please give me your ONE BEST case where you can't possibly be mistaken. I'll give you that one last chance.

I fear, however, that you all simply are delusional on this point and I can't help you with that. I've pointed out the reality that your human opinions on unproven theories are NOT established facts, but subjective, unproven human opinions.

I'll delete all the off topic comments that are not answering this question when I have the chance.


Craig said...

Nice job changing the topic away from the topic of this post, to demand answers about the topic from another post.

1. I’ve never made any claims remotely like the solpecific example you gave, but if someone said exactly what you’ve made up, I’d agree that it could be categorized as an opinion.

2. I recognize that the reality of the inerrancy of scripture exists regardless of the opinions of humans. But again, if someone was making the exact case in your example, I’d say it was opinion. Of course,if one looks at the more standard explanations of inerrancy, the picture changes significantly.

3. No, at least from a perspective of the plain meaning of the text, some things are clear beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for some interpretation, but that doesn’t change the basic meaning.

Only you would consider comments about the morality of lying to be off topic in a post about how lying is wrong.

Fortunately I’ve saved the evidence.

Marshal Art said...

"Marshall, when you refer to what YOU AS A FUCKING HUMAN MAN think is "clearly" revealed in Scripture, you are STILL operating based upon YOUR FUCKING HUMAN REASONING to reach those conclusions."

This suggests without basis that my reasoning is therefore wrong and only because it serves you to say so. Of course I operate through the use of my human reasoning. Human reasoning can lead one to truth and an observation of reality and fact, as I have with regard to those things of which I am certain.

And by the way, I've been well aware of your point since you've first tried to put it forth as reality years ago with no more than your insistence that it is in fact reality. Cussing doesn't help your attempt.

Your argument continues to fail because of how it pretends all claims fall under its demands, which isn't so. For example, there's a huge difference between an inference of the age of the earth versus a point regarding God's will on a specific behavior. And the only way you can make your case work is to regard Scripture as entirely unreliable for understanding ANYTHING regarding the existence of God and His Will regarding moral behavior. This seems to be the case indeed, as you rail against any insistence that Scripture provides answers in that regard, particularly if it conflicts with the self-serving, world-pleasing concept of morality that you prefer.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm sorry you two are either delusional or just not intelligent enough to recognize reality, to understand the difference between fact and opinion. But, given your complete inability to recognize reality, to agree to factual statements as being factual and to recognize unproved opinions as unproved opinions, this is all I can figure.

That, or you're both being deliberately combative and trollish.

At any rate, I don't have any further interest in trying to point out reality to people who steadfastly refuse to recognize reality. Not in this post, not in any further comments.

Good luck with life. I'm sorry if you two are actually just intellectually unable to understand facts and reality and if, given this impairment, I've been too harsh.

No need to bother commenting further. I don't know when you all are on a delusional track or when you're just not understanding, so, while I probably won't delete your comments, I'll most likely just ignore them.

Go in peace.

Craig said...

That’s one way to avoid the implications of your “F-ing morality is F-ing subjective and if you don’t agree with my F-ing subjective F-ing opinion then you’re F-ing delusional” hunch.

It’s interesting that two options have been posed that don’t help your hunch, and you’ve ignored both and retreated to expletive laden ranting.

Marshal Art said...

You haven't even established, proven or demonstrated in any manner that we DON'T recognize reality. You simply assert, which isn't compelling in the least. There's nothing there but your insistence that we are somehow lacking. All the while we stand ready to hear your case. The "reality" to which YOU fail to admit is that you demand we accept your NOTION of reality. Failing that we're somehow delusional. How very convenient. How dictatorial. You expect us to take it as fact (what is CLEARLY YOUR OPINION) that you are absolutely and without question NOT delusional yourself and that your perception of reality is indeed fact. Yeah. That works for me.

Marshal Art said...

Come see my post on reality, delusion, opinion and fact.