tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post5359489810637666186..comments2024-03-28T18:55:21.534-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: Greetings, New YearDan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-60033021185015678092014-02-09T09:22:29.140-08:002014-02-09T09:22:29.140-08:00"The topic of the post is about how I'm a...<i>"The topic of the post is about how I'm asking people to stick to making points with a clear acknowledgement of "this is MY opinion," when they offer matters of opinion and, if they are saying something that is a fact, that they offer hard observable evidence (at least if requested), not mere opinion."</i><br /><br />All this has been accepted and these demands have been met. But as I predicted and you have demonstrably shown, you are subjectively labeling as opinion those facts that are inconvenient for you in maintaining your delusions about Scriptural teachings. <br /><br />The blatant problem is your unwillingness, or inability to demonstrate why or how a point is either fact or fiction, or you lack the courage to defend your counter position because doing so would require facts of your own that do not exist, as you well know they don't. <br /><br />Thus, the irony here (because I know you love irony so, so much), is that you are unable to distinguish between fact or opinion yourself. Sure, you present analogies and examples you believe are good illustrations of opinion, but none of them match anything I've been doing in any way, nor do they mitigate the truth of what I defend. One must actually address the truth claim in order to expose it as untrue or merely opinion. You don't have the stones for that since you can't face the truth and maintain your delusions regarding the issue I've once again brought forth as an example of your subjective labeling. <br /><br />So yeah. I also expect facts to back up opinions offered, as well as evidence that something said is a fact. But I don't dismiss anything in the cowardly way you're doing here. I address the evidence and facts directly and give counter evidence, facts and arguments to either expose the position as false and untrue, or confirm that the guy knows what the hell he's talking about. I win in either case as it either confirms what I believe is indeed true or it educates me about truths of which I was previously unaware or not clearly understanding. <br /><br />You claim you are open minded and willing to alter your position in light of facts and evidence, but this whole charade here and at my blog clearly demonstrates the opposite, that you are married to a position you cannot defend for reasons superficial, convenient and self-serving, rather than God-serving. <br /><br />And as if this wasn't bad enough, you delete comments for fear others will agree with them pretending that the deleted comments display some inability on my part to distinguish between fact and opinion. That's a slander, particularly since you deny others the ability to read and judge for themselves.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-82680689737609459632014-02-09T05:55:04.043-08:002014-02-09T05:55:04.043-08:00The topic of the post is about how I'm asking ...The topic of the post is about how I'm asking people to stick to making points with a clear acknowledgement of "this is MY opinion," when they offer matters of opinion and, if they are saying something that is a fact, that they offer hard observable evidence (at least if requested), not mere opinion.<br /><br />I'm not interested in having people post more opinions and stating they are facts, nor am I interested in humoring people who can't distinguish between fact and opinion.<br /><br />If you have a comment about the wisdom (or lack thereof) about expecting people to be able to distinguish between fact and opinion, please make it, but be sure that you are able to distinguish the two yourself.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-11745063767045299152014-02-08T22:17:55.020-08:002014-02-08T22:17:55.020-08:00I'm not accepting off topic commentary from pe...I'm not accepting off topic commentary from people who can't distinguish fact from opinion.<br /><br />Any commentary that offers opinion that acknowledges itself as opinion, not fact, is welcome. Contrariwise, anyone wanting to comment on topic with actual verifiable facts is also welcome to comment.<br /><br />But verifiable facts means that it is a fact objectively verifiable by any and all, regardless of biases.<br /><br />"I read a book and I think it teaches X" is not a verifiable position, it is, by definition, subjective opinion.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-28058398187822499182014-02-08T20:04:14.480-08:002014-02-08T20:04:14.480-08:00Get help, Marshall. You can't distinguish fact...Get help, Marshall. You can't distinguish fact from opinion.<br /><br />Don't believe me? Ask a person you trust who doesn't share your agenda. You are factually speaking about unconfirmed, subjective opinions and thinking your opinions are facts. They aren't.<br /><br />Get help, good luck with that. Seriously.<br /><br />Good day.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-53327127402235488022014-02-08T16:03:07.181-08:002014-02-08T16:03:07.181-08:00"(and I'd request that you answer the thr...<i>"(and I'd request that you answer the three bolded questions below if you want to keep commenting)"</i><br /><br />And yet again, you demand what you've been given, never showing any true notion of honorable reciprocation by answering any question of mine, or meeting any expectations of mine regarding the legitimate exchange of ideas and arguments. Typical. Nonetheless....<br /><br />First emboldened question:<br /><br />No. Once again, No. It doesn't merely "appear" to prohibit the specific act of lying with a male as with a female, it factually does so. Without question. Without equivocation. Without exemption for any possible scenario that would make doing so acceptable, and does so whether the verse remains in the context of the entire chapter, nay, entire book of Leviticus, nay entire Bible, or if removed from the text for specific scrutiny of this specific verse.<br /><br />Second emboldened question:<br /><br />On the factual basis that God clearly regards the behavior as an abomination, since He clearly said so. <br /><br />On the factual basis that this description of the act of a man lying with a man as with a female is the basis for God prohibiting that anyone engage in it, since God clearly uses that description as such. That is, it is prohibited because it is an abomination. <br /><br />On the basis that no where in Scripture is there any indication, explicit or implicit, obvious or ambiguous, that God has changed His mind about the act being an abomination.<br /><br />On the basis that if it was not a universal prohibition against any scenario by which two men might engage in the act, the text would surely provide exemptions as it listed the many heterosexual scenarios that are distinct from the ideal of one man/one woman in marriage.<br /><br />On the basis that there is specific language in the ancient tongue to depict the kind of temple prostitution you need the verse to reference in order to maintain your delusion that it does so.<br /><br />The above are all factual until you can provide counter evidence of your own.<br /><br />Third emboldened question:<br /><br />I understand that the author in question, God Himself (since Leviticus 18 depicts God Himself speaking) makes His intentions quite clear and that you are deceitful in suggesting that there is the least bit ambiguity. This, too, is factual unless you have some evidence you are saving to spring upon me at some point. <br /><br /><br />Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-19874547740374330482014-02-07T05:38:59.268-08:002014-02-07T05:38:59.268-08:00Okay, let's look at just one of your "fac...Okay, let's look at just one of your "facts..." (and I'd request that you answer the three bolded questions below if you want to keep commenting)<br /><br />About Leviticus 18, you say...<br /><br /><i>-It prohibits the specific act of lying with a male as with a female</i><br /><br />Yes, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STORY, it does appear that this is what it is saying. I've agreed to this. <br /><br /><b>Do you agree that this is what it appears to be saying IN THE CONTEXT of the story, not as a blanket rule?</b><br /><br />I'm asking a very specific question here, Marshall:<br /><br /><b>On what FACTUAL basis would we extend this to all gay men and all time (if indeed, it is speaking of all gay male behavior in Israel at the time.)?</b><br /><br />But another thing: It APPEARS to be a blanket condemnation of all male gay behavior in Israel at the time. But to know FACTUALLY that this is what God intended (even at the time), we'd have to have something more than mere human interpretation.<br /><br /><b>Do you understand the difference between pointing to a text and saying, "I think this is clearly the author's intention" and "here is the author to clarify his intention..." beyond all doubt?</b><br /><br />Do you understand that one is opinion and the other fact?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-49037018638710792502014-02-07T05:12:48.562-08:002014-02-07T05:12:48.562-08:00Point 1
Disagree. Both with the alleged principl...Point 1<br /><br />Disagree. Both with the alleged principle of interpretation and the implications of it. I would submit that we suspend declaration of any text, passage or verse that gives us pause until we can confirm or reject our initial inference with facts and evidence. But some verses (or texts or passages), like Lev 18:22 do NOT give one pause due to its clear and unmistakable wording.<br /><br />However, for one who whines about bullying, abusive comments and ad hom attacks, your statement implies that anyone is taking every line of Scripture literally <i>simply because</i> we find it there, as if some rube. How insulting!<br /><br />Point 2<br /><br />Disagree. I don't use opinion at all, but what reason determines is true and factual determines my opinion. At the same time, I see absolutely no evidence that you use reason at all to come to your heretical conclusions, and you provide no evidence that suggests you have reasoned. What I see is conniving and conspiring as you force meaning into text to arrive at what you want it to teach. This is crystal.<br /><br />Point 3<br /><br />Agree in principle, but disagree wholeheartedly that it describes in the least what my argument looks like. I HAVE offered fact. You dismiss them, just as I had said in my initial objection to your post stated. You continue to do it, that is, assuming authority to label facts you don't like as opinion, instead of offering any counter that would ever give me pause about my position. The "Nuh uh" argument just doesn't cut it. Even if the facts I offered were indeed not facts, you would still need to demonstrate why with facts of your own. Then you'd have an argument that is conducive to examination and perhaps a change of heart might be possible. When will I see such a thing? Forgive me for not holding my breath.<br /><br /><i>"Okay, then OFFER ONE. Show me ONE objectively observable fact that supports your conclusion.<br /><br />Right here. Right now.<br /><br />You keep saying you've done this, but I have not seen it."</i><br /><br />Pick any of those offered in my comment of February 1, 2014 at 1:16 PM. So far, you've only offered "Nuh uh!" To insist I have failed on my end requires some counter argument on yours to make the case. "Nuh uh!" doesn't qualify.<br /><br /><i>"Why? Says who?"</i><br /><br />Says honest people of honor and character. You need to show why that stop sign <i>doesn't</i> apply in all situations, as it only says "STOP". In the same way, 18:22 says "Thou shalt not..." and you need to show why it doesn't mean you or your friends. This is how debate and discussion works. The issue isn't that Leviticus was given to a specific people (and aren't all supposed to be His Chosen now thanks to Christ Jesus?), but that this, as with some other laws, still apply today. I've made my case and provided a list of facts in support. You give me "Nuh uh!"<br /><br /><i>"Why do I have to prove anything?"</i><br /><br />Because even opinion, indeed, even outlandish, heretical and laughable opinions like yours, require some actual basis in something real and true. I've long known what your opinion on this issue is. You've offered no facts, but twisted verses to use as facts that provoke questions and concerns you never address. You claim you follow a method of study, but your comments indicate you only pay lip service to that method, while demanding the strictest adherence of others, and a never ending demand for more proof and more fact.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-37935369248272086922014-02-05T09:44:42.990-08:002014-02-05T09:44:42.990-08:00I said...
3. Or, put another way, do you have any...I said...<br /><br /><b>3. Or, put another way, do you have any demonstrable, observable, provable facts to support the extended claim that this text represents a rule for all people and all times (ie, no men may have sex with any men in any context ever)?</b><br /><br />Marshall answered...<br /><br /><i> I've done this repeatedly.</i><br /><br />Okay, then OFFER ONE. Show me ONE objectively observable fact that supports your conclusion.<br /><br />Right here. Right now.<br /><br />You keep saying you've done this, but I have not seen it. So, do it now, or go away.<br /><br />Your next statement should begin: "Here is one objectively observable factual bit of evidence to support my case..."<br /><br />You went on to say...<br /><br /><i>But more importantly, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide demonstrable, observable, provable facts to support the desperate hope and wish that there exists any exemption from the prohibition that still applies today.</i><br /><br />Why? Says who?<br /><br />I'm saying your opinion on what this means is not a fact, it is a biased opinion based on whimsical approach to bible study and tradition and bias, not facts. Why do I have to prove anything?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-56477816252704261472014-02-05T09:40:54.788-08:002014-02-05T09:40:54.788-08:00I asked...
1. Do you ALSO agree that Job 30:29 FA...I asked...<br /><br /><b>1. Do you ALSO agree that Job 30:29 FACTUALLY says that Job is a dragon's brother?</b><br /><br />Marshall answered...<br /><br /><i>?Yes. Job did say that. But again, that is not anything comparable to God handing down a law based on His displeasure with homosexual behavior. That Job speaks in metaphor cannot, by any honest person of average intelligence and education be taken to literally mean his brother is an actual mythical creature.</i><br /><br />Yes, we agree that the fact is, that line factually appears in Job.<br /><br />Further, we agree that, just because that line is there, it is not an indication that we must take it literally.<br /><br />Right?<br /><br />The point being, this:<br /><br />1. One principle of biblical textual interpretation is that we should NOT just presume to take a line to mean literally what it says just because we find it in the Bible. We would be MISTAKEN to say, "Here is a line in the Bible, it must be taken as a factual point and/or a rule for all people and all times."<br /><br /><b>AGREED?</b><br /><br />2. A second principle of textual interpretation is that we can use OUR reasoning/OUR opinions to reach a conclusion about a text's meaning/significance/literal or figurative status.<br /><br /><b>AGREED?</b><br /><br />3. Given 1, and 2, above, IF we are using OUR HUMAN REASONING to interpret something - and IF we have ZERO objective observable facts on which to base our conclusion, then we are, by definition, speaking about matters of opinion, not fact.<br /><br /><b>AGREED?</b>Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-59377801709516177462014-02-04T19:59:39.481-08:002014-02-04T19:59:39.481-08:00In order for your objection to have any merit what...In order for your objection to have any merit whatsoever, you must also allow that there is some scenario or context or exemption for you to engage with sex with animals that isn't prohibited by God. You must allow that there is some scenario, context or exemption for you to have sex with your mother that isn't prohibited by God. And gee, what facts do you have to prove that "thou shalt not murder" means "all forms" of murder? Maybe there's some way you could find some form of cursing God that is OK, too. <br /><br />Then, we see in the same verse that God calls the act an abomination. Where in Scripture has that been overturned in any way, given that the very act is what is prohibited? Ever since the Law was laid down, this verse has been understood, interpreted and KNOWN to refer to sex between males (or two of the same gender). What facts can you provide that overturns this commonly accepted fact, a fact accepted by even those half dozen pro-homosexual Biblical scholars I listed several times? <br /><br />But the loosest interpretation of the verse suggests anything a man might normally do only with a woman is forbidden him should he want to do the same with a male. But nowhere is there any hint that there is some scenario or context by which this act would NOT be an abomination. Nowhere is there any evidence that God no longer regards this act in this manner. <br /><br />AS I said much earlier, this prohibition stands BECAUSE the act is an abomination to God. The act did not become an abomination because God prohibits the act. Because its an abomination, and nothing anywhere lends credence to the hope and wish that it might not always be so, it is still amongst those laws of Leviticus that still apply to Jews and Christians today. <br /><br />If there is some manner by which this act might be tolerated, then there would be a list of those various forms of homosexual behavior as most of the rest of Chapter 18 has done for heterosexual behavior. Most of the prohibitions are forms of heterosexual acts. But most of the prohibitions in Chapter 18 are simply prohibitions against various forms of human sexual behavior outside of the one man/one woman marital arrangement. <br /><br />I'm out of time for now, but obviously, you fare worse when the verse is still within its context. Now have the honor and courage to admit you have distorted Scripture in this case, or provide the facts and evidence you have demanded of me to prove your opinion isn't just pulled from your own backside.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-89873355379089562532014-02-04T19:42:50.912-08:002014-02-04T19:42:50.912-08:00I'll continue to play your silly games until y...I'll continue to play your silly games until you grow a pair and answer my questions as directly as you demand of me. And NO, you have not yet done that. I'll elaborate later.<br /><br />1. Yes. Job did say that. But again, that is not anything comparable to God handing down a law based on His displeasure with homosexual behavior. That Job speaks in metaphor cannot, by any honest person of average intelligence and education be taken to literally mean his brother is an actual mythical creature. So you can 86 that inane attempt at justifying immorality.<br /><br />2. I've done this repeatedly. But more importantly, only a child would need to have spelled out for him all the possible foods that would fall under the heading "snack before dinner". This is what you are doing with Lev 18:22. <br /><br />3. I've done this repeatedly. But more importantly, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide <i> demonstrable, observable, provable facts to support the</i> desperate hope and wish that there exists any exemption from the prohibition that still applies today. You've never done this. At best, you've offered only the weakest of arguments based upon the most strained interpretations that cannot work based upon the words of the verses and passages into which you inject meanings you need but aren't there.<br /><br />4. AS I indicated already, my opinion on this issue is as fact because all the available facts support and align with it. There are no facts that you or anyone else has offered that refutes any of it. But in truth, "opinion" is not the appropriate word here. It is my conclusion, and that conclusion is the only rational and honest conclusion to which a rational and honest person can come. <br /><br />5. Yes. And everything I've put forth satisfies the demands of that question. But, as I have stated here and at my blog, you simply choose to label as fact or opinion what works best to support your case or gives you license to avoid facing the truth. <br /><br />As to your answers to my questions, they are indirect answers to direct questions, and that's being gracious. Lev 18:22 doesn't in any way speak to "some" forms of an act. It prohibits a specific act. This is a fact that is as clear as the simple language Scripture uses in relating it to the reader. Whether we "rip it from its context" or leave it where it is, nothing changes regarding what the prohibition is, says and means. <br /><br />continued...Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-28477707745885612012014-02-04T11:08:18.647-08:002014-02-04T11:08:18.647-08:00Glenn...
Post this comment to prove you aren'...Glenn...<br /><br /><i>Post this comment to prove you aren't a coward</i><br /><br />If I post off topic, rude, ad hom attacks and that "proves" I'm not a coward, what does that say about the reality that you won't post my ON topic, polite comments and questions on your blog about your posts?<br /><br />Are you, by your own measure, a coward, unwilling to let your ideas bear simple polite disagreement and questions?<br /><br />Something to consider.<br />Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-7483448409321674752014-02-04T10:00:29.589-08:002014-02-04T10:00:29.589-08:00No, Glenn, it is your opinion that I am dishonest....No, Glenn, it is your opinion that I am dishonest.<br /><br />In the real world, factually speaking, I am not dishonest, not terribly. That is, I never online purposefully write a statement I know to be false.<br /><br />You might rationally conclude that in your opinion, I am confused, or that I am mistaken, but factually speaking, it is only an opinion (yours) that I am dishonest, because you do not know my heart, and thus can not possibly know factually that I am being dishonest. And, in fact, I am not being dishonest (and I know because we're speaking of ME).<br /><br />See? Opinion, not fact.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-16753371170932633452014-02-04T09:55:17.904-08:002014-02-04T09:55:17.904-08:00Oh, so it is just my opinion that you are the most...Oh, so it is just my opinion that you are the most dishonest person I've ever dealt with? I'M the one who has the experience. I'm the one making the judgement based on decades of dealing with people, and yet you have the gall to say that isn't a fact?!?!?!?!?!?<br /><br />Shall I get the numerous bloggers I know who have dealt with you to verify the FACTS of what I said? Every one of them calls you dishonest. Which is why you are banned from so many blogs.<br /><br />Post this comment to prove you aren't a coward, and so that people will know what so many good Christians know about you and your dishonesty.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-57974889814714003042014-02-04T09:50:01.895-08:002014-02-04T09:50:01.895-08:00More evidence that you can't distinguish betwe...More evidence that you can't distinguish between fact and opinion.<br /><br />Have a good day.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-41941240760352030842014-02-04T09:49:00.750-08:002014-02-04T09:49:00.750-08:00the only one irrational here is you, as has been d...the only one irrational here is you, as has been demonstrated by numerous bloggers. your dishonesty is well-known. Your twisting of Scripture is well-known. Your claiming "opinion" for facts is well-known.<br /><br />Discussions with your are fruitless, since you marginalize EVERYONE's evidence as "opinion."<br /><br />As I said, you are the most dishonest person I have ever dealt with. And that is not an ad hominem attack - it is a fact.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-22311650333108510862014-02-04T09:26:51.322-08:002014-02-04T09:26:51.322-08:00I'm no victim, Glenn. I'm just pointing ou...I'm no victim, Glenn. I'm just pointing out the facts. I attempted to engage with you on a rational level, asking you if you can agree with some basic, definitional, rational understanding of what it means for something to be a fact.<br /><br />Rather than answer my questions to confirm that we are two adults talking about reality on a rational level, you responded with an attack on the person, an ad hom attack.<br /><br />How is asking you to verify a question "dishonest" on my part?<br /><br />There is nothing to fear in questions, Glenn, it's only a basic staple of how we communicate and clarify. There is nothing dishonest in my questions. Here, I'll repeat one of them again so you can clearly see there is nothing dishonest or irrational about my question, it's a simple straightforward statement and question:<br /><br /><b>"I am a brother to dragons"<br /><br />That is LITERALLY and FACTUALLY a line of text from the Bible. BUT, does that mean that Job was literally, FACTUALLY a dragon (or the brother of a dragon)?<br /><br />The answer, in the real world, is no. It's literally and factually the text, but the INTERPRETATION of the text IS NOT A FACT.<br /><br />Do you understand this, Glenn?<br /><br />Yes or no, do you recognize this factual reality?</b><br /><br />Rather than simply confirm a simple reality, you chose to call me dishonest.<br /><br />I'm just calling an ad hom attack when you choose to engage in one. Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions. And unsupported opinions are not facts.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-34443601724518702152014-02-04T09:17:15.266-08:002014-02-04T09:17:15.266-08:00Trabue,
Pulling out the old victim card again. Y...Trabue,<br /><br />Pulling out the old victim card again. Your usual ploy when someone refuses to respond any more to your dishonesty.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-81632493402401595722014-02-04T08:54:31.030-08:002014-02-04T08:54:31.030-08:00I would suggest, Glenn, that a more intellectually...I would suggest, Glenn, that a more intellectually honest to say, "I am unwilling or unable to answer that question without demonstrating that I am either unable to distinguish between fact and opinion or harming my agenda," rather than just calling names and engaging in ad hom attacks. <br /><br />Sure, it might hurt your position, but you would at least demonstrate some integrity and decent character.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-57006142596784907632014-02-04T08:32:44.481-08:002014-02-04T08:32:44.481-08:00Have a nice day.Have a nice day.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-78528875461658928072014-02-04T08:16:49.661-08:002014-02-04T08:16:49.661-08:00Trabue,
You are the most dishonest person I have...Trabue, <br /><br />You are the most dishonest person I have ever dealt with.<br /><br />Good bye.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-17704333197185967832014-02-04T08:10:36.833-08:002014-02-04T08:10:36.833-08:00You gave the full TEXT that you picked out of the ...You gave the full TEXT that you picked out of the Bible. But plucking a text out of an ancient text - even a sacred text - is NOT the same as citing facts.<br /><br />Here is a text from Job:<br /><br />"I am a brother to dragons"<br /><br />That is LITERALLY and FACTUALLY a line of text from the Bible. BUT, does that mean that Job was literally, FACTUALLY a dragon (or the brother of a dragon)?<br /><br />The answer, in the real world, is no. It's literally and factually the text, but the INTERPRETATION of the text IS NOT A FACT.<br /><br /><b>Do you understand this, Glenn?<br /><br />Yes or no, do you recognize this factual reality?</b><br /><br />As to your "fact is that which reflects reality," yes, but BECAUSE it reflects reality, it should be demonstrable in the real world, observable to all regardless of biases or opinions.<br /><br />If someone says "My dog weighs 15 pounds" that is a reflection of reality and FACTUAL <b><i>IF</i></b> we can measure/weigh the dog to confirm it. It is demonstrable to all, regardless of opinions and biases.<br /><br />If someone says, on the other hand, "My dog weighs five tons," that is AN OPINION, not a fact. If we weigh the dog and it does, indeed, weigh five tons, then the opinion will be shown to be factual, but UNTIL such time as it is demonstrated/proven, it remains an opinion, not a fact.<br /><br /><b>Do you understand that, Glenn?</b><br /><br />Answer the questions asked of you or have a nice day.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-52594077274596437042014-02-04T07:59:21.182-08:002014-02-04T07:59:21.182-08:00Fact is that which reflects reality. Truth. Is t...Fact is that which reflects reality. Truth. Is that okay?Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-52362606072180902542014-02-04T07:58:04.741-08:002014-02-04T07:58:04.741-08:00Trabue,
I gave the full context, the full FACTS ...Trabue, <br /><br />I gave the full context, the full FACTS as stated in Scripture yet you are still dishonest so as to say it is just opinion.<br /><br />Pray tell us, oh wiser than 4000 years of scholarship, how exactly do YOU interpret this passage?Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-85817628190945713822014-02-04T07:54:19.534-08:002014-02-04T07:54:19.534-08:00Glenn, if you wish to comment here, then you can a...Glenn, if you wish to comment here, then you can answer this question:<br /><br /><b>If something is a fact, it is verifiable, it is objectively demonstrable and provable to any and all, regardless of background or biases.<br /><br />Do you agree with this reality?</b><br /><br />No other commentary from you is accepted until I know you are not delusional and that you have some grounding in reality.<br /><br />Marshall, add that question to your list of questions I need to see answers to if you want to continue commenting here.<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.com