tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post529905033136130686..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The father of liesRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69684945336392706752016-05-04T12:34:25.550-04:002016-05-04T12:34:25.550-04:00Agreed. Agreed. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82854082827431501972016-05-04T12:03:18.999-04:002016-05-04T12:03:18.999-04:00Aren't there also parallels with not casting p...Aren't there also parallels with not casting pearls before swine and answering fools according to their folly? Could one not sayt that, under some conditions, certain people (eg holding bloody axes wondering where your kids are) aren't entitled to the truth?Kirk Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06142889734004402296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64650589509374790052016-05-03T14:05:55.371-04:002016-05-03T14:05:55.371-04:00The ethics of lying parallels the ethics of killin...The ethics of lying parallels the ethics of killing. Killing is normally wrong, but there are situations in which killing is permissible or even obligatory. Same thing with respect to lying.<br /><br />Quoting two Pauline injunctions from his ecclesiastical household code to prove that lying is inherently sinful is no better than prooftexting pacifism by quoting passages that prohibit murder. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79748289204366829372016-05-03T12:36:37.796-04:002016-05-03T12:36:37.796-04:00I'll save you the trouble, goodbye.I'll save you the trouble, goodbye.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13252444391540870902016-05-03T12:27:18.824-04:002016-05-03T12:27:18.824-04:00CR,
You're not offering "dialogue"....CR,<br /><br />You're not offering "dialogue". You fail to engage the argument. Instead, you make off-topic comments about how I justify sin. <br /><br />You and others comment at the indulgence of the Tblog admins. If a commenter wishes to criticize a post, he's required to use reason and evidence. You're not entitled to ignore all my arguments and derail the post into off-topic irrelevances about my allegedly suspect motives. If you can't abide by the rules of rational discourse, you will be banned. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26192043973970760012016-05-03T10:04:46.424-04:002016-05-03T10:04:46.424-04:00Thanks for sharing your thoughts rwh, fwiw I usual...Thanks for sharing your thoughts rwh, fwiw I usually enjoy seeing your comments here, and I think you usually make valid points, including some in the comment above.<br /><br />I may mull this over and post something in reply. But as I mentioned early on in the other thread, I'm not very hopeful on presenting a case more compelling than those steve rejects by Christian thinkers far above my level.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48471879819669003122016-05-03T08:19:17.519-04:002016-05-03T08:19:17.519-04:001. Respectfully, CR, your behavior toward Steve is...1. Respectfully, CR, your behavior toward Steve is hardly blameless.<br /><br />Your <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/05/liars-and-deceivers.html?showComment=1462129273969#c7488614214121285258" rel="nofollow">original comment</a> accused Steve of "casting God as a deceiver is probably the most troubling tactic I think I've seen you deploy...and frankly I think that's a disingenous characterization, and probably spiritually reckless." <br /><br />Now, despite Steve's replies to your original comment, not to mention his recent posts on the topic, you continue to accuse Steve. You accuse him of "slipshod reasoning," turning the biblical text into "mush," call him a "bully," etc. <br /><br />I suppose all that's fine and good if there's evidence for it. <br /><br />However, the problem is you don't cite any evidence for any of your accusations against Steve. At this point they're unjustified accusations from you against Steve. <br /><br />It's easy to make accusations (e.g. Trump does it all the time), but where's the evidence for the accusations?<br /><br />2. More importantly, you don't attempt to rebut or reason with a single one of Steve's points about lying and deception. <br /><br />At best, you engage in some proof-texting, which has its limitations.<br /><br />I think what would be most "appreciated" is if you simply addressed where and why you disagree with Steve's reasoning. For example, why not answer his third point above, which was a question specifically addressed to you (i.e. "Can you demonstrate where Scripture lays out the necessary and sufficient conditions of lying? If not, on what basis do you define it?...Tell me which of these definitions matches what Bible writers had in mind. Explain how you arrive at that conclusion.")? <br /><br />It seems like a fair and honest question. And a good debate between Steve and you on the topic could be beneficial to others.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91401763184700103962016-05-03T06:30:38.810-04:002016-05-03T06:30:38.810-04:00You needn't play your intellectual bully card ...You needn't play your intellectual bully card steve, I'm not ine of your RTS students worried about a grade. <br /><br />I replied to a blog post with a comment, then I replied to another blog post with another comment, apparently you don't appreciate dialogue, at least in the present case, so I'll just move along.<br /><br />Somehow I think I'd really enjoy a discussion about this subject, among many others, with you over coffee, but not so much in this forum. You tend to get a little testy and crorchety I think. And I mean that in kindness and a tad of humor.<br /><br />Have a great Tuesday in the Lord!CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2872947740791192612016-05-02T22:53:44.090-04:002016-05-02T22:53:44.090-04:00i) You used a Johannine framework. I responded to ...i) You used a Johannine framework. I responded to you on your own grounds. Paul isn't the framework in which John uses that terminology.<br /><br />It's underhanded of you to move the goalpost, then accuse me of ignoring or overlooking something. Maybe you need to try a little harder to be honest instead of talking about it. <br /><br />ii) The Pauline injunctions have reference to discourse within the community of faith. You are ripping that out of context. <br /><br />iii) Can you demonstrate where Scripture lays out the necessary and sufficient conditions of lying? If not, on what basis do you define it? For instance::<br /><br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/<br /><br />Tell me which of these definitions matches what Bible writers had in mind. Explain how you arrive at that conclusion. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27155280913950007182016-05-02T21:44:06.694-04:002016-05-02T21:44:06.694-04:00It's probably also slipshod reasoning to riff ...It's probably also slipshod reasoning to riff off Johannine usage while ignoring or overlooking the Pauline framework in which he uses the terminology. Col. 3:9 and Eph. 4:25 immediately come to mind with the attendant putting off/putting on exhortations.<br /><br />There’s also the positive command for Christians to speak the truth in love.<br /><br />It's a little difficult to grasp what in the world Paul is talking about if we're unable to conclude what constitutes a lie, and it absolutely turns the aforementioned texts into mush if lying isn't a sin.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.com