« first day (427 days earlier)      last day (789 days later) » 

9:14 AM
1
Q: Is [Insert Famous Pastor here] on topic for this site?

Affable GeekSo, in this question, @El'endia Starman and I good naturedly batted around the question of whether or not Rob Bell is a denomination. Obviously, he's not that, but it did get me wondering - How prominent does an individual need to be in order to be considered "on topic" for this site? In other ...

 
 
5 hours later…
1:44 PM
5
A: Does God lie? And does devil tell the truth?

Affable GeekThis is not necessarily a Catholic perspective, but I suspect the exegesis would pass muster. (Feel free to ignore if you wish) Faulty Premis #1: God is lying God did not lie. In the day she ate of it, she became subject to death. Her body (and Adams) began to decay, and went from immortality ...

On point 3. No. No. No. And no.
Sometimes lying is the right thing to do.
In that case, lie. And lie with a clear conscience.
But don't tell yourself that it somehow doesn't "count" as lying.
> When the Nazis were clearing the Ghetto, they might have asked, "Are there any Jews here?" A Christian could rightly "lie" and say "No," simply by reframing the question in higher terms - "Are there any Jews here whom we may kill." No, you may not kill them, ergo, there is no lie.
That is a lie. It's a just, noble, and honourable lie. That does not make it any less of a lie.
In claiming it isn't, you are merely telling two lies instead of one: one lie to the Nazis, and one lie to yourself.
And the second lie is an unnecessary, unjustified lie.
And unjustified lying is wrong.
 
 
2 hours later…
3:28 PM
@AffableGeek I think I'm going to have to add a couple more "No"s to @TRiG's nice round set. Whether one's concience is clear or not shouldn't depend on whether or not you can re-cast the audible statements with some unspokens that cloak the real meaning. Deliberatly causing somebody to understand something different than you mean is -- as TRiG notes -- just adding an uneccessary lie to the mix.
I would go on to argue that the last part of your point 3 is -- for reasons of the first part being faultily emphasised -- less pedantic than you make out.
The way you outlined it sounds way to much like the Muslim doctrine that says "It's ok to lie through your teeth as long as you're talking to infedels". (No offense to any present and I realize not all Muslims believe that, I'm just noting that such a doctrine is floating around out there. And it stinks of rotten eggs.)
 
 
2 hours later…
5:09 PM
So I'm looking through the discussion here:
4
Q: Is [Insert Famous Pastor here] on topic for this site?

Affable GeekSo, in this question, @El'endia Starman and I good naturedly batted around the question of whether or not Rob Bell is a denomination. Obviously, he's not that, but it did get me wondering - How prominent does an individual need to be in order to be considered "on topic" for this site? In other ...

 
@BruceAlderman yes?
 
And I'm wondering, have any of you read Love Wins?
Because I have, and I didn't see anything in it supporting universal salvation.
 
@BruceAlderman Only the reviews.
 
@JonEricson I get the impression that most of the reviewers haven't looked at it either.
 
@BruceAlderman That's interesting. I wonder if it's at my library.
If I remember correctly, the primary criticism was that he asked a lot of questions and didn't answer all of them.
So it was up to the reader to decide if hell exists or not.
@BruceAlderman Does that jib with your reading?
 
5:15 PM
@JonEricson Sort of. Bell never denies that hell is real. But he also wants to take seriously the Bible's statements about God reconciling all of creation at the end.
He never finds a way to fit those together, so he leaves it as a mystery.
 
@BruceAlderman I could get onboard with that.
 
I think some people would rather just pick an answer now rather than wrestling with seemingly contradictory messages.
 
But to be fair, I think Calvinists have an answer to the mystery.
@BruceAlderman Yeah. People are like that. ;-)
Or rather, :-(
 
If Rob Bell would just join C.SE, he could get a definitive answer.
Or his money back.
 
@BruceAlderman We could probably use some more rabbis. ;-)
 
5:21 PM
@JonEricson That would be great!
 
@BruceAlderman I count... 0 so far.
 
@JonEricson And it may actually be less than that.
 
@BruceAlderman I haven't, I was operating what had sounded liked a fairly well described review. I'll remove the term "universal salvation" from my answer (as it's unnecessary to my argument)
 
@Trig - I will not do Theology in the middle of a 24 hour migration. Theology Under the Influence (of sleep deprivation) is bad. You are right, I was wrong. Reading what I wrote in point 3 after getting a little bit of sleep made me rewrite that...
 
 
3 hours later…
8:28 PM
@AffableGeek The rant I threw at you was actually developed some time ago in response to something in the Witnesses' encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures. I read their article about lying and passionately disagreed with it. I actually still have a copy of Insight (in two volumes). I think feel a blog post coming on.
 
 
3 hours later…
11:31 PM
How, exactly, is it lying for me to accuse others of lying, when their lies are easily verifiable?
easily verifiable that they are lies, that is
 

« first day (427 days earlier)      last day (789 days later) »