18 Apr 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerFor the last however many pages it is, we have been talking about your inability to get your head around what a "lie" is and/or your inability to discuss what a "lie" is in an honest and reasonable way.
If you have forgotten what we have been talking about for the last 16 pages I suggest you go back and read the thread.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29836
18 Apr 18
Originally posted by @fmfI'm open to learning something beneficial from any source material, including the Bible. The Sermon on the Mount for example carries some beautiful concepts and teachings, but are still writings penned by mortal hands and simply mirror wider concepts of morality found in non-religious books. In short, the Bible reflects human moral concepts, it doesn't construct them.
As a non-believer, and despite having no notion of divine law, do you feel you have something to learn about morality from the Sermon on the Mount and the book of Proverbs, as was suggested by another poster earlier on this thread?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerOn page 1, Ghost of a Duke was honest about his atheism and about how he has no notion of divine law. If you think he is lying ~ and if you think that he is, in fact, a theist and that he, in fact, does believe in divine law ~ that is a matter for you. As far as I am concerned, you have not made any case that he told any lies at any point on this thread.
If you and ghost are not the same person it is impossible for you to know for sure that ghost was completely honest.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29836
18 Apr 18
Originally posted by @fmfApparently, for Becker, even unintentional mistakes are lies. (Of course, this does not apply to his own mistakes, numerous in number).
For the last however many pages it is, we have been talking about your inability to get your head around what a "lie" is and/or your inability to discuss what a "lie" is in an honest and reasonable way.
Welcome to the strange world of Becker!
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfIf you don't like the definition I quoted take it up with Merriam-Webster.
For the last however many pages it is, we have been talking about your inability to get your head around what a "lie" is and/or your inability to discuss what a "lie" is in an honest and reasonable way.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhy would I take it up with them? I've taken up your silly concept of what a "lie" is with you. That's plenty enough for me.
If you don't like the definition I quoted take it up with Merriam-Webster.
FMF: Does this mean you believe that incorrect answers in a quiz, or factual errors in an essay, or mistakes made when completing a maths homework are examples of "lying"?What do the parents of your students say when you accuse their children of "lying" each time they get a science question wrong on a test you've set them? Come to think of it, what do the children say?
Originally posted by @dj2becker
Any untrue statement which is a deviation from the truth is a lie.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerLies are not necessarily impossible to "prove" ~ I gave you some examples which you totally ignored - and even if a person's deliberate falsehood cannot be "proved" to be a lie to your satisfaction, it does not alter what a lie is.
The silly concept is actually yours, where a lie is impossible to prove.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29836
18 Apr 18
Originally posted by @secondsonNo, I didn't think you were saying that, but appreciate you taking the time to clarify. As I said, I don't think any reasonable person would consider a genuine mistake (freely acknowledged) as a lie. (And that probably includes Becker).
Well, I don't think you're a liar anyway, and I hope you didn't think I was inferring so. I don't lie either, which is why I must confess, because I'm honest, that I hadn't read the exchange before making my comments, and I'm not going to read them either because it's between you and Becker anyway.
Too bad these things happen. Sinners and saints are mu ...[text shortened]... e the absolute assurance of eternal life.
It's a Christian thing, you wouldn't understand. 😉
I would say though, that if you are going to appear in a thread that you haven't been following it's unwise to throw around such accusations as slander, as this case demonstrated. It resulted in you taking things out of context.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @fmfDefinitely a result of my carnal mind.
Are these posts of yours a result of your "carnal mind" or do you think they are a result of the inspiration of "God's Holy Spirit"?
As long as I’m in the flesh, I’ll never be free from sin or able to obey God without fail.
“This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”
(Galatians 5:16-17)
Here’s a verse worthy of contemplation:
“Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!”
(Luke 17:1)
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfWhen someone claims they didn't know something when, in fact, they did know it.
When someone claims they didn't know something when, in fact, they did know it.
When someone tells one party one thing and then tells a different party something different.
When someone claims they had not been in a certain place or had not met a certain person but in fact they had.
When two people discuss something very specific and then one of them p ...[text shortened]... the other person to repeat what they said over and over and over and over again.
And so on...
How could you prove that they hadn't forgotten it?
When someone tells one party one thing and then tells a different party something different.
How could you prove it wasn't unintentional?
When someone claims they had not been in a certain place or had not met a certain person but in fact they had.
How would you prove that they hadn't suffered memory loss?
When two people discuss something very specific and then one of them pretends that they didn't discuss it and asks the other person to repeat what they said over and over and over and over again.
How could you prove that they are pretending and that they hadn't genuinely forgotten the discussion?