Disqus - Latest Comments for dwmtractor

Re: Cash Flow & Other Adventure Sports -- PART 1

Dan Martin — Thu, 28 May 2026 12:05:46 -0000

Gotcha. Being mostly a Gramercy guy myself, that won't do much for me, but if you guys develop a vehicle that enables customers to become minor shareholders or otherwise invest, I have a funny feeling that your following could generate some capital worth talking about. Just thinking out loud, of course ...

Re: Cash Flow & Other Adventure Sports -- PART 1

Dan Martin — Thu, 28 May 2026 10:44:04 -0000

I know you promised to say more in your next post, but have you considered a vehicle like Kickstarter, that doesn't play on the usual vulture capital terms?

Re: Yes, Metaxas, Racism Is Still Wrong without God

Dan Martin — Wed, 10 Aug 2022 18:03:19 -0000

Hi Chuck ... I know I'm late to the party, but what you have written was new for me lol ...

While I agree with your post in its entirety, I think you may have overlooked the foundation of Metaxas' claim (and one he's repeated many times) ... and that is that what he's really doing is rehashing the perennial sloppy-apologetics trope, the "Objective Moral Argument" for God's existence. The fact that he's grabbed onto racism as the issue du jour doesn't change the core point which (IMHO) is unjustified triumphalism that he's proven all those evil atheists wrong using their own standards. No shock that I disagree ...

If you're at all interested, I spent some time on OMA while I was writing on apologetics a few years back; the actual article looked at both the Lewis Trilemma and the Objective Moral Argument under the rubric of "Popular Apologetics I Don't Buy" ... https://nailtothedoor.com/w...

Re: It Isn’t Scapegoating if You’re Guilty

Dan Martin — Wed, 10 Aug 2022 17:40:10 -0000

Hey Chuck, new reader, but just wanted to add my belated 'attaboy' to this post. Right on all counts!

Re: Microsoft admits Windows 10 KB4601319 issue, promises fix

Dan Martin — Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:07:14 -0000

I saw a note on Microsoft Community yesterday that KB5001330 finally fixes this issue. I installed it last night and confirmed that this is so. No idea if it'll help with the other errors people are having.

Nor have I any idea if Micro$oft ever publicly acknowledged that the problem existed. But the good news is that it finally works.

Re: Windows 10 February 2021 updates: What’s new and improved

Dan Martin — Sat, 03 Apr 2021 12:49:08 -0000

Turns out the issue persists with the March update. KB5000802 also breaks File History, and once again, uninstalling it allows backups to run. These issues are discussed on a thread in Microsoft Community, but it appears that nobody at Microsoft is paying any attention.

Re: Microsoft admits Windows 10 KB4601319 issue, promises fix

Dan Martin — Sat, 03 Apr 2021 12:42:25 -0000

Hey @Mayank Parmar, just so you know, I missed extending the deferral of updates, and my computer installed KB5000802 cumulative update on 3/30. It broke the file history again. Just realized & uninstalled 5000802 and presto, file history is working again. So whatever they may be telling you, Microsoft is still blowing it on this one.

Re: Microsoft admits Windows 10 KB4601319 issue, promises fix

Dan Martin — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:19:35 -0000

That's great to hear ... thank you so much for helping with this. I'll (obviously) continue to monitor this thread for updates. Till then I'm just deferring updates on the affected computer.

Re: Microsoft admits Windows 10 KB4601319 issue, promises fix

Dan Martin — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 12:47:08 -0000

Hey Mayank, wondering if you've gotten any further word on this issue. I'm considering how long I want to keep automatic updates turned off. Thanks in advance for any insight you may have.

Re: Microsoft admits Windows 10 KB4601319 issue, promises fix

Dan Martin — Sun, 07 Mar 2021 13:17:14 -0000

Just to add, this update *also* breaks File History for at least some subset of users, including me. It caused my backups to fail completely, and uninstalling the KB restored the functioning backup. There's a thread on this in the Microsoft community, but unfortunately I see no evidence that anyone within Microsoft has acknowledged it.

Re: “Christian” Domestic Discipline is Abuse (Yes, CDD is a Real Thing)

Dan Martin — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 18:11:06 -0000

You're completely right, Kurt, though I think I'd state it a bit more bluntly that the corporal punishment of the wife is abuse, plain and simple...and probably legal battery. But obviously the most important point is the one you did make, which is that any honest reading of the whole Ephesians 5 passage makes the exercise of power completely unacceptable. There is absolutely no way that CDD is remotely like mutual submission (v. 21) or sacrificial love (v. 25).

Re: You Might Be A Christian Nationalist If…

Dan Martin — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:04:48 -0000

I do not believe that God is necessarily changeless *as you frame the question.* Scripture teaches that God is not fickle ... that he can be trusted, that he is not wishy-washy as humans are. Scripture does NOT teach divine immutability ... Plato taught that.

And you have not answered my question from several posts back ... if YOU believe in the changeless nature of the Trinity, then how do YOU explain Jesus' "you have heard it was said/but I say" corrections to the Mosaic law?

Re: You Might Be A Christian Nationalist If…

Dan Martin — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:01:52 -0000

I agree with the church-state distinction you raise here. Where I disagree is whether the Christian is permitted to compartmentalize his own behavior such as to rightly "fight as an agent of the government" as you put it. My argument is that we are not granted the freedom to bifurcate our lives in this way.

I would argue also that Romans 13, etc. argue that the government *does* use violence, not that God has ordained or blessed that use.

Re: You Might Be A Christian Nationalist If…

Dan Martin — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:59:30 -0000

I understand, and partially agree. I'm not an absolutist pacifist in the situation where one is in a position to stop a direct, specific injury to the innocent ... although I would argue that such morally clear-cut situations are far rarer in real life than they are in the hypothetical world of discussions such as this ... or in the novels and movies that too often drive our sentiments.

Re: You Might Be A Christian Nationalist If…

Dan Martin — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:55:11 -0000

Funny you should ask...as it happens I've addressed this very question on my blog: http://nailtothedoor.com/wa.... The short version is that Romans 13 is bracketed on both sides by commands to the believer that are incompatible with the sword. The only reasonable conclusion, IMHO, is that to whatever extent the state is authorized to use violence, to that same extent the believer is enjoined against participation with that activity.

Re: You Might Be A Christian Nationalist If…

Dan Martin — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:50:22 -0000

I wasn't talking about forgiveness or grace, though you yourself must know these things are not incompatible with punishment. I was speaking strictly of the taking of human life, which is forbidden to the follower of Jesus.

Re: You Might Be A Christian Nationalist If…

Dan Martin — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 07:09:37 -0000

To your point of the consistency of the Trinity, how then, do you explain (in the very same Sermon on the Mount) Jesus' repeated use of the "you have heard it said ... but I say to you" model of modifying, extending, or correcting the law? Some of his modifications are of ancient rabbinical tradition, to be sure, but some are straight from the Pentateuch.

As to your argument for capital punishment, the fact that the New Testament acknowledges execution as a reality in the world in which Jesus and the Apostles live, does not logically lead to the N.T. endorsing it. As you say, "what about the rest of the New Testament, where we are commanded to love enemies, turn the other cheek, not return evil for evil, etc.? Perhaps you will argue, as many conservatives do, that this is a distinction between personal morality and what is acceptable, or even necessary, for the State. To the extent this is true (I do not grant it, but for purposes of dialog), then it seems to me the only logical outcome is that Christians are forbidden from participating in State activities (such as capital punishment, military service, police service) that require those Christians to violate the morality of Christ. It's a reasonable extension to *also* say that Christians dare not encourage or advocate the State doing those things that they (we) dare not do ourselves.

Re: The ‘Piss Christ’ & the Glory of God

Dan Martin — Sat, 06 Aug 2016 17:02:04 -0000

I'm completely baffled by your comments and tone. Are you replying to my comments, or to the original post, which I did not write? I said absolutely nothing in defense of Islam ... my comments were strictly around the idea that deliberate offense and/or shock dare not defend themselves as valid or artistic simply on the basis of being offensive.

It is true that I have defended peaceable Muslims in other places and at other times; enough so that I recognize your arguments and would choose not to engage in a likely-futile attempt to address them. But since AFAIK the Disqus mind-reading functionality hasn't yet progressed beyond beta, I don't know how you could have tied my comments on this thread to any anchor that would merit an attack on Islam as a response.

So I repeat my question ... did you read MY comments, which were not in any way a defense of Islam, but rather an attack on the notion that deliberately offending people -- however much the right to do so is protected under the First Amendment -- is in any way a laudable exercise?

Re: The ‘Piss Christ’ & the Glory of God

Dan Martin — Sat, 06 Aug 2016 09:17:22 -0000

All of which completely ignores the point of my comment, which was that there is no positive value in deliberately causing offense, regardless of one's right to do so. You are so desperate to prove the evils of Islam to justify your hatred, you're responding to comments you clearly haven't read.

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (7 – My View: Purgatorial Conditionalism)

Dan Martin — Tue, 08 Dec 2015 06:58:22 -0000

Yeah, I thought of this even as I typed it. I'm no Calvinist; in fact I'm an Open Theist ... ;{)

I guess my point is that the promises of eternity are for the sake of the blessing. Your Piper quote suggested (if I may put words in his mouth) that annihilation is somehow not "bad enough" for those who deserve punishment. To that I reply that punishment isn't really the point. In point of fact, godly punishment is for the purpose of bringing sorrow which leads to obedience. Therefore, I'd suggest that punishment is pointless unless through it, God intends eventually to bring the punished around to obedience, which is a universalist notion I know for a fact Piper would not buy.

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (7 – My View: Purgatorial Conditionalism)

Dan Martin — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 08:53:01 -0000

Don't know if you are still watching this or not @Nimblewill, but I would suggest that punishment isn't the point. From the point of view of conditional immortality, which is where I come out, I think that it's more that we're all created mortal from the get-go, and God extends immortality to those he blesses. The rest simply pass out of existence exactly as they would have anyhow. When you choose to give a gift to someone you love and who loves you, you are not thereby choosing to "punish" everyone who doesn't receive the same gift.

Re: Greg Boyd Gives 5 Bullet Points about Open Theism in the Bible

Dan Martin — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:55:14 -0000

Thanks Kurt! To your book list I'd add one more ... John Sanders' The God Who Risks. It's a truly superb reference for the Open View and even more approachable than Boyd's (if that's possible).

Re: If God Knows The Future, Why Pray?

Dan Martin — Sun, 17 May 2015 08:38:42 -0000

I think the only nuance I would add would be to point out that relativity allows us to speed up or slow down *our perception* of time's passage, but time as an absolute is not changed.

Re: If God Knows The Future, Why Pray?

Dan Martin — Sat, 16 May 2015 17:56:54 -0000

I'm trying to understand it all right, I just think it's founded on assumptions that you then try to show are conclusions. You "believe" time is a created thing, so you aren't entertaining the possibility that it isn't a *thing* at all. As I said in my last post ... an inch isn't a thing; it's a way we quantify length of things ... and length itself isn't a thing, it's merely a means by which we describe the size of created things.

You say " I believe God created time when he created everything else." OK, but since you believe that there was a beginning to "everything else" there has got to be a point in existence before that "everything else" was created, and that, too, is a point in time. Even for God, there was existence (of himself) before, and after, the creation of the universe. Otherwise, God is so completely external that he cannot interact with the temporal world he created.

I'll grant nobody really comprehends infinity ... we're finite after all ... but I've got a pretty good idea of the mathematical and physical concepts, having grown up in the home of an astronomy professor. If God is infinite, as we both agree, then there's no problem at all in the infinite God existing throughout infinite time past and future. It's just not an issue. You're right that "there cannot be a beginning that was an infinite time ago." Nobody says there is/was; at least I don't. God's without beginning. Time, not being a "thing" at all," has no beginning, but measures the elapsing of experience both for the infinite God and finite us, who DO have a beginning.

Another way to conceive of this is that time is actually a trait of God's own nature ... not that God is in time but rather time is in (as in native to the being of) God. Which gives an interesting twist to "in Him we live, and move, and have our being." Maybe that makes more sense of what I'm trying to say.

Re: If God Knows The Future, Why Pray?

Dan Martin — Sat, 16 May 2015 13:33:59 -0000

Your whole argument depends on there being a beginning and an end to time. That's an assumption based upon zero evidence.

Further nobody can "go" anywhere in time, because time is not a thing one can be "in" or travel "along." Precisely what I said before ... time is merely how we measure the passage and sequence of things. So if God always existed--a point upon which we agree--God didn't have to "go from the beginning of time to the present." God has been experiencing this thing, then that thing, then another thing since forever past (so far as we know ... in reality he hasn't told us about what happened before he created this universe). But there really IS--or rather, was--a "before he created this universe," and God was there/then.

So nobody, not even God, can travel in time. The past is past for him, as surely as it is for us, with the exception that God remembers that past perfectly and we don't, plus God remembers all of it and we don't.

Your statement "it would take all of eternity" for God to get to now is nonsense. It took as long as it was. Just like it's taken your whole lifetime to get to now yourself. God's lifetime is just infinitely longer.