>My statement was not based on being able to prove beyond a shadow of
>doubt that someone deliberatly lied. Rather, it is an expression of the
>over all feeling one gets by reading the FAQs and especially the T.O.
>newsgroup that lies and half-truths pass for gospel. It is not that
>everything is error, but rather a mixture of error and truth -- much as
>the tree of the knowledge-of-good-and-evil.
>
>I'm not saying that anyone deliberatly lies, although some may. Rather,
>that certain teachings or positions are lies in that they are anti-God.
>The father of lies promotes these ideas in opposition to the God truth.
Allen,
Your view is the perfect innoculation against ever having to listen to the
data that someone presents. If you are convinced that the other person is
spreading lies (whether or not they themselves are lying) then everything
they say is meaningless. This is a great position to hold if one never wants
to change, but it is a poor position to hold if one wants to find truth.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm