Yeah, I was agreeing with you. But I also said "having lied does not make you require redemption, in my opinion" (paraphrasing). That's where I disagree with you and the bible.

Speaking as a Christian that doesn't understand evolution, nor likes the idea of cold recruiting methods, I personally do not care for Mr. Comfort. His methods are srupulous and insulting. 

Religion is a private matter and people know where to go if they have questions or want to learn. 

 I am not cherry-picking my definition, I am using the definition that is most commonly applied to the word, and I have gone out of my way to provide the dictionary definition that both agrees with my definition, and the ones that are contrary to it. I have applied common sense to the arguement, and not tricks of wording or vauge definitions. I believe that I have shown more honesty and integrity in stating my side of the arguement than Mr. Comfort has shown in the initial discourse, as well as some of the people here who are making arguements that are so morally reprehensible, that I cannot even recognize them coming from a sentient life form.

Refering to all of mankind as "liars" is moral ambivalence of the worse kind. I find it morally reprehensible because the belief of labeling someone a "liar" because of something they may of done thirty or more years ago is repugnant to me.

 You really belive that someone is a liar because they once lied? A child lies, and as an adult they are a liar. If someone comes up to you and says, "be careful about that one, he is a liar". Do you immediately discount the advice because you know that everyone is a liar? Or maybe the opposite is true, you naturally believe that everyone is a liar and lump them all in the same catagory? I really do want to know, is this what you believe?

Why should I make up rules when there are dictionaries that can do it for me.

Kennerman dictionary calls a liar, "a person who tells lies, especially as a habit". I guess the same question can be posed to Kennerman. What is a habit? Perhaps we should check the dictionary again, "customary practice or use, an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary, something which a person does usually or regularly"

And then there is "continual", which is defined as, "of regular or frequent recurrence; often repeated; very frequent, Recurring regularly or frequently, very frequent; repeated many times"

What is it that you believe? Just once, right?

I figure that as a good general guideline, if you are going to define someones character by using a word, you should apply it only after noticing a pattern of the trait that you are describing them as. Someone is kind when they have shown a pattern of kindness, a liar when they have show a pattern of lying. Someone is truthful when they have shown a pattern of truthfullness, someone is a jogger when they have show a pattern of jogging, someone is an idiot when they have show themselves to believe Ray Comfort. Unfortunately when it comes to statements about ones moral character, it is difficult or impossible to speak definitively.

So by your logic, I am a bodybuilder, jogger, runner, football player, tennis player, and racer. I am also a writer, dog trainer, conservative, liberal, moderate.

Nowhere in the bible does it say, "thou shalt not lie", it is "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" That is "against" thy neighbor, and "bearing false witness". It is not "lying to my neighbor." Do you not see the difference there either? Would you rather be lied to, or have someone "bear false witness against you?" Lies are not bad, they are a survival tool.

 Yes, Ray is a liar. He is intentionally dishonest or a fool. At the very least, if we give him the benefit of not knowing the truth, then he is claiming to be an expert without actually being an expert and knowing the material. That is extremely dishonest. That is a lie.

edit: ah! over-post! here is the essence of what I have said below:

The technical minimum amount of times that someone has to lie before being called a liar is one. If someone brings mention to someone being a "liar" they are implying that they lie habitually, otherwise they wouldn't mention it, but that isn't a part of the definition. Having lied does not make someone a bad person, but it does technically make someone a "lie-er." If someone calls anyone who has ever lied a liar, they are implying that they lie habitually, and that they are dishonest. That is rude, and by saying that anyone who has ever lied is a liar I do not mean that they are dishonest. I mean that they have lied.

Yes, I agree, Mr. Comfort is quite rude, and not a very nice person. Are you calling my arguments morally reprehensible, and saying I'm not sentient? Read on, I'll eventually explain once again (maybe half a dozen more times?) that having once lied can make someone a liar, but doesn't necessarily mean that they're dishonest, or that they habitually lie. But insulting people that argue against you is pretty mean... I don't think I've intentionally said anything rude to you here, and you said I wasn't sentient? That's pretty rude... but whatever. Anyway there *are* some definitions that are contrary to your prefered definition, you are picking which one to use to prove your point, not because of its merit. And I don't think that "a person who lies" can't also mean "a person who has lied." Once you lie, you are a person who lies, since you have lied. Do you get what I'm saying? I'm not saying a person who lies is dishonest. But once you lie, you are a liar. You just have to lie once, then you are "a person who lies." I think it makes sense.

What you said here is the *exact* reason that I said "I do not believe that having once lied makes one dishonest." I don't think being a person who has lied makes a person a bad person, or a dishonest person, or anything. I'm just saying that technically, they are a person who has lied, and by my favourite definition of liar, anyone who has lied is a liar. That doesn't mean that they are a bad person at all. If you have lied, you're "a person who has lied" (i.e. a liar). "Liar" doesn't technically mean anything more than that the person has once lied. But if one brings it up, they are imply that the person makes his/her liar especially habitual, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense to bring something up that everyone is. If someone said one was a "breather" they must mean something more than that you do something that everyone does. Maybe they mean you breath a lot? I dunno.

*You* are the only one who thinks be a person who has lied (a liar) is a bad thing. I don't think it's bad to have once lied. If you do it often, it is bad. It isn't bad if you've once done it. I made no comment on the badness of being a liar.

I've told you, "liar" is just a term that means a person who has lied. I would assume that if someone brings special attention to someone being a liar, they mean that the person is dishonest, that they make a habit of being a liar. Just because I know that most (if not all) people have lied, I don't think that they are all dishonest.

I didn't read the definition that had, "especially as a habit" in it, but that does make sense. It does make sense to say "continually" instead of "as a habit" as you did. But if that was what you meant.

But the point I was trying to make is that anyone who has once lied is a liar, and can be called such. As this is so, it doesn't make sense to bring attention to this in less they make a habit of being a liar. A person who has lied *any* amount of time can be called a liar, but they should be an especially bad one if someone brings attention to it. *I* was saying that once you have lied, you can be called a liar. *You* were saying there is some minimum in continuality of the lying that needs to be met before someone can be called a liar. I think the minimum is one lie. I thought you were saying the mimimum is some higher level of habit. Understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying "since everyone's a person who's lied (a liar) they're all equally dishonest." That doesn't make sense. I'm saying "the only mimimum amount of lying for someone to be called a liar (technically) is one lie." because the dictionary never gives a higher amount of lies.

And that definition only says "especially" as a habit. Therefore it proves my point. One *can* be a liar without making it a habit. So your definition of habit doesn't matter. It's only "especially," not exclusively. That means, again, a liar can be a person who lied just once, not someone who makes it as a habit.

Ok, good for you, continual can be used to mean "as a habit."

Yes, I believe that by the definition of the word, anyone who has lied has lied, and is therefore a person who has lied i.e. a liar. That doesn't mean, again, that they are a bad person. All it means is that they have lied. You are the one who is attaching things about all people who have lied being morally bad, or that liars are morally bad.

I've already said, in past posts, that being a liar doesn't make someone dishonest. I believe that the word "dishonest" requires that it is a habit, but being a "liar" does not require that it's a habit. Just like a don't think that someone who has once done something means that they often do it. Say I call you "a person who has once done x" or a x-er. Even if you don't make a habit of doing x, you are still "a person who has once done x" or an x-er. Now replace "done x" with lied. I'm not saying a person who has lied makes a habit of lying. I'm saying that having once lied makes them a liar. Get it?

Someone is kind when they show a pattern of kindness, that is true. But does a murderer need to show a pattern of murdering people before they are a murderer? No, once they do it once, they are "a person who has murdered." I'm saying that a liar is "a person who has lied". That means that they just have to do it once, then they are a person who has done it once.

I'm saying that if you have a noun based on a verb, like "to murder" or "to lie" words like "murder-er" or "lie-er" mean a person who has done those things. The minimum amount of those things that you have to do is just doing them once. A murderer doesn't have to go around killing people once a day to be called one. A jogger doesn't have to habitually jog to be someone who has jogged. But if someone brings special attention to being a person who has done something, when that thing is common, it must mean they do it a lot, or habitually. So if someone calls someone a liar, since lying is quite common, they are implying that they do it habitually, though technically they have only had to have done it once. Since murder isn't common, calling someone a murderer is unusual enough that it doesn't imply that they have done it more than once.

That is true. If you have ever jogged, ran, played football, etc. you are a person who has done those things, obviously. As I just mentioned, since you bring attention to it, you are implying that you do those things an uncommon amount, otherwise you wouldn't mention it. But you technically *are* an athlete in those ways.

I don't know how "my" logic applies to you being conservative, liberal, moderate etc. You can't "do" conservative-ing can you? And a conservative isn't defined as a person who has done conservative things. The definition, I assume, actually includes the "habitual" part, not just "especially habitually." And anyway, I think the definitions of those final words has more do with what your views are. If you hold both conservate and liberal views, you're moderate. To be conservative, you have to be only/mostly conservative, etc. But whatever.

The bible doesn't care whether something is a survival tool, in my opinion. But if it doesn't even say "lie" then why did you bring up all those definitions of lie? Anyways, the point I was making wasn't that the bible used the particular word "lie" as you seem to think. Obviously, my point was that once you've lied (or "born false witness against someone" if you prefer) you've broken the commandment. You just do it once, and you've broken it.

I agree that Ray is very rude, and I believe personally that he heavily edits his "interviews" with people on the street, so that makes him quite dishonest. He has intentionally been untruthful at least once, so he is technically a liar, and he has lied enough times that it is worthwhile to note that he's a liar. But unintentionally saying untruthful things is not lying. It's just being stupid. So if he used a word wrong unintentionally, he wasn't lying.

I don't see what the point of arguing that he used a word wrong actually was, and I think it may have been a waste of time on all our parts. We could just agree that he is rude and dishonest, and bears false witness against people by editing his show, and whatnot, and just bring up all the facts about how much of a bad person he seem ingly is without quibbling over the definition of a word. But personally, I sort of enjoy quibbling . Have a good one

P.S. I'll just say this one more time, in case you skip to the end. A liar, I believe, is "a person who has lied." or "a person who lies" It means nothing more than that. It doesn't make any comment on the morality of the person than the fact that they have lied. BUT if a person brings attention to it by calling someone a liar, they are *implying* that they lie habitually.* Also, I dislike Comfort as much as (maybe not quite as much as) all of you. I'm just being the devil's advocate. Maybe I'd argue on the other side if all of you were trying to prove the opposite point. Maybe not though.

P.P.S. Again: I never said that being a liar was a bad thing, and therefore I didn't say that everyone (who has lied) was a horrible person. GET IT??? Also, sorry if I came off as rude. Also, if you understand what I'm saying, you could say that, even if you think I'm wrong. I was getting an impression you don't understand me. Also, just in case you say "i get what you're saying but ur saying everyone is evil and you're stupid" I am not saying everyone is bad because they have once lied. I'm just saying have having once lied makes you fall under the definition of liar. Ok... now, for some reason, I don't think that will work. Get me? Peace out.

*yes, I realize I could have just said this, and nothing else, because I was basically just repeating myself the whole time. But I spent so much time typing it, I didn't want to let it go. And yes, oops, I spelled your name wrong, sorry.

The argument that "one act categorizes' obliterates all meaning from most of the moral terms we use. There's simply no point in using words like 'liar' or 'thief' if every human is functionally a liar and thief from birth. We might as well throw out the words: honest, trust, decent, moral, upright, etc., as well..... There's no longer any sense or use in using any of these terms if we follow Comfort's line of thought.  

And again, Comfort himself must contradict his own argument in order to function in society. He clearly has to, and does, trust some people more than others, because, in his estimation, some people are honest, trustworthy. He doesn't think of his wife as a thief and a liar, and his actions betray this.

Some called this point cheap rhetoric - I guess that's easier than actually bothering to think the point through and actually respond to it. Comfort cannot and does not believe his own argument, and the only way to salvage it is to beg the very question his argument supposedly demonstrates, which renders the argument pointless.

The fact that some theists here still can't grasp this is unsurprising, seeing as some here have even confused Comfort's 'moral' position as representing the very height of moral thought. If you really hold to this position, well, maybe the rule 'one act, categorizes' does hold in this case... you have to be an idiot.

Then why should I believe you, liar? 

I'm sorry to say it, but you are being really stupid. You obviously haven't read anything I have said. I said it probably 20 times, maybe more. Being a person who lies, which I consider to be "a liar," does not making you dishonest. Get it? It's fairly simple. A "liar" is a "person who lies." If you lie, even just once, you are "a person who lies." Being "a person who lies," or a "liar" does not mean that you habitually lie. Some people are more dishonest than others, even if all people have lied, which makes them "people who lies," otherwise known as "liars." I am not a particularly dishonest person, even though I have lied, which makes me a liar, though one shouldn't mention it, because calling someone a liar implies that they are dishonest, but does not have include it in the definition, therefore it is valid to call anyone who has lied a liar. 

Also, there is nothing to "believe" about what I have said. The rationality of my views has nothing to do with my honesty as a person.

I didn't know that definition of "fag." Thanks for enlightening me.

The way you used "ignorant" is similar to the way I think about "liar." It can fit everyone on the planet, but it has a "loaded (or implied) meaning." That's what I was saying about the word liar. You said everyone was ignorant, but if someone brings attention to it, they are implying that they are especially ignorant. I was saying that everyone is a liar, but if someone brings attention to it, they are implying that they are an especially bad liar. Get it? I am no more saying that everyone is dishonest than you were saying that everyone is stupid. 

 Think about it this way: when can someone be called a liar? When they have never lied? No. Once they have lied? Yes. The dictionary doesn't say that they have to lie habitually. Even if the dictionary said "a person who tells lies" a person would only have to lie twice to fulfill the definition. But the word liar is a loaded one. If someone says it, they are implying that they lie habitually. But the actually definition says nothing about the overall honesty of the person.

But that's beside the point. I was just trying to have a discussion. No one understood what I'm saying, even if they think it's wrong, apparently, so you're either stupid or just stubborn. I might be wrong, but that's no reason to call me a fag. I guess it is true that I'm annoying to talk with, because I go on and on and apparently say things that people don't understand, but still, you could have just said I was annoying. You could just say "I understand what you are saying, but I think you are wrong. Here is why:" rather than calling me stupid and insulting my sexuality.

The point is, I'm getting the feeling that it's absolutely pointless to argue with you people. You never concede me a single point, and when I try to explain my point of view to you you insult me. And you guys say you're not as stubborn or irrational as theists? You're just as bad.

Why should I believe you on any of this if you are a liar?

I think you're being violently stupid here, and that's why you're lashing out at me. Your argument is self refuting. You're a liar by your own line of thought, ergo I have no need to trust anything you say.

If however, you really want to say that you're really not a liar at all, and that, as even you seem to realize, that in reality, there are different levels of honesty, then that's fine.

But in that case, you've refuted yourself too. You're actually conceding my argument: that calling everyone a liar makes the term useless, and in fact, we don't consider most pepole to be liars!

So please stop being so fucking stupid, and please stop projecting out your own sense of your stupidity onto me. You're the one as confused as a shit house rat. Please work on figuring out that calling everyone a liar is both moronic and pointless, as it renders the term useless. 

I look forward to more of the same idiocy, please shock me. 

Shit you still get shocked? Nothing shocks me anymore.