There has been a trend that I find somewhat disturbing. Others of my political and religious persuasion might not find it so, but I insist that it's at least unfortunate. That trend would be the exodus of liberal commenters from visiting my blog. For some, it's enough to be able to publish their opinions and feelings and leave it at that. I expect that some do not even welcome opposing comments of any kind. That has never been the case here. I've said before and maintain that I hope, through my blog, to persuade or be persuaded. That I've failed in the former seems only to bother me. It's the latter that has brought about this exodus.
I am often accused of being stubborn, controlling, intellectually lazy, apathetic (that's a new one---I don't get it) and a host of other adjectives. That's all fine. What isn't is a poor argument for why any of that might be true. Let's look at some examples of scenarios common here at Marshall Art's:
Homosexual marriage and the Bible: In this debate, my position has rested upon one simple fact. The Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful. The counter arguments range from distorted interpretations of original language, to convenient insistence that OT laws no longer apply, arguments from silence, and a wide variety of variations. Nothing has ever been presented that trumps one salient point, which is that it is the act itself that is prohibited with absolutely no Biblical discussion whatsoever regarding the intention, though process, attitude or whatever, behind the commission of the act. In other words, whether the act be murder, theft, lying, having sex with a goat, or merely having sex with someone of the same gender, we are simply told not to do it, and one's mental or emotional state has no bearing. It doesn't matter if I have a loving, monogomous relationship with my neighbor's wife, or if I'm doing her just for the fun of it, the teaching simply says, DON'T. No one's ever presented anything that trumps that fact, yet I'm the one who is being controlling, as if I, and not God, instituted the law.
Abortion: Against a horde that accuses us conservativeChristianrightwingfacists of being anti-science, just the opposite occurs. Science supports the pro-life position without question, but the pro-abortion crowd denies that without support of any kind.
In other areas, I have had thown at me demands for things like peer-reviewed papers to validate the bonafides of someone I use as an expert. Another was whether my source was listed in some kind of reference index (not sure it's called that). In both cases I found that neither provides the support my opponent implied due to rampant politics that play so heavily in both. At the same time, this particular insists on referring to the opinions of a Nobel Prize winner even when the winner is speaking on something not related to his expertise (I guess just being given a Nobel means one is an expert on everything).
Recently, Ron has created a new blog, which I highlighted, but it seems so soon that he has gone off the deep end. He rejects any counter argument before one is even offered. He does exactly what he claims is the reason for his new blog. He hasn't so much thought out of the box, but merely created a new box in which to hide.
My box has been the same all along. My arguments have remained consistent with my core beliefs, beliefs I have always stood ready, willing and eager to defend. My arguments have been clear and logical and it isn't that I'm blowing my own horn, but that despite the lamentations and protestations and accusations, I have been not been given any reason to change my mind. For all the reading done by some of my opponents, like Geoffrey and Feodor, none of it results in a good argument to change my way of thinking.
Let it be known, I've had my paradigms shifted over the course of my life. Certain beliefs have been changed to the point where I can't believe I ever thought differently. So I CAN be persuaded. I remain open to any and all arguments. I even dare others to try. If my opponents have a leg upon which to stand, at some point I should be stumped. At some point I should have no retort. It's pretty clear the opposite has been true and that's why those who have left, uh, left. They were stumped. They ran out of arguments. They had no counter. Were it reversed, they would be demanding that I concede. Were it reversed, I would have.
So their arugments that I am inflexible, unable to fathom the complexities of life, unwilling to show compassion, and all the other accusations hurled my way as the door hit them in their collectives asses, are the weakest arguements of all, for they have failed to convince themselves of their own beliefs. That's why they run.
Well, I never sought to chase them off. I never thought I was that good and still don't. So, for any who believe there's no point, for Geoffrey who delinked (not as painful as it might sound), Hashfanatic (who I think hasn't truly bailed yet), Ron, Dan, Les (who might still be lurking, being that he likes to lurk), and any other who has left in a huff, the welcome mat has never been rolled up. Don't take things so seriously or personally. Come take another shot.