Gentle readers,
As you know, I have a new series to which I will add new installments as the mood strikes me and time allows. It is called, in general, "From the Cornucopia" and features observations, critiques and commentaries based on what I have read at "What's Left In The Church" from my blog roll list of left-leaning blogs.
In this case, I encourage any who can stomach the thought, to visit this particular post and peruse it and the ensuing comments. I'm not sure what I find more fascinating: the wacky points made in the post, or the wacky response to comments I posted.
My comments, of course, are in reference to the post and the general point being made about "nincompoops" attempting to comment on matters of science. But there follows at least one blatantly goofy point regarding reproductive matters that is put forth as a serious response to pro-life arguments. It tends to make an incredible nincompoop of the host actually, but he still tries to defend the notion, along with his boy. Worse, they view my more logical understanding of the matter with no small measure of incredulity.
Now, I know my like-minded readers are not keen on the idea of spending another nano-second at this particular blog. I understand their reluctance and am saddened they do not derive the same joy I do in exposing the expressions of sophisticated thought so common there for the delusions of grandeur they are. But it really is a typical attitude of the leftist mind that is so commonly on display. That is to say, if one truly wishes to understand what a common leftist looks like, there can be few better examples than this particular blog.
At the same time, I have no issue with those visitors not of like mind to check it out and return with their impressions and explain one of two things (assuming agreement with the host of that blog):
1. Where a scientific point is discussed, what makes their argument correct and mine not?
2. What demonstrates a closed mind and how could that possibly be mine and not theirs (and specifically, Geoffrey's)?
All honest observations and comments are welcomed and hoped for from virtual friend and foe alike.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Marshall, you perform a great public service. I can't criticize you for going there, because I endure Chuck "Jesus is not the only way" Currie's blog on a regular basis and Jim "the gospel is all about wealth redistribution" Wallis' site sometimes so I can periodically expose their anti-Christian nonsense. I skip Geoffrey et al because they actually like the attention and I don't want to encourage them.
I took the bait and read part of Geoffrey's post. Of course Geoffrey the "pro-science" "Christian" is also pro-abortion despite the indisputable scientific evidence that a new human being is created at fertilization.
And then there is Alan, the gay "Christian" who bragged about gay camping on his blog, what with the "fluid sleeping arrangements, tubes of lube on the picnic tables and lots of naked guys checking each other out in the pool." Very authentic Christianity, right?! But you can totally trust him on the Bible and science.
I noticed that Geoffrey bans those evil global warming denialists (oh, the humanity!). What a tool. What is most amusing is that he isn't even up on the latest lingo. It is hotcoldwetdry climate change, not global warming! And of course it is man-made and we should give all our power over to the trustworthy UN to force us to go back to the Middle Age standard of living.
Isn't it odd that the pro-abort pro-Sodomy crowd tried to dismiss Romney for wanting to go back to the 50's (you know, when "Christians" didn't ask Caesar to force their neighbors to pay for birth control and abortions and didn't crush religious freedoms and poison the mind of 5 yr. old with myths about how normal LGBTQX behavior is) when they are the ones wanting us to go back centuries for our standard of living?
Keep up the good work, MA! Maybe this divide-and-conquer approach is for the best. Bible-believing Christians can divvy up the false teachers and annihilate one post at a time.
To your specific questions:
1. Some people have degrees in one of the DOZENS of branches of science and they think that makes them experts at everything remotely related to any branch of science.
Others are simply fanboys of one sub-branch of one of the dozens of branches of science (i.e., Darwinism) and they think that makes them experts at science.
And they call Bible-believers names like "fundie whack job blah blah blah" so you know they must have the science right.
2. The "closed mind" dig is a petty way for them to dismiss whatever you say and to elevate their ideas. Sadly, they are so steeped in their dismissive sound bites that they could probably pass a polygraph while spouting that lie. We are open minded and logical and consider the evidence against global warming, not to mention the countless scientists who disagree with the Leftist memes and who have outed those who were so deceptive in advancing AGW to begin with.
But I shouldn't be too hard on them. Spiritually dead people will do and say spiritually dead things. While they are busy abusing the Bible to justify all sorts of evil perhaps God will open their eyes to his truth. I just wish they would not claim the name of Christ while doing so. But that's what wolves in sheep's clothing do, right?
Geoffrey had a brief moment of honest once and admitted he worships a different god than the real God that we worship (http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/false-teacher-fesses-up/). But my guess is that he has been more careful since then to keep the sheep's clothing on.
Ah, how sweet. Marshall calls for comfort and the Simp gives it. Brotherhood among Judaizers.
heh.. Marshall complaining that his posts were deleted..
Feo the simpleton,
How does your simple mind see a cry for comfort in my post? Can your simple mind read Geoffrey's post and not see the error(s) so blatantly presented there?
How ironic that a false priest would accuse Christians who actually understand the Bible "judaizers". Simply amazing. But then, as a lefty, feo helps to prove my point regarding typical leftist responses. Note how feo makes no move toward answering the questions of the post as Neil did. I really didn't think they were all that hard. In fact...
...I actually thought they were easy enough to understand for even Parkie. But little Benny, like feo, seems to see some emotional trauma in a post that actually points with sad wonder at the typical attitudes expressed by Geoffrey and his boy, Alan. Benny believes I'm "complaining" about having been deleted, as if I am a victim of the same behavior that he suffers by being deleted by me. The difference is starkly obvious, however. Parkie posts nonsensical comments, such as the one above, and I post comments seeking to engage in dialogue with people unwilling to do so with me, due in large part to the logic and honesty of my commentary.
If one goes to the comment section and reads down toward about the 25th comment, Alan needs to believe I go off and "pout" after apparently being shredded by his solid arguments ("shredded by his solid arguments"--that was sarcasm).
It's incredible. According to feo, I seek comfort. By Parkie's understanding I complain and cry. Alan and Geoffrey believe I pout. The irony here is that these very emotions are so obvious in their own behaviors in dealing with me and my like-minded visitors.
And now, having checked out the latest, I'm "whining". Where is the whine in my post? I'm pretty sure I posted an invitation to view examples of typical leftist behavior, typical leftist responses, typical leftist...childishness. I really don't know how they can be so emotionally affected by my presence and sincere desire to discuss whatever from obviously distant camps of thought and belief.
And now, Geoffrey has warned that any further attempts to post a comment will result in that comment being deleted. I am just so fascinated by this level of fear/loathing/hatred or whatever one can call it, that comes from people like Geoffrey, Alan, feo and Parkie simply due to the presence of one average person like myself seeking clarification, explanation and greater insight into how they come to believe as they do.
"And now, Geoffrey has warned that any further attempts to post a comment will result in that comment being deleted."
That's amusing. I seem to recall them going into full pants-wetting mode when I would apply my well-documented comment policy. Consistency isn't their strong suit.
lol.. you guys should go on tour... The Dumb and Dumber Show..
Quick.. Simp.. explain how evolution is a crock again.
I love that track.
"I am just so fascinated by this level of fear/loathing/hatred or whatever one can call it, that comes from people..."
This is what the tired baboon kept in his walled compound at the zoo feels.
Some of us still like to come by and laugh. Others, like Geoffrey are just too bored to be entertained by you anymore.
Quick, troll-boy, explain how evolution is absolute fact. In fact, explain the reasons for any one of the positions you take counter to ours. I love how you behave as if you know something without ever revealing just what it is or how much.
And as if by cosmic coincidence...
...feo cracks wise (I use the term "wise" very loosely here) about baboons. The irony here is it comes from a guy directly descended from baboons.
And like Geoffrey, Alan and thought-free Benny, feo assumes the posture of one being entertained by lesser beings, as if he is somehow superior in intellect.
Fine. I just wish one day they'd prove it. Backing out of discussion under the various pretenses they put forth (stubbornness on our part, lack of knowledge of the subject matter on our parts, inability to comprehend on our part and all the myriad other excuses they use to deflect from their own shortcomings) does not indicate a superior intellect in any way, but rather the opposite. Worse, it suggests the very flaws we seek to have explained actually exist, but their pride and need to be superior prevent an honest concession.
I'm flattered by the man-crush, but you folks really need something better to do.
Feodor is right. I am bored. I'm bored by the same post from Art, over and over again. I'm bored by Neil copying and pasting the same ridiculous nonsense, much of which seems to be lifted from Josh McDowell and other "apologists" who know no more about Christianity than I do candle-making.
Tell me, Neil. When was the last time you wrote on your "theology" blog something about the Trinity? Art, would it be possible for you to write something other than, "I'm right, you're wrong, and that's all anyone needs to know!"
Bored, Feodor? Absolutely. The whole things went from being interesting to mildly infuriating to humorous to boring years back. And may I say school-yard taunts - "Chicken!" - coming from two of the most ridiculous, fake, bullying bloggers I've ever encountered is also quite tired.
If I cared what either you gentlemen thought, I would actually write more. It's Sunday, though, with two church services, the final performance of my daughter's school musical this afternoon, and I think I have to trim my toenails. So, a busy schedule of things far more pressing all the way around.
It would be nice if the two of you found something better to do. I mean, Neil has an entire blog dedicated to stalking Chuck Currie and Jim Wallis; surely he has bigger fish to fry than little old me. And Art, you always complain you have so little time to look things up on the internet and read them, one would think he could be engaged in something constructive.
So, ta-ta,gentlemen. I'll leave you all to your fun.
Oh, and Art: If you delete this, kudos. If you don't, I predict your lack of deletion will be followed by some self-aggrandizing comment about how magnanimous you are compared to mean, petty liberal old me. So, I think I have it covered.
Sure you have it covered, Geoff. It's called "hedging your bets", placing bets on both possible outcomes. How prophetic is that?
I don't do a whole lot of "self-aggrandizing" here, though I am damn cool. I only defend myself against false charges by people like you, feo, Alan, Parkie and other leftists who cannot deal with the truth I simply repeat.
" Art, would it be possible for you to write something other than, "I'm right, you're wrong, and that's all anyone needs to know!""
To say the above quote is oversimplifying what I do is only half the story. It is simply false. I always offer explanations for what I believe to be true. You know, something that gives any reader something to upon which to base an agreement or an objection. What you claim about me is a projection of something for which you are guilty as evidenced by the post of yours that provoked this one. Deleting any comments that intend to debate global warming? Isn't that a case of "I'm right, you're wrong, and that's all anyone needs to know!"? Of course it is.
As for Neil, he too performs a valuable service for any who choose to read his blogs. The twisted theology of the Curries, Wallises and Kruse-Saffords demand a counter-point lest the gullible or those seeking to inform themselves properly be led astray. You've proven yourself to be far less an expert on Christianity than you would so smugly like to believe about yourself. I did try to search out your blog for a fairly recent post wherein I posted several passages that conflict with something you were saying, but I either passed it by or you have deleted them. No matter. It is clear candle-making would be a more appropriate field of study for you. Or maybe arc-welding.
And yes, of course I have that terrible man-crush of which you so often like to speak. One would think I'd have found a better man. But who else could provide such a wealth, such a cornucopia of material upon which to base blog posts? You don't say much that isn't common amongst the leftists, but you do go to great lengths to try to appear more thoughtful. All in vain.
"And as if by cosmic coincidence.."
ha.. perhaps one day you will find a different source other than that ancient book of yours. Your ideas need a reboot.
"I love how you behave as if you know something without ever revealing just what it is or how much."
Yeah.. b/c evolution is such a mystery.. wrapped in an enigma.. shrouded in secrecy.
Perhaps you can explain, again, how people are not animals. Ahhh... thats one of my favorites from you. Be sure to throw in some quote from that dusty old book of yours.
Ha...perhaps you'll one day find an actual argument for why the "ancient book" on which I rely is not worth relying upon. Perhaps you'll one day find the courage to be truthful and acknowledge all the many and varied sources I have used and then offer a substantive argument against any of those.
Mystery? Enigma? If not, why can't you provide the compelling evidence. The point doesn't revolve around whether or not something is true, but your inability of ignorance of what might make it so. You know something? Tell us all what it is.
I conceded that for the purposes of scientific categorizing, the textbooks might list human beings as an animal. I don't argue the point on that basis. But one thing is certain, I could not easily argue that YOU are not an animal. The question is really what kind? Slug? Rodent? Carp?
:)
Yeah.. youre right. There is no evidence for evil-lution. Here's an idea.. why dont you provide the slightest bit of evidence for why this dusty ol' book is relevant. Meanwhile, I'll lean on the mountain of evidence supported by actual scientists.
"varied sources"
lol.. ohh.. marshall.. you funny guy you. Im serious about that comedy thing. I know a guy that could hook you up with some sweet gigs.
"I conceded that for the purposes of scientific categorizing"
How very big of you.
Post a Comment