Saturday, November 25, 2006

Gird Up Thy Loins Like A Man

Kind of tired of the atheists, apostates, liberals and heretics whining and complaining and moaning about how they don't like this or that character trait in us, use of sarcasm by us, or use of mockery from T-blog posters.

Steve and I were mentioned as the culprits.

if you don't like it, you're welcome to not read or comment here. No one is forcing you to be here.

if you care only about substance, then respond to our posts (which are all usually at least 95% substance, 5% sarcasm) substantively.

There's no point in telling us how mean we are. That we're insensitive. That you can't take it.

Look, if you want a place to talk about your feelings, then go post here.

Basically, it's not about us and how mean we are.

It's about the modern American idea of tolerance.

Kids are taught in the atheistic, state-enforced public school system that "every one's ideas are equally valid."

Recently, I say a trophy ceremony for Pop Warner Football players. EVERY SINGE TEAM got a trophy. You're all winners! No matter if you're last.

Since we take things so personally, because we're all solipsists, if you refute our arguments or ideas we take that as you refuting US, personally.

Don't give us this tripe about how we're so mean. Even if we were as nice, professional, and as calm as could be, guess what? YOU'D STILL GET OFFENDED.

Why?

'cause you're wrong.

You're wrong. We're right.

That upsets you.

"How dare they say I'm wrong, I'm the center of the universe."

Or,

"How dare they say I'm wrong, no one can be certain about anything. No one can be sure, and we're sure about that!"

Today girls open car doors for guys, pay for dinner, and wear the pants.

Today, men are not men.

Gnosticism rules.

Do away with distinctions!

No one is right, no one is wrong.

We're all equal. No one can be wrong. No one is stupid.

Look, it's pretty simple. If you don't want to get mocked, then don't brag about how you can refute Christianity and how it's "clearly false."

Don't shove your former profession of faith into the spotlight to be used as an argument. Don't tell everyone how much you studied the Bible and how educated at Seminary you were.

Why?

Because we'll call your bluff.

You didn't study the Bible. You studied you OPINION of FEELING about the Bible.

You had Bible studies where the leader asked, "What does this passage say to you."

The you rejected you ignorant and impotent version of Christianity.

Well don't get upset with us that we weren't as gullible as you.

If you use your "knowledge" of Christianity as an argument, then we'll point out how stupid and ignorant you are about the Bible.

I'd also add that you get laughed at because you call us un-Christian for doing the same things that the "war-monger God of the Old testament did." The same thing Jesus did. The same thing the apostle Paul did.

We rightly scoff at you because on the one-hand you criticize the Bible for how mean God and Jesus were, but on the other hand when we don't blow sunshine up your skirts you criticize US for NOT acting like the God you say is so mean and hateful.

When you act like an inconsistent, emotion-driven hack, you get treated like one.

Really, drop it.

Men like Loftus et al. have lost the intellectual battle. All that's left is to attack our character.

It allows you to sleep at night to focus on US rather than the arguments.

Anyway, man up. Quite your whining about how mean we are. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you're not going to pick on substance, don't comment.

If you've never learned the phrase: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," learn it.

If you can't handle it, post here.

We hear our Lord being mocked, our faith being mocked, and our brothers and sisters being mocked.

We come back with better mockery, and better arguments.

Don't be jealous.

The biblical worldview understand the role of men:

Job 40

1 Moreover Jehovah answered Job, and said,

2 Shall he that cavilleth contend with the Almighty? He that argueth with God, let him answer it.

3 Then Job answered Jehovah, and said,

4 Behold, I am of small account; What shall I answer thee? I lay my hand upon my mouth.

5 Once have I spoken, and I will not answer; Yea, twice, but I will proceed no further.

6 Then Jehovah answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

28 comments:

  1. Paul,

    You're thinking everyone's offended. I don't see that as the case. I'm not offended. Instead, I think your tone and style says "unregenerated" even as you paste bible passages and other people's quotes in with your commentary.

    It isn't that we can't handle it. It just looks bad for Christian apologists to come off that way. I don't agree with William Lane Craig on a lot of things, but I think he has a good sense of his obligations as a representative of Jesus Christ in how he acquits himself. He's clear and firm, but generous, and projects an authentic air of good will in the works I've read from him . In his debate with Ehrman he even went so far as to do a little treatment of "Bart's Blunder" if I recall. It was actually a well made point, but very much done in a charitable, if pointed way.

    I know you'd like to cast this problem as a problem of being beset by sissies on all sides, it hews to comfortably views of your prowess and fortitude. But you're simply not doing the damage you think with your '5%' indulgence. I'd be surprised if people were offended. Instead they just can't see how a mind that can see it's way to such indulgence of the flesh is going to produce quality thinking on the other matters. I'm sure it can and does happen, but you have to make those points work in *spite* of yourself.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  2. But your problem is the reductio.

    Your argument would admit that Jesus, Paul, et al were unregenerate.

    Elijah MOCKED the prophets of Baal.

    If I had told exapologist that he wasn't responding too good because he was spending his time going to the bathroom rather than studying my position, you'd say I was "unregenerate."

    But when Elijah does the *same* kind of thing, he's not.

    You say I'm unregenerate because I told exapologist to stick to critiquing Plantinga, but Craig can say "Bart's Blunder?"

    You seem very subjective in your dismissals.

    I ask for evidence and all you can give is shaky, subjective opinion, or point out uses of sarcasm.

    The rest is what you've developed in your head.

    I have a sense of humor. Sometimes people don't find it funny. But you read that as me doing something else.

    Without evidence, how can you judge?

    Is the world supposed to bow down to touchstone's subjective preference of what he thinks a Christian is?

    We've already seen that the Bible doesn't agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That is a stellar post, Paul.

    Too bad you don't *know* that your God isn't simply an advanced alien race, Or an idea conjured up by dirt-munching nomads.

    You don't *know* the things you claim, so your words and rhetoric are emtpy.

    Plus...you can't account for what you think you know.

    QED

    ReplyDelete
  4. anonymous,

    were'nt you already refuted with your drivle previously?

    I asked you to define "know" and you never took me up on it.

    Secondly, given your radical skepticism you can't know that I can't know aht you say I can't know.

    So, go play in a sandbox, son.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Paul,

    I said your style says "unregenerate", which is why that's a problem. If I thought *you* were unregenerate, I'd have a whole different class of assessments to make. The reason I'm pointing that out is because you are working *against* your regenerate nature when you indulge the flesh like that. At least that's how it works when I indulge myself that way.

    There's no reason to appeal to you this way if I think you're unregenerate. It's only because I *do* that I think the appeal makes sense.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who's offended? In fact, this is good diversionary free entertainment. If we were really offended by your and Steve's blatant assholery, we would go somewhere else. As it stands, Were else can you find such arrogant buffoons making fools of themselves over and over? Now you have resorted to calling

    continue on Paul! Carry on Steve! We patiently await the next guffaw.

    ReplyDelete
  7. anonwhothinksPaulisgay11/25/2006 9:17 PM

    Stop pissing in your own sandbox, Son.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Touchstone,

    Same comeback, different post.

    Then Elijah's Paul's, and Jesus' "style" says unregenerate.

    Again, *why?*

    Oh, because touchstone *says-so.*

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just compare the comments we get from Christians who visit Debunking Christianity with the comments you get here at a Christian site by Christians and you'll see the difference for yourselves.

    In the comments section here read what Fletcher, a Christian had to say about us:

    I appreciate the respectful demeanor of this blog’s participants. Unfortunately it is not nearly common enough that people that disagree on worldviews and metaphysics can have respectful discussions with each other. American culture has taught us to just “throw ideas over the fence” at each other and whoever yells loudest wins.

    We get these kinds of comments all of the time, and many others in private emails...from Christians.

    Many people listen to what we say because we say it respectfully. Think about it. Many people cannot hear what you say because they can't hear your words above the louds screams of your attitude.

    I'm just trying to help ya. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. So even if you are right about Jesus, Paul, and Elijah, who cares? We live in an opiniated society. One that values the free expression of ideas and where educated and intelligent people realize we will not all agree. That's the difference that makes all the difference. So adjust, like you have done with your liberal views on women when compared to Christians of earlier centuries, and adjust, just like you do with your liberal views of hell when compared to the Middle Ages, and adjust, just like you do with regard to your liberal views on preterism, and adjust, just like you do with the liberal and heretical idea of a free democracy when compared to earlier times of the divine rights of kings.

    Adjust or die trying to kick against the goads.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Paul,

    You're missing the point about the relationship bewteen civility and inquiry. It's not to prevent from hurting others' feelings, but rather to prevent obstacles to finding the truth. People who care about gaining/sustaining true beliefs and avoiding/discarding false ones realize that a free and open exchange of ideas contributes greatly to that end. It's a way for ideas to be scrutinized and refined through careful peer review. When this sort of exhange is at its best, it's a thing of immense value. It's a process that drastically increases the probability of acquiring truth and avoiding error.

    Unfortunately, this invaluable process -- which isn't even allowed in many places -- is extremely fragile: it's very easy to stifle. For example, if someone enters into this process and starts attacking others, then people start to shut down, or they start a shouting match, or... Thereby drastically reducing the probability of getting truth from the process -- or shutting down the process entirely.

    So you see, the reason why people don't like it when you start attacking them is not primarily because it's unpleasant (although it is, but most grown-ups can handle that), but rather because you're stifling the free and honest exchange of ideas, which in turn stifles their inquiry into the truth.

    Now there are places that you can go that are against the free and democratic exchange of ideas, and would prefer the unquestioned adherence to the dogmas of a particular religion, silencing all dissent with violence -- e.g., societies in which the Taliban is in control (or Calvin's Vienna). But the people you attack aren't into that, for some strange reason.

    Also, if you yourself are interested in increasing the probability of gaining true beliefs and avoiding false beliefs, then (in addition to taking some courses in critical thinking and logic) you need to acquire certain intellectual virtues, such as the following:


    -intellectual humility: "you know what? I don't know everything, and in fact some of my beliefs might actually be false or otherwise unjustified."

    A closely related virtue is:

    intellectual charity: "perhaps I should listen to and internalize the views of others, and not unfairly characterize them to myself or others -- even those whose views are diametrically opposed to mine. I should be able to explain and defend their views before I evaluate them. After all, that way I can be relatively confident that I'm not rejecting a view that turns out to be true."

    Also:

    intellectual honesty and tentativeness: "I *think* that my views about x are true and reasonable, but sometimes I have my doubts about it. For example, there's this one argument Y that's pretty decent, and I don't know what to say about it. What do you think?"

    As you put these into practice and develop them, the probability of your believing true propositions goes up dramatically.

    Best,

    exapologist

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't know the context of this post--i.e. what was said to provoke it--but the tone is very interesting.

    1. What is the significance of linking women's sites as alternatives to posting here? Maybe I'm completely misreading you, but it comes off as if you are saying that this kind of arguing is "men's business" and if you aren't "man enough" to take it, go post on a women's site. I read this as a not too veiled sexism. Is this the right way to read you or did you intend something else?

    2. You wrote, "Kids are taught in the atheistic, state-enforced public school system that 'every one's ideas are equally valid.'"

    Not only did my public school principal lead school prayer every morning (and at all sporting events) [this was in 1992], but I taught in public schools until very recently and there is nothing close to 'every one's ideas are equally valid' in any curriculum I ever saw. This sounds like some of the alarmist talk you hear on conservative talk radio. Still, though, almost every state and federal politician has to give at least lip-service to some expression of Christian faith if they hope to get elected. Why do they have to do this if they are leading an "atheistic, state-enforced public school system"? Who are these atheists specifically that you are referring to that have power over the public school system?

    3. You wrote, "Recently, I say a trophy ceremony for Pop Warner Football players. EVERY SINGE TEAM got a trophy. You're all winners! No matter if you're last."

    What is the significance of this statement in your post? Is this because you believe discussions between atheists and theists are competitions? What are we competing for? Is this a scored debate? Are you involved in these discussions to compete or to learn?

    4. You wrote, "'cause you're wrong. . . You're wrong. We're right."

    (a) How do you know who's right and who is wrong in this debate? Did God tell you? How do you know he told you? The Bible? How do you know it's true? Direct revelation from God to your heart? How do you know that revelation can be trusted? Can you rule out subconscious desires, societal pressures, etc.? How?

    If it is so clear-cut, why doesn't everyone know what you know? Is it because you are smarter than everyone else who doesn't think it is clear-cut? Is it because you have less "sin" so that you can clearly hear God when others can't? Is it because God has not "revealed himself" (in a salvific sense) to those who don't find the case for God compelling?

    (b) If it is because God has not "revealed himself" (in a salvific senses) to those who don't find the case for God compelling, is your attitude toward them justified? Should they not be pitied?

    5. You wrote, "Today girls open car doors for guys, pay for dinner, and wear the pants. Today, men are not men."

    What are you upset about here? Is it wrong for a girl to open a car door for a guy? Why? Have you seen this happen? I haven't. I have seen women say that they can open their own door thank you very much, but I haven't seen women calling for a reversal such that men are treated like inferiors. Buying dinner just seems like a pragmatic economic situation. Would it be wrong if this expense is shared? I know many wives who put their husbands through seminary. Is this wrong? Why? Literally wearing pants doesn't seem like a problem, and I'm not sure how the metaphor applies. What role do you think a woman has in a marriage? What does it look like for a man "to wear the pants" in a marriage? What does it look like when women "wear the pants" instead? Again, I haven't heard women say that they want to reverse roles so that men are subjugated to them, but rather that they want to be considered an equal partner. Are you against equity?

    What do you mean that "men are not men"? Surely you don't mean that there is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. So, you are using these words in two different senses. You are saying something like, "Gendered males are not . . . what?" Manly? In charge? Tough? Mean? What should people with penises be like according to your perception?

    6. "Look, it's pretty simple. If you don't want to get mocked, then don't brag about how you can refute Christianity and how it's 'clearly false.'"

    I actually agree with you that saying Christianity is "clearly false" is an extraordinary statement. But . . .

    (a) You just accused your atheist "opponents" of saying that "No one is right, no one is wrong," are these the same ones who are saying that there is right and wrong, but that Christianity is what is in the wrong? So, what do you want? On the one hand you accuse atheists of saying that nothing is right or wrong and on the other you are upset that they are taking a side and saying that Christianity is wrong. Is it only agreement with you that you are after?

    (b) Why "mock" people who say Christianity is "clearly false"? Why not simply point out their missteps dispassionately? Maybe you don't owe this to the unbeliever at all. Maybe it is well within your rights to laugh like Elijah did with the prophets of Baal or how God "sits in the heavens laughs [and] . . . scoffs at [unbelievers]." (Psalm 2:4). Fine, but that doesn't mean that you must exercise that right. Doesn't your Bible say that Jesus "felt a love" for an unbeliever ("the rich young ruler"--Mark 10:21--Although, this might be the only such reference in the Bible)? Is "mocking" and "laughing at" indicative of this? What do you hope to accomplish by mocking and laughing at an unbeliever? Will this help the unbeliever accept what you are saying? Will this help other Christians feel better about their faith? Does this honor God more than dispassionate reasoning?

    7. You wrote, "You didn't study the Bible. You studied you OPINION of FEELING about the Bible. You had Bible studies where the leader asked, 'What does this passage say to you.' The[n] you rejected you[r] ignorant and impotent version of Christianity."

    This sounds presumptuous. How do you know this is the case? Did you attend the seminary classes of all of your "opponents"? Has God revealed the content of these classes to you? How do you know what went on with your "opponents"?

    8. You wrote, "We hear our Lord being mocked, our faith being mocked, and our brothers and sisters being mocked. We come back with better mockery, and better arguments."

    Is there a such thing as "better mockery"? Why not simply "rise above" mockery and just present better arguments sans mockery? Must you fight fire with fire even if you have the right to? Is there not something to be said for the character of the person who chooses not to return "evil for evil or insult for insult" [Yes, I know that the context in 1 Peter 3 is between Christians, I'm simply using the phrase, not resting on the authority of the text as a condemnation on your actions]. Perhaps, you are perfectly free to insult unbelievers, but are you required to do so? Does it help your cause? Does it add anything to the debate?

    Like I said, I don't know the context of this discussion (I haven't been reading over the past couple of days). This post, though, seems analogous to a school-yard bully calling people out to fight him by calling them "women" (as if this is an insult) and stupid. It sounds like taunting.

    You and I have had reasonable, respectful discussions as have you and Jim Lazarus. Perhaps other atheists have engaged in name-calling and mockery and, maybe, you are within your rights to return the same, but it just doesn't seem like the "better way."

    Well, for whatever that is worth . . .

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve, Paul,

    Both of you have intimated (numerously) in your extended thread w/ Touchstone that he’s an apostate, or at least on the highroad thereto. Will either/both of you go on record affirming such?

    Steve, you’ve attempted to keep your arguments in the arena of “metascience” but you’ve clearly back peddled from your earlier statement that (something along the lines of) “modern man would NOT have had the ability to fend off predatory attacks in antiquity “, a statement which is clearly in the purview of “plain science”, as opposed to any conception of meta-science. This claim requires supporting arguments before it can be taken seriously. Why do you resist providing such arguments?

    Steve, how, precisely, does the possibility of a non-uniform time metric impugn any evolutionary hypothesis? So far as I know, you’ve not yet given a thorough explanation of how your conception of time should compel anyone to rethink what they’ve (any evolutionist, for example), thus far, taken for granted.

    What, in your view, is the right way to think about the relationship between time and space?

    Steve, what is time? What is more, why should anyone believe it?

    Thanks in advance,

    Andrew

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ex-apologist,

    You called my preterist argument "absurd" and you said your (rather weak) argument showed that Christianity was "clearly false." Talk about stifling a conversation.

    Unbeleivers are so funny. You have no problem mocking Christians. You have no problem calling our arguments absurd. But when the same happens to you, you throw a hissy fit.

    Those who live in glass houses ...


    Interlocuter,

    My post was highly generalized. Mostly a rant. It was how I felt about something.

    I don't mock everyone. There's a time and place for everything. I have no problem mocking the proper people, indeed I think it's called for sometimes.

    Andrew,

    I actually haven't been following the discussions with touchstone other than his comments regarding my specific posts.

    I know thwt b.B. Warfield believed in a theistic sort of evolution.

    I know that we're saved by the life and death of Jesus Christ, nothing more.

    I lumped everyone together. I think of touchstone, as I know of him, to fit into the label "liberal." That was one of my pigeonholes. And yes, I'll go on the record saying as much.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Paul,

    I actually agree with you: I think those were pretty childish and obnoxious things for me to say. I apologize, Paul. I promise that in the future, if we continue to have discussions, I'll do my best to be civil. In fact, I plan to tone down the over-the-top language to the title of my post.

    But with respect to the discussion we've had, I don't think you've fairly characterized my position. My basic position argument was this: there are at least fourteen pieces of evidence that, taken together, provide a strong abductive argument for the position that Jesus was fundamentally an apocalyptic prophet, i.e., a prophet proclaiming the immanent eschaton, which includes the general resurrection and the final judgement.

    When the issue of the partial preterist response came up, I argued that this wasn't the best explanation of all the data. For the fourteen pieces of evidence, taken together (but especially the points about the successive watering down of the message of an immanent eschaton, and Paul's exhortations for people to remain in their present state (for example, married and single people), since the time is short) abductively point to a continuity of sequence among all of the events listed in the "little apocalypse" of Mark, and the parallels of Matt. and Luke. Now within this evidential context, I think that the most plausible, natural interpretation of 1 Thess 4: 13-18 is that Paul is referring to the same events as those discussed in Mk. 13 and parallels.

    Notice that this last argument is different from the one you attribute to me, viz.,

    1) The sequence of events described in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 are similar to that of Mk. 13 and pars
    ----
    2) Therefore, the sequence of events in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 and Mk. 13 are identical.

    Construed as a deductive argument, it's obviously invalid. But of course it's not *my* argument.

    My argument is an abductive inference: the interpretation is a hypothesis which, if true, would make the best sense of the data I've mentioned. Thus, there is a prima facie, defeasible case for taking it as such. Therefore, to undercut the argument, we need a hypothesis -- in this case, an interpretation -- that's a *better*, more plausible explanation of the data.

    Now as I understand your reply, you do two main things:

    (i) argue that the similarities aren't strong enough, and that the differences outweigh them. But if so, then that provides evidence that they don't refer to the same event.

    (ii) lay out a case for showing that the meaning of the "coming in the clouds" language is common OT language for God's judgement -- it need imply nothing more. If not, then we can't infer a literal, bodily coming of the Son of Man (or the Lord, if they're the same person) just from that language alone; so there isn't sufficient reason to infer the latter from such language in Mk. 13 and pars.

    (iii) lay out a case that the language referring to cosmic signs has strong precedence in the OT to refer to a shift in or destruction of authority, and suggest that just such a shift occurs with God's judgement via the destruction of Jerusalem.

    My reply was then that I thought that my previous statements didn't require further defense to overcome your case. The reason was that I thought your case didn't overcome the prima facie plausibility of my hypothesis:

    - your case for (i) -- your list of dissimilarities -- didn't seem to undercut the relevant similarities. They seemed rather trivial. I don't know, if others disagree I'll be glad to hear it.

    -your case for (ii) and (iii) doesn't seem to get the conclusion you want. These points only show that the language about the coming in the clouds and the cosmic signs don't show *by themselves* that Mk. 13 and pars. attribute to Jesus an immenent eschaton that involves the final judgement and the end of the age. But the worry is that this language, *plus* the rest of Mk. 13 and pars., *do* seem to lump in the general resurrection and the end of the age.

    For these reasons, I think the prima facie justification for my account hasn't been undercut by your last main post.

    Best,

    exapologist

    p.s., again, I really am sorry Paul for the tone in some of my previous remarks. I really would like to have a civil discussion with you. I especially need your help in finding the best sources I can read that discuss your account of partial preterism. Would you recommend the book from Sproul that you mentioned on another blog?

    ReplyDelete
  17. What a storm that's kicked up here!

    John Loftus, I think the respect given to you all on Debunking Christianity is because those who go by over there are trying to act Christ-like...

    I think everyone can agree that sometimes T-blog is a magnent for crazy, off the wall people...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Paul,

    What? No interaction with all of the questions raised about your sexism, and immature and stone-age beliefs about women?

    Exapologist,

    Its nice to see somebody "man up," Paul would do this, except he's too busy "puffing up" instead.

    Scarlet

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jimmy said: I think the respect given to you all on Debunking Christianity is because those who go by over there are trying to act Christ-like...

    I'm sure that's partially true. But why would they go further to comment so often on how respectfully we treat them, if we treated them with distain?

    There's two good reasons for treating those who disagree like we do: 1) People will listen to you, which is the goal, isn't it?; 2) You might learn something in the interchange of these ideas, since no one has a corner on the truth.

    I just watched Brad Pitt in Troy. It was a great movie somewhat based on The Illiad. What struck me is how often people mentioned the gods like Appolo, Zeus, and Posidon. The way they talked was as if they believed the gods were real. They sounded just like Christians do today when they talk of God helping, and not offending God. And yet you reject the Greek gods. They were so sure of these gods that they consulted priests who saw omens about whether the gods would help them win battles. The parallels are obvious to me. I could hear someone like you in those days saying some of the same things against anyone who didn't believe in the gods, too.

    Certainty is unattainable when it comes to such issues, so it's best to at least tone down the rhetoric. Even if Jesus, Paul and Elijah did what was right in taunting and demeaning their detractors, there is a difference that makes all of the difference even inside your own beliefs system. They knew with a much greater certainty than you will ever know that they were right. You do not have the same assuredness they did to do what they did.

    By the way, Steve has been silent here, but much of what is said applies to him as well as to Paul.

    Paul, it was very interesting to see what you think a man does and what you consider "manly." The words, domineering, bossy, powerful, and unemotional come to my mind. How do you really know these things are not either cultural or just part of your personality and read into the Bible? I've aske you about this on a number of issues. The only way to see for sure is to listen to those who disagree rather than rant against them. As you get older you will see things more clearly. You will wish you had listened to both friend and foe on this point.

    ReplyDelete
  20. EA,

    No problem.

    Just so you know, I didn't have a problem with your title, I only had a problem when people seemed to have a problem with me but that wasn't transferred across the board.

    Anyway, I accept your apology.

    I'll try to respond to your comments later (it's the Lord's day -n- all :-)) and hopefully we'll be able to move along at a better pace.

    BTW, I'll remove what I assume was an offensive part in one of my nposts as well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't believe women are "inferrior."

    I believe there are no ontological subordinates, just economical ones.

    Women do tend to care more about feelings, more emotional, etc.

    That was the purpose in sending people to female discussion boards. So they could "talk about their feelings."

    Anyway, yeah, I'm not a gnostic, I believe in distinctions. I believe there are roles. I love that my wife cries at the end of Titanic. She loves that I watch the UFC or Football with the boys.

    Paint me as a sexist, then. Whatever floats your boat.

    ReplyDelete
  22. There is grace for people to express themsevles passionately about what they love. It is okay to run hot or cold.

    ReplyDelete
  23. jimmy li said: "I think the respect given to you all on Debunking Christianity is because those who go by over there are trying to act Christ-like..."

    So, giving respect to "infidels," "backsliders," "unregenerates" and other types of opponents to Christianity is "Christ-like"? But we keep getting all kinds of reasons from the Paul Manata crowd to excuse their excesses in disrespect for the same. How can all this be squared up?

    Just a thought.
    Bomo

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi Paul,

    Please, don't feel rushed on my part -- I'm aleady behind on several work and school deadlines, and so a nice, leisurely pace would work best for me.

    Regards,

    exapologist

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'll post at my pace and you can post at yours.

    I won't hoild you accotable to post at my paste and you don't hold me accountable to post at yours?

    Deal?

    ReplyDelete
  26. i don't know why i said "paste," i meant "pace."

    ReplyDelete
  27. i don't know why i said "paste," i meant "pace."

    And you dare critique Exapologist for the difference in the spelling between "imminent," and "immanent?"

    Slack. Cut us some.
    Break. Give us some.
    Up. Ease.
    Fun. Have some.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Manata - "i don't know why i said "paste," i meant "pace.""

    This was clearly Freudian. When Paul puts together a new post, it's like a cut-and-paste job using the same sneering comments he's posted in other blogs. He just goes in, copies the preferred text, and pastes it into a new blog. That's why he repeats many of his own spelling mistakes.

    ReplyDelete