Pages

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Philadelphia and eros

Up until now I don't think I've said anything about the Revoice conference. That's in part because I don't care to watch the presentations. I thought Denny Burk's response was weak, for reasons I didn't understand. Now that I know he doesn't consider homosexual attraction to be a disqualification from Christian ministry, I understand why his response was weak. I'll comment on Wesley Hill's wrap-up. 


He's a leader in the movement. Perhaps the intellectual leader:

...a crowd of mostly non-straight people—some four hundred strong—gathered for the first annual Revoice conference, an event aiming to help LGBTQ+ Christians thrive in their churches and families. Appearance-wise, many of the attendees wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow in Boystown or Brighton. Rainbow bracelets and body piercings abounded (one friend of mine sported rainbow-colored shoelaces to match the rainbow Ichthus pendant on his lapel). 

Flaunting homosexuality is one reason why Bible-believing churches are hostile to the Revoice philosophy. 

According to the “ex-gay” paradigm, far from being a biological or ontological identity, homosexuality is a condition. James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family and one of the people most responsible for transforming ex-gay experiences and testimonies into weapons in the culture war, wrote in 2002 that there “is no such thing as a gay child or a gay teen. … [Boys with a poor relationship to their fathers] have a seventy-five percent chance of becoming homosexual or bisexual.” Being gay was, in other words, a developmental disorder—and, for that reason, treatable.

i) I'm not qualified to have an informed opinion on the nature/nurture debate over the origins of homosexuality. However, Hill seems to dismiss post-natal environmental factors out of hand. 

ii) I don't know if homosexuality is generally curable. Compare it to addictive behavior. Treatment is successful for some people, but unsuccessful for others.  

iii) Likewise, the fact that some people kick the habit doesn't mean what they cease to find the addictive substance or behavior appealing. It just means they're no longer dominated by it. They can say no. .

I still recall, some time in the months leading up to my own admission that I was gay, listening to Mike Haley, an “ex-gay” speaker who then worked for Dobson’s organization, give a talk in a chapel service at Wheaton College about his conversion to Christianity. On the screen behind him were photos of his blonde, bronzed younger self from when he worked as a prostitute, emblems of his years of wandering in what he termed the “homosexual lifestyle.” Exodus International, at the time the world’s largest ex-gay organization, had described Haley this way in its promotion of his ministry: “Mike Haley was once addicted to homosexuality. Today he is a fulfilled husband and father.” When Haley concluded his talk by projecting a photo of him and his wife with their two sons, he received a standing ovation.

Does Hill believe that's sometimes the case? If so, then biological factors can't be the only explanation. 

I was never involved with ex-gay ministries myself, but I do remember asking my evangelical professors and pastors whether the outcome Haley spoke about was possible for me. I received equivocal replies. Perhaps my friends and mentors could sense my doubts about the plausibility of any clear-cut answer. On the one hand, I was frightened by the prospect of remaining single and hoped there was a way of avoiding that fate. On a Christian college campus where students joked about getting a “ring by spring,” looking ahead to adulthood without a spouse felt like peering into a long, dim corridor of loneliness. On the other hand, I knew the character of my same-sex desire: It had been inchoately there in my elementary school crushes, it had undergone no fluctuation during the storm of puberty, and now, in my early twenties, it seemed as exclusive and persistent as ever. In light of those givens, I was skeptical of the effectiveness of any therapeutic interventions.

Are "elementary school crushes" evidence that homosexuality is innate? How does Hill differentiate preadolescent gay "crushes" from straight boys who idolize alpha males? There are straight boys who view alpha males as role models. They want to be like them. They want to hang out with them. How is the evidence for that distinguishable from preadolescent homosexual attraction? Clearly it's different inasmuch as those boys grow up to be straight. So how can Hill tell his "elementary school crushes" were incipient signs of homosexuality rather than, say, nerdy young boys who wish they were jocks? 

Imagine being asked, “Have you tried this?”—where “this” always refers, by turns, to another book, another conference, another treatment center, another prayer ministry, another charismatic experience, or another counseling technique—each time you shared a story of pain and confusion with your fellow believers. Imagine that, and you will have an idea of what it felt like over the last several decades to be open about one’s homosexuality in traditional churches. Along with many other Christians who chose to acknowledge their same-sex desires in conservative Christian circles from the 1970s onward, I did try many of the suggestions my friends gave me. I saw counselors and received prayer. I read books with diagnoses of my “homosexual neurosis,” as one called it, and struggled mightily to shoehorn my childhood development into their framework, in the hope that some new level of healing might be opened up to me. 

i) It may be reasonable for some homosexuals to give up on therapy if it doesn't work for them. 

ii) Why say "same-sex desire" rather than homosexual desire? The use of "same-sex" as a synonym homosexual (or "gay:) is corrupting. Straight same-sex affection is natural, normal, and proper. Straight men with male friends. Fathers and sons, mothers and daughters. Brothers. Sisters. 

When "same-sex" becomes a synonym for homosexual, it acquires homosexual connotations, which corrupts the term. We know longer have a term to designate straight same-sex affection. 

Being gay in traditional churches, up until very recently, meant always having to ask whether one had prayed enough, hoped enough, hungered enough for one’s own photo with a spouse and children to project on a screen to thunderous applause.

Why the felt need to tell everybody you're homosexual in the first place? 

At a time in my life when I wondered whether it would signal defeat if I said simply, “I’m gay, and I don’t expect that to change, and I want to be celibate,” an older single friend of mine wrote a letter to me—one that I now look back on as a turning point in my thinking, illuminating an unexplored possibility:

Perhaps the real question is not how to make unfulfilled desires go away, but rather, what they teach us about the nature of our lives, what is ultimately important. … This, I suspect, is much akin to Paul’s own discussion of the thorn in the flesh in 2 Corinthians 12. Paul prayed but it did not go away. God allowed it to remain in his life that he might know the surpassing greatness of God’s grace in ALL circumstances. Likewise, unfulfilled desires point us to the only eternal source of satisfaction—God himself. … [T]hey help us identify with the true nature of the human condition of all those around us who are suffering [things] over which they have no control. It is an immediate bridge for ministry to our fellow human beings.

Reading those words was a revelation. In their wake, I began to ponder questions I hadn’t known I was allowed ask: Might there be some divine design, some strange providence, in my homosexuality? Might my sexual orientation be something God does not want to remove, knowing that its challenge keeps pulling me back towards Him in prayer? Might it even be something through which more empathy and compassion for fellow sufferers are birthed?

i) It's true that the struggle with a personal sin or weakness can be a sanctifying experience and cultivate compassion. That said, Paul doesn't indicate that his thorn in the flesh was a besetting sin. 

ii) Since, moreover, Hill rules out heterosexual marriage, he will never be in a position to find out if that has a healing affect on his condition. He makes it a choice between "celibate gay Christians" and sexually active homosexuals. But that's a false dichotomy. His body is still designed for sexual relations with a woman. Why take that option off the table? There are couples who are not in love when they marry, but come to love each other during the course of marriage. 

Asking these questions let me abandon my fevered search for some cure for my gayness and prompted me to look instead for what C. S. Lewis once called the “certain kinds of sympathy and understanding, [the] certain social role” of which only those who aren’t straight might be capable. Homosexuality, I continued to believe, is sinful insofar as it represents a thirst for acts that Scripture forbids, but I came to see that it is at the same time—like St. Paul’s thorn—an occasion for grace to become manifest.

It's one thing to give up on therapy if it doesn't work for you–another thing not to give it a try. Once again, consider addictive behavior. 

Exploring that grace was the point of the Revoice conference. It was the first theologically conservative event I’ve attended in which I felt no shame in owning up to my sexual orientation and no hesitation in declaring my sexual abstinence. At Revoice there was no pressure to obfuscate the probable fixity and exclusivity of my homosexuality through clunky euphemisms. Nor was there any stigma attached to celibacy, as though my embracing it were simply, as the ex-gay leader Andy Comiskey once wrote, “a concession to same-sex attraction.” 

Once again, why the felt-need to open up about homosexual attraction? 

The ecclesial blessing for same-sex partnerships requires one to dismantle the entire edifice of two thousand years of Christian teaching on embodiment, marriage, and celibacy—namely, that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman and that sexual expression is permissible only within that covenantal relationship, whereas those who live outside that covenant are called to celibacy.


i) Homosexuals don't need homosexual friends. Rather, they need straight friends. 

ii) Friendship isn't based on vows and covenants. Friendship is based on mutual respect, mutual understanding, mutual trust, rapport, acceptance, common values, common interests, common activities, shared risk, shared history. We choose our friends. In friendship, the essential bond is informal rather than formal. The bond can't be strengthened by vows and covenants. That's artificial. 

iii) Hill's comparison intentionally blurs the distinction between marital commitment and friendship. 

67 comments:

  1. Dear gay Christians: Here is the real "Good News". The god you pray to does not exist. If there is a Creator, he (she/they/or it) is indifferent to your existence. He doesn't care if you live or die, so why would he care who you love or who you sleep with at night?

    Stop living and thinking according to the moral standards of ancient goat-herding nomads.

    Be free, my friends! Live and love!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear village atheists like Gary: Here is the real good news. The God in whom you disbelieve does exist. He is not indifferent to how you live. If you do wrong, even if you get away with wrongdoing in this life, there will come a day when you will die and stand in judgment before God. God will judge you for how you lived your life. When this happens, you will be found guilty and condemned for your wrongdoings in life, because everyone has done wrong in their life. Not a single person is innocent or guiltless. None save the One who came to die in the cross for those who will turn from their wrongdoings, turn back to God, and beg for his forgiveness.

      Stop living and thinking according to your own standards, and turn back to the truth! Make peace with God before you die and peace is no longer possible for you!

      If you abide in God's word, you are truly his disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

      Delete
    2. If atheism is true, then is anyone truly free? Among other things, we're subject to our genes. We do what our genes direct us to do. We are just meat machines to propagate the human species.

      What's more, if atheism is true, what's the point of life? There is none. It's all ultimately meaningless. We can come up with some imaginary meaning for our own lives, but that's all it is, imaginary. Make believe. In the end, nothing really matters.

      We're born, we live, we die. Some have good lives, some have bad lives. Most have lackluster lives that count for little or nothing. Most will be forgotten eventually.

      Some are murdered, raped, tortured, or worse, which is too bad for them, but it's ultimately meaningless to the human species. Individuals don't matter so long as the species continues to survive.

      We're just another animal or organism. Does anyone care what happens to an individual firefly? Maybe it's nice to look at a firefly for a moment or two. But in the end all that's left is a grave of the fireflies.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_of_the_Fireflies

      Delete
    3. You're expecting a level of thought well above where fellows like Gary generally abide.

      Delete
    4. Lol, that's a good point, C.M. Granger! :)

      Delete
    5. Your Garys of this world are stuck at the level of outdated rhetorical devices and, generally, poorly constructed and barely coherent rants.

      It's utterly woeful, and it gets no less painful the more one is faced with this type of garbage.

      Delete
    6. You guys are the ones arguing for the reality of ghost impregnated virgins, water walking, and dead corpse reanimation. No amount of sophisticated sounding philosophical arguments will change that fact.

      Delete
    7. It would behoove to understand the subjects you portend to argue against. If you think the above comments accurately summarize the Christian faith, you're a dunce of the highest magnitude.

      Delete
    8. Gary

      "You guys are the ones arguing for the reality of ghost"

      The Holy Spirit is not identical to a "ghost" or apparition. You're likely basing that off old Elizabethean English which has a different meaning than it does today.

      "impregnated virgins,"

      What about "miraculous" do you not understand? Even Joseph and Mary as well as their contemporaries at first couldn't believe a virgin could conceive. That's why Joseph wanted to "divorce" Mary. That's why Jesus' naysayers alleged Jesus was illegitimate.

      "water walking,"

      Where does the Bible ever say water is "walking"? You're genuinely biblically illiterate.

      "and dead corpse reanimation."

      Perhaps you've been watching too many Frankenstein or zombie movies. Resurrection isn't identical to reanimating a dead corpse. And as far as dead corpse reanimation goes, there are some scientists who argue it may be scientifically possible someday.

      "No amount of sophisticated sounding philosophical arguments will change that fact."

      No amount of assertions from you will change the fact that you're ignorant about a host of relevant facts and evidence. Your biblical illiteracy goes a long way toward explaining why you're no longer a Christian: you left something you never really understood all that well in the first place.

      Delete
    9. Gary,

      1. You were refuted time and again on another thread regarding your lazy terminology and naturalistic assumptions about 'ghost impregnated virgins... and... dead corpse reanimation.' You completely ignored every refutation and continued to make the same stupid assertions. That is the behaviour of an ignorant troll who has no idea what he is doing.

      2. 'Sophisticated *sounding*' (my emphasis) being the operative turn of phrase; you'd have no idea what an actual sophisticated philosophical argument looked like if it stood in front of your face, bit your nose, tweaked your nipples, and shouted 'I'm a sophisticated philosophical argument! I'm a sophisticated philosophical argumement!'

      3. On (1), If God exists, could He bring about miraculous or unusual events to accomplish His purpose in creation? Do you understand the concept of an internal critique? Put aside your outdated rhetoric and naturalistic assumptions for a moment and try to focus on the novel idea of approaching/attacking Christianity on its own terms.

      4. On (3), take, for example, God's supernaturally causing the virgin Mary to become pregnant. On Christianity, what is so self-evidently absurd about this concept? If you want to argue that some 'law of nature' has been 'violated' then you'll need to define 'law of nature' and explain how it has been violated. (You were challenged on this on the previous thread - it's time you stepped up and advanced beyond the adolescent rhetoric.)

      Moreover, artificial insemination is not even absurd *on naturalism*, since for over 100 years doctors have been achieving this very feat. So your mock incredulity isn't a very well thought through strategy here. It's just standard New Atheist grandstanding: no attempt to honestly and rationally engage, just pure, lazy rhetorical drivel.

      Delete
    10. Gary, what’s your specific objection? Other than to emote and act incredulous. Where’s your argument? If you have an argument, then let’s hear it.

      Delete
    11. "Gary, what’s your specific objection? Other than to emote and act incredulous. Where’s your argument? If you have an argument, then let’s hear it."

      Gay Christians can free themselves from the psychological HELL of attempting to please an ancient middle-eastern deity because HE DOES NOT EXIST! Supernatural claims are superstitions. Period. No one in the 21st century should take this nonsense seriously. There is no more reason to fear the threats of doom and gloom pronounced by Christians than the threats of the jungle witch doctor, shaking his tom toms and poking pins in his voodoo dolls.

      Stop fearing the threats of these superstitious, fear-mongering, people!

      Delete
    12. "Gay Christians can free themselves from the psychological HELL of attempting to please an ancient middle-eastern deity because HE DOES NOT EXIST!"

      And yet Gay atheists still kill themselves at higher rates than non-gays do. They reject Christianity and yet still struggle with their lives. They live in insular communities that fully accept themselves, and still feel like there's something wrong with them.

      Or have you never talked to a gay person, Gary? Are gay people merely props for you?

      Delete
  2. Oh look, Gary came back. He just can't quit us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Dear gay Christians: Here is the real 'Good News'. The god you pray to does not exist."

    That's actually pretty horrific news, because Survival of the Fittest is all that's left, and gays cannot reproduce, thus rendering them the least fit of all. So, I guess it's off to the death camps for you because you're just taking precious resources from those who CAN reproduce, thus rendering you a burden on evolution.

    "Stop living and thinking according to the moral standards of ancient goat-herding nomads."

    Yes, the ethics of atheists like Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot are much better to strive for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Silly, silly, silly.

      It's very simple, Peter: Humans are mammals. Most mammals are herd of pack animals. Herds and packs have rules of behavior for members of the herd. These rules have developed over the long history of evolution to increase the survival chances of the herd/pack. Herds/packs in which everyone lives for "himself" do not survive to pass on their DNA. So human "herds" (societies) have rules just as do our mammalian cousins. We humans call these rules "morals".

      It's very simple. No need to make it complicated. Humans have morals to increase the chances of passing on our DNA.

      Delete
    2. 1) Already refuted in the previous thread.

      2) Ignores the point and shift goal posts again.

      Tell me again why you think you're intelligent?

      Delete
    3. That morality is subjective morality. Subject to our genes. If we evolve then we could have evolve a different morality. Hitler tried to evovle humanity to a new uberman. To kill off the weak like the Jews and to create a perfect super race. And all that’s consistent with what Gary has just said here.

      Delete
  4. ---
    @existentialcoms
    "And then we entered the Age of Enlightenment, where reason finally ruled over of superstition."
    "Then what happened?"
    "Genocide, mostly."
    ---

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you read the history of the Ancient world??? Entire cities and nations were wiped out without any concern for "niceties" such as "spare the women and children". Take a look in the OT for a few examples.

      Delete
    2. How does any of that disprove that genocide is the result of the Age of Enlightenment? You're a fool, Gary. I mean that in the Biblical sense, although it's also true in the American sense too.

      Delete
  5. "It would behoove to understand the subjects you portend to argue against. If you think the above comments accurately summarize the Christian faith, you're a dunce of the highest magnitude."

    Muslims, Mormons, Jews, and Hindus would make the same complaint about simplified characterizations of their superstitions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary, if you keep finding people complaining about the way you treat them, parsimony would dictate that it's most likely because you're a dick.

      Delete
    2. If you offered the same pathetic caricatures of their beliefs that you offered to us, then they’d have every right to do so.

      Delete
    3. "Gary, if you keep finding people complaining about the way you treat them, parsimony would dictate that it's most likely because you're a dick."

      I am an evangelist. There is a saying: Throw a rock into a pack of rabid, fighting dogs. The one who yelps the loudest is the one who got hit.

      Delete
    4. There's a saying: You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there.

      Which is far more relevant to the topic than what you just said, Gary.

      Delete
  6. "The Holy Spirit is not identical to a "ghost" or apparition. You're likely basing that off old Elizabethean English which has a different meaning than it does today."

    There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of invisible, intelligent beings in our universe. And evidence for a possible Creator is not evidence that he/she/they/ or it are invisible or that they perform supernatural acts in our universe. All evidence indicates that EVERYTHING in our universe operates according to the laws of physics. Invisible, intelligent beings may exist OUTSIDE our universe, but there is no evidence that such entities exist or operate within it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you don’t believe in the existence of minds?

      Delete
    2. Epistle -- I certainly have seen no evidence that he has one.

      Delete
    3. Gotta give him props for moving the goalposts that quickly.

      "You believe in a ghost, idiot!"

      "What we believe in isn't a ghost. You're using the word wrong."

      "But...but....they could only exist outside our universe!!!!!!"

      Delete
    4. Minds do not exist without brains living within (visible) bodies.

      Delete
    5. Just because you’ve never seen a disembodied mind does not mean disembodied minds cannot exist.

      Delete
    6. Apparently, for Gary, blind people cannot believe in other minds.

      And before he gets too high up his horse, perhaps he should consider the implications that scientists are saying upwards of 90% of the universe is dark energy and dark matter, meaning that according to science more than 9/10ths of the universe is not observable by our current means. Yet he still is going to demand that a mind has to exist in such a way that it interacts not just with the 10% of the universe that *can* be interacted with (according to our current theories), but that it be specifically within the range of visible light, which itself is a tiny fraction of the 10% that's there.

      Yeah, you go with that Gare-bear.

      Delete
    7. Just because you have never seen a unicorn does not mean that unicorns do not exist.

      Silly, silly, silly.

      Delete
    8. Unlike unicorns, minds are known to exist. Hence I’m not arguing for a vacuum, but from human consciousness or mind.

      Delete
    9. Gary is also assuming he is speaking with other minds right now, yet he has never seen any of us in person. How is it that Gary knows that we exist if he has not checked for our visible bodies?

      Could it be that he is using other means to determine that he is communicating with other minds than the only way he says is possible?

      What? Gary be inconsistent?! HEAVEN FORBID!!!!

      Delete
  7. "What about "miraculous" do you not understand? Even Joseph and Mary as well as their contemporaries at first couldn't believe a virgin could conceive. That's why Joseph wanted to "divorce" Mary. That's why Jesus' naysayers alleged Jesus was illegitimate."

    I fully understand that you believe that events which defy the laws of physics occur in our universe, however, until you provide convincing evidence of such occurrences, I choose to regard them as superstitious nonsense.

    We have no idea what really happened with Mary and Joseph. The truth is that only Mary knows how she got pregnant and we have no eyewitness testimony from her to evaluate. However, even if we did have such confirmed testimony, probability tells us that someone who claims to have been impregnated by a spirit/ghost is either lying or not dealing with a full deck.

    It is a tall tale until better evidence is provided.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We already addressed all of your stupid objections in a previous thread, Gary.

      Delete
    2. Lots of reasonable evidence for miracles. Try Craig Keener, Robert Larmer, Rex Gardner, etc.

      Ironic you accept some parts of the NT, but not other parts of the NT. How do you decide which parts to accept and which to reject? Apparently based on whatever you think is possible vs. impossible. A more sensible approach would be to accept or reject the whole thing.

      Delete
    3. "Lots of reasonable evidence for miracles. Try Craig Keener, Robert Larmer, Rex Gardner, etc."

      Anecdotal claims, nothing more. By definition, the supernatural defies examination by empirical means. It can only be believed by "faith", which is another way of saying, "wishful thinking".

      Delete
    4. "Ironic you accept some parts of the NT, but not other parts of the NT. How do you decide which parts to accept and which to reject?"

      Silly. Should we reject the historicity of the Trojan wars just because Homer's Iliad includes tales of mythical creatures and gods?

      Delete
    5. Assertions without arguments. Just because you dismiss them as anecdotes doesn’t mean they can’t be true anecdotes. You’d have to argue against each case. And it only takes one true case to disprove your atheism (materialism).

      Also, an argument from analogy without the argument. What makes you think the NT is analogous to Homer? You never say.

      Delete
    6. Also, if you’re arguing for methodological naturalism, that’s narrow minded as a scientist. You’re excluding evidence a priori.

      Delete
    7. Gary,

      1. We've dealt with your adolescent objections in *this very thread* let alone other threads. Reading comprehension much? I doubt it.

      2. You have absolutely no understanding of probability. Probability for Mary's miraculous conception would not involve the absense of miraculous conceptions generally. The converse of the Christian claim is not that miraculous conceptions generally do not occur, but that *in the case of Mary* it did not occur. Lack of evidence for miraculous conceptions generally, while being an intuitive starting point, has *no bearing* on the claim itself. Weighing the probability of the *specific* Christian claim would involve abductive reasoning - explaining the evidence we *do* have. Dismissing a claim because of a lack of similar claims generally is the height of ignorance and folly. And your claim that even having confirmed testimony doesn't pass the 'probability' factor demonstrates that you are hopelessy out of your depth regarding probability.

      Delete
    8. If we followed that thinking, doctors would be advised not to discourage "holistic" treatments for cancer unless they had first fully investigated each and every one of them and disproved them. Stupid. We all ignore thousands and thousands of unproven claims about our universe. We are not obligated to disprove each and every one of them. The onus is on the proponents of these ideas to provide sufficient evidence for us to take their claims seriously.

      Delete
    9. Gary has been refuted numerous times. He is incapable of understanding because he doesn't care to understand. He is clearly not interested in honest discussion, and I think he should be shown the door.

      Delete
    10. The 4:05 comment was a response to my good buddy, "Dude".

      Delete
    11. In fact, doctors do investigate each and every kind of complementary and alternative medicine. That’s how doctors know some are efficacious, others bunk, others neutral or placebos.

      Atheists have an onus as well. Atheists bear the burden of disproof since they’re alleging God does not exist.

      Delete
  8. "No amount of assertions from you will change the fact that you're ignorant about a host of relevant facts and evidence. Your biblical illiteracy goes a long way toward explaining why you're no longer a Christian: you left something you never really understood all that well in the first place."

    Typical cult behavior: When the cult's superstitious beliefs are under attack, respond by attacking the intelligence and credibility of the skeptic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judging by your own weblog, that’s precisely what you do! So I guess you’re still part of a cult, only now it’s a village atheist cult.

      Delete
    2. Epistle, Touche... or should I say Tu Quoque! :)

      Delete
    3. Typical Gary behavior. Come into a thread, make baseless claims that have already been refuted, and then pretend that the people who are pointing out your ignorance are somehow "cultic" because they have held up a mirror to your face.

      Gary is part of why I would never become an atheist. How sad to spend your entire life doing THAT, when you believe there's no point or purpose to it. How pathetic is it when you wake up in a purposeless universe devoid of any transcendent meaning and you decide, of all things, to go full Gary?

      I mean, if I was in a nihilistic cesspool, I'm sure there would be tons of things I'd rather be doing. But Gary's gotta Gary.

      Delete
    4. Also, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with pointing out someone lacks intelligence or isn’t credible on an issue if it’s relevant and appropriate. If you argue 1+1=choo choo train, despite being repeatedly corrected, time and time again, then there’s nothing necessarily wrong with pointing out you may not be the sharpest tool in the shed.

      In fact, you called Mary either a liar or dumb directly above. So you’re hardly innocent.

      Delete
    5. Mary was either a liar, mentally deranged, or, and most probably, completely innocent: she never made this preposterous claim. This claim is most probably a later invention of Christians desperately seeking an explanation for how a human being could be Yahweh in direct contradiction to the Hebrew scriptures which clearly state that God is not/never a man.

      Delete
    6. Interesting to see Gary doubling down on calling other people stupid or lacking credibility despite Gary initially condemning such behavior!

      Delete
  9. Gary, Epistle's attacking your (lack of) intelligence and credibility is an entirely valid and immediately relevant and necessary ad hominem criticism based on the pattern of behaviour you have exhibited throughout this and other threads. You have done nothing but repeat ignorant assertions in the face of rebuttal after rebuttal. You exhibit *zero* aptitude for the debate, and your credibility is rock bottom.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Replies
    1. You have no case. You're all oudated rhetoric and no substance. You should feel privileged we indulge you.

      Delete
    2. Agree with Danny! How many times have we been over the same ground with Gary, especially in the previous thread? Yet Gary is impervious to reason. He keeps raising the same old tired objections, he acts like we never responded to him, and he never brings anything new to the table.

      Delete
  11. Oh well, can't say Gary didn't deserve the Dr. Martens boot.

    The deluded fool will probably see this as a 'sign of victory'! Yes, brothers and sisters, this is the topsy-turvy age in which we live :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the one hand, I kind of liked interacting with Gary, because it was so easy. Gary is so predictable in what he's going to say. You know if x is said, then he'll respond with y, etc. So it makes it easy to defeat him. It's like playing a video game when you have unlimited power.

      On the other hand, the problem is that he is so predictable! He just keeps repeating the same old village atheist tropes. He doesn't advance the argument. So it gets boring fairly quickly too.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, normally I don't call for bans, but this was literally the exact same conversation we had last month, and when Gary said all he was doing was throwing a rock to see what dogs would bark it proved the pointlessness of continuing with him.

      He can take it as a sign of victory if he wants. In his worldview, he'll end up just as dead as he would have been without that sign of victory, and it will matter just as much as not having it would have mattered. Atheists say you have to make your own meaning, and that's the meaning Gary chose to make. Says something about Gary, really.

      Delete
    3. Let's face the facts. By my count Gary has been properly active in 3-4 threads of late, has been out of his depth in each one, produced *zero* substantial responses to any rebuttals, and has generally operated on a 'ignore and re-assert' policy. How much more lenient do the administrators of Triablogue need to be? In internet parlance, Gary is a textbook troll.

      The shame is that he was schooled so often, had so many opportunities to learn, yet like a good New Atheist it went utterly ignored. He swerved *every* substantial point put his way.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again, these people *know* that they are having their arses handed to them on a plate. If not, then why di they almost *always* swerve all substantive points put their way and simply re-assert outdated rhetorical devices?

      Delete
    4. Gary calls himself an evangelist, but how successful is he as an evangelist? His "arguments" (such as they are) are intellectually superficial. The only people who would be convinced by Gary's "arguments" are those who are as intellectually shallow as he is. There are more intelligent atheists with more intelligent arguments than the "arguments" Gary offers.

      Also, I just looked at Gary's weblog. His weblog only seems to get a lot of comments when Christians are commenting on his weblog. The rest of the time Gary's weblog seems to be a ghost town populated by a handful of atheists who repeat the same or similar mindless tropes Gary has repeated here. It's a big echo chamber over there. And a fairly empty one. So again I'm not sure how successful Gary is as an atheist evangelist!

      Delete
  12. I may say, I miss Gary. He had a very calming influence. By calming I mean total jacked up freaky-deaky crazy pants.

    ReplyDelete