I’m right, you’re wrong

Those pesky internet interactions…

Here’s ColorStorm. He has long, waffly ways of saying he’s right, and deploys them on this post. ColorStorm is a fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist, and whatever facts you state he will come up with old stories. He has a great deal of energy for interaction- 21 comments out of 123 as I type- and frequents blogs by atheists telling them they’re wrong. It does appear you have no concept of serious study, for if you did, you would find no fault in God or scripture. Unless you agree with him, he denies you are thinking straight.

So many ways of saying “You’re wrong”! He goes on to deny evolution: It is you who calls night, day! It is you who somehow thinks that the dairy or beef cow ‘evolved’ so it could give milk, or be a source of beef, leather, and be a beast of burden to the farmer in his field that ‘evolved’ from goo goo.  From one response I learned that whales have hair: I googled, and find some species have whiskers, and some hair in utero. ColorStorm learned nothing, but may have enjoyed himself.

I don’t go so much on the homophobe blogs. We have our lines, like the childhood

-Little things please little minds
-While bigger fools look on
-In disgust
-At themselves!

Dullard says he will pray for me to come to truth/ open my life to God/ renounce my wickedness, whatever, and I riposte with St Paul: the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. I have used that line twice this week. Sometimes I just want to contradict them: they will have their answers, but I show at least that there is disagreement.

How can they hear my pain, if they believe that the cure for it is to adopt their beliefs? Ruth has a good analogy: my pain at this is like your pain at that- but though feminists feel not listened to in arguments by men, and can cite cases and describe erasing practices, enough men feel not listened to, too- see the “Manosphere”. The Anglophile feels that he listens, and is irked at being told he does not listen enough. He wants to listen. I got the response “You think I just don’t understand, but I don’t believe you” from a feminist.

Here is Tom Quiner, alleging that seeking to protect children from school shootings by restricting assault weapons, but not to protect “children” from abortions, is a double standard. He claims Obama’s compassion is fake. Some bloggers will delve into the detail- does the foetus feel pain, would restrictions on assault weapons reduce school shootings, etc, at tedious length. An hour’s google for articles by professional journalists will yield more information than a hundred comment threads. “If anyone had any compassion at all, they would be against abortion”- not a quote, my bitter summary- no appeal to empathy will get through that, because he has a monopoly on compassion.

“Quine”, incidentally, is Doric for young woman.

I can write and comment to get things clear in my own mind, rather than inform others. I can develop my own empathy- Our life is love, and peace, and tenderness; and bearing one with another, and forgiving one another, and not laying accusations one against another; but praying one for another, and helping one another up with a tender hand. People find it easier to hear others when they feel heard.

Or I can just troll for lulz.

Apology for offence

My empathy has limits: I found a Nazi wordpress blog, posting portraits of Hitler and screeds of Himmler, with approbation. I won’t give the name. I don’t want you to go there. I mention it because I am revolted, and want your sympathy.

66 thoughts on “I’m right, you’re wrong

    • It is good to see you back here.

      Well, you know the Christian stories CS refers- flood, creation, crucifixion, etc. He believes it literally, and believes that anyone who does not share his belief is deluded by the Devil, and destined for Hell. So he comments on the lines that “I’m right, you’re wrong” telling these stories and mocking the evidence against them. The disbelief of unbelievers proves him right. It is a simple shtick, but I don’t know why he spends so much time on it.

      Who tells you you are not listening?

      Like

      • In the few posts I have read on the issue of feminism, I have seen points about men not listening or something close. Speaking for me, no one has claimed I don’t listen. Maybe because there are topics I watch on the sidelines.

        Apart from CS beliefs, his way of delivery! One thinks he was shortchanged in grammar class.

        Have a pleasant year

        Like

        • On feminism, sometimes women count me in, sometimes definitely Not, sometimes I am unsure. And my interests are different: when I was called a “whore”, I was glad. And my way of explaining is telling my own stories, so “What about teh menz” could shut me up completely. Yet it is a necessary corrective. In feminist space, men should not take over. Men take over conversations elsewhere. There are enough fora for everyone, from hugboxes to more bracing places where different views meet.

          A guid new year to you too.

          Liked by 1 person

            • There is a great deal of jargon.

              Woman: Reproductive rights.
              Man: Men’s problem.

              That is called “derailing”, and people rightly object to it; and when they say “You’re derailing” they don’t want to be derailed into a long discussion of what derailing is and why it is wrong. I don’t have to engage in conversation with anyone. I objected to trans women having to explain precisely why a particular writer was strongly objectionable- if they had a little empathy, they would see for themselves, and I particularly don’t want another transphobe setting self up as a judge of whether something is transphobic. Sometimes we are better sticking to our own cliques.

              Liked by 1 person

  1. “Sometimes I just want to contradict them: they will have their answers, but I show at least that there is disagreement.”

    A little “thinker” of a post – thank you. Sitting here pondering that we so like our labels: you are that label so you will think this and that, you are that label so you will think this and that. And if you are not “my label” then this “open forum” invites me to tell you why your label is wrong – and that makes you wrong. And if you don’t like criticism, maybe personal attacks, possibly insults and even downright dismissal – then don’t post your thoughts (no matter how inoffensively).

    Never quite understood the logic of that one either.

    Like

    • Welcome, Paul. Thank you for following, and particularly for commenting. I see you are linked to Church Set Free and Susan Irene Fox.

      I feel we need hugboxes- I learned a word new to me, “Hugbox”. A hugbox is a forum where people with a particular interest agree with each other, and may have quite extreme views. Humans are tribal, and when everyone thinks and feels the same way we can feel safe. And we need places where we can express educated honest disagreement courteously, and learn.

      A friend had an article in an academic journal, recently, starting with assessing the different perspectives of the literature on- something- and I loved the clear expression of different views, and weighing one against the other- that is rare in comment threads.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hugboxes! That is such a beautiful image! I love that! Thank you so much! (too many !!) Always strikes me as odd – we have so much in common yet fall out so violently over “belief” wrapped as “fact” and (so often when talking about God stuff) damning science for facts (which science keeps reinventing as one theory is superseded by another).

        I am not a fan of “the” impersonal distant God we seem to have designed. But get me talking my current sacred values in living and your current sacred values in living (which may or may not be called “God” right now) and there is plenty to enjoy – if we each allow.

        Hugboxes! One word – and look how many I took! 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Yay me, an honorable mention………….or not.

    Anyway ClareF, you should get your facts straight if you want to represent me correctly.

    May I quote myself as to the ‘age’ of the earth…………?

    ‘I don’t know…………………….’ So it would appear that you have attributed to me something I never said. Secondly, do show where I have lectured on hell……….

    You would like to put me in a box of your choosing clare, but you can’t find the dunce cap……………but tkx for the link up, but not for getting your info incorrect.

    Like

      • What happened clare to your three examples of the ‘old stories’ that i believe……………

        Silly, me, how could I believe in the crucifixion……………or that there was a tower built………..or that a man named Jonah lived………

        How could I so error in thinking there was a man named Saul, then Paul, who became one of the greatest intellects this world has ever seen………..

        Like

          • ‘As Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights…………so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth…………’

            Seems your issue is with the scriptures of truth and the word of Christ, and not with me at all.

            He spoke of Jonah as a historical fact, equal to his very death and burial, and of course resurrection. You have no case clare.

            Like

            • Oh ok since I do not understand what a story is, I may as well congratulate you for erasing Daniel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and further say ‘nice work’ for thinking Daniel’s three friends were figments of someones wishful thinking.

              Me? I’m stickin with the verifiable, reliable, and truthful accounts of scripture which are clearly understood.

              And I’m thinking Christ Himself knows more about what a fable is; as a matter of fact, after His decease, He masterfully showed Himself alive after many infallible proofs…………but not to they who enjoyed their fables, no, but to His own people.

              A free thought for you to enjoy.

              Like

            • Thank you clare for providing a great service here.

              Your claim of ‘atheists’ having a better handle on the truth of scripture than a believer……………..is almost worthy of a useless plastic academy award.

              Well done. And do get your facts straight. I never said ‘science is false.’ However, if they deny the truth of God, then use, quite foolish, and if a ‘scientist’ says Moses never lived, then yes, he is either misinformed or a liar.

              Simple really.

              Like

            • Oh oh clare-

              You forgot about the records of the life and times of man……………….

              —Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about THIRTY years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

              and following….aaaallllllll the way……to

              the son of SHEM, the son of NOAH, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of ADAM, the son of God.

              You see clare, one can erase Noah from a false reality………but not from the truth of scripture.

              Birth records prove the wisdom of God, lest fools be quick to open their mouths.

              The genealogies of scripture silence all foolishness.

              (and btw, don’t you just love that ‘as was supposed’ the son of Joseph, citing the virgin birth and awesomeness of God.

              Like

            • Yeah clare you must have forgotten or conveniently ignored that men and women have ancestors……….clearly delineated in scripture………..that people are not left to their own imaginations………..

              Noah never lived? vain babbling.
              Shem was not the son of Noah? vain babbling.

              Issac was not the son of Abraham? vain babbling.

              The truth of scripture is mere poetry? vain babblings, and scripture shouts as to this:

              From such turn away……….. 😉 Yep, your fair speeches are immediately dismissed by God’s word, who to date, has never lost an argument with ants.

              Like

            • Clare,

              I read the thread of comments with CS on his blog and commented. I have similarly found whenever a person questions others on their “faith” and “beliefs”–using facts, science, reasoning and logic–things get very interesting…and typically frustrating for the person relying on logic and facts. Been there…done that quite a bit in my life, all with the scars to prove it. 🙂

              Interestingly, in my own dialogue with CS, he chose to dodge what I thought was a very basic question for a person of faith. He inferred he would wait till “another time and place” to answer, but I have yet to hear a Christian give a thorough, reasonable, plausible explanation–utilizing scriptures and logic–to the following question:

              “Why would a loving, almighty God–omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent–create a “hell” (a place of damnation and eternal torment for unchosen, non-elect people) and a “devil” (a character to tempt and corrupt God’s own creation)?

              After reading your posts and comments, you clearly utilize reasoning and facts in coming to conclusions. I would be very interested to hear your answer. It’s not a trick question: it’s a question, logically, any person should understand and be able and prepared to answer before they subject their thinking and life to a deity…right?

              Thanks for your time–all the best,

              luke

              Like

            • Welcome to Luke Lively, fresh from National Service. Here is my latest post on Satan. Here are two on Hell: if there is an afterlife, I follow Origen on apokatastasis. See also God is Reality, Christianity not belief but poetry, and Who are the Quakers.

              Commenting there, you asked Clare, telling CS to turn to Christ isn’t that really over-the-top judgment of another Christian? Well, they deny my Christianity so I deny theirs: it is an attempt to use shock, as well as reason and facts. More on this in my post on Monday on the Geologic Column and Creationism.

              Liked by 1 person

            • The Apostles’ Creed, which may date back as early as the late 2nd century, says Jesus “descended into Hades/Sheol”. Possibly Hell in its current understanding comes from the adoption by Constantine of Christianity as his empire’s ideology: be bad, as defined by the church, under the control of the emperors, and you would suffer eternal punishment. Kings have always wanted control of the church.

              Like

            • Thank you for your question. On a post which says that much debate on blogging comments is simply worthless, you first challenge a Christian to justify your understanding of Christianity- surely one of the most worthless such debates- then ask a meaningless question. Cogito ergo sum- so I am real: are you?

              Or-

              People get fun from it. That is why it continues.

              -God is Love!
              -Tisn’t!
              -Tis!
              -Tisn’t!

              Then both feel vindicated in their own minds.

              Like

            • No…Clare…you’re wrong. It is a legitimate question(s) I’m not debating–I would truly appreciate someone answering it. I could not–when as a professing Christian I was posed with the question (and others) It led me to think…to question….to reason. And, I asked other Christians, several with doctorates in Theology. Their answer? Similar to yours: “The question is unfair.”

              And, if you believe that–the question is “unfair”–is that possibly a deflection to simply avoid the attempt at answering. Instead of spending all of the time you wrote your blog posts and then give them to me as links, none answered the basic questions. They simply led to more questions…

              In this regard, you and ColorStorm are congruent and “together”: you choose to not answer questions because they come from a non-believer??????

              Is that what Jesus would say? Respond? Do?

              They are real questions–not a debate.

              Like

            • If you want to know answers, you could try the Catholic Catechism. If you want my answer, you could click the links I gave. Tell me what you think of the answers which are there, and I can answer further questions you may have. But since I have not claimed the question is unfair, I may check your reading comprehension when you do.

              Like

            • Reading comprehension? Re-read what I wrote–your response(s) seem to miss all the marks. But, you’re right about one thing–any attempts to discuss this with you seems to have run its course. Wishing you all the best…g’day 🙂

              Like

            • Perhaps you did not see the post, or the rest of the comments.

              There is no reason why, when you waltz in here and ask a question unrelated to the subject of a post, that I should answer it. It is like walking into a pub, walking up to someone talking to other people, and demanding they drop everything to talk to you instead. If you do that, you could at least try to be interesting. It might help if you did not start by insulting your interlocutor.

              But when the post is about the pointlessness of much internet debate, thank you for illustrating it so well.

              Like

            • My pleasure…and maybe that is the point? Not that it is applicable, but why would someone write and originate such a post in the first place and then criticize responding commenters when they are perceived to reflect the same pointlessness? lol The linked posts you mention answer nothing–they are truly pointless. So, possibly the interlocutor was bored…or ran out of things to stir up? Just saying…you and ColorStorm have a LOT in common. G’Day!

              Like

            • Behold, how to win friends and influence people. Demand a great deal of work, saying that no-one has ever satisfied you, apropos of nothing. Insult your hostess. Insult my posts without having read them- Hell II, God is Reality, Christianity not belief but poetry. Waltz off with a comment full of insult. Run away, little man.

              Like

            • No need to run…I enjoy walking? You?

              You are so much like ColorStorm? Are you the same people–just trolling? Hmmmm…. ? Probably not.

              There’s no need to be upset, Clare, either. People disagree all the time–without feeling the need to be condescending…something you seem to fail to understand by choice. But, “condescending” doesn’t look good on you…it doesn’t. Not with your subject matter 🙂

              Why so angry? I asked a question. You were condescending and got a taste of your own pointless banter–and you didn’t like it. Ouch…reality bites.

              My sincere apologies…I sincerely wanted to hear you respond, as noted. But, that’s ok. (And, btw, I’m not little lol )

              Please block, delete, do what your Christ-following, religious perspective of grace, love and compassionate heart commands you to do…whatever makes you feel better is ok with me. I’m easy to delete. lol

              Be happy. Listen to some music…enjoy life. Smile!!! 🙂

              And please, life is more joyful when you walk…don’t run 🙂

              Like

            • You keep storming off in a huff, and you keep coming back! I don’t need to block you, I am quite happy for you to disgrace yourself with your drivellings. “You are so like ColorStorm”- you try to be wounding, and are merely pathetic, for your judgment has no value.

              Why do you imagine I should not condescend to you? Which subject matter did you mean? Do you imagine that no trans woman can condescend to you?

              Liked by 1 person

            • Clare, please, you are truly being far too sensitive.

              “Trans woman”? Not an issue at all with me…happy for you, truly. You do not have any condemnation or judgment from me…at all…none. I support your rights, freedom and congratulate you on the courage and bravery to be who you are–very few people are honest with themselves and you are one!

              But, you are condescending. And, I haven’t “stormed off” I enjoyed your latest post.

              Truly, you’re the one taking things wrong–far too sensitive for what I asked, IMHO. But, please read the next sincere words:

              If I’ve said anything to offend you, please accept my sincere apologies (no sarcasm present…at all) I am sorry–I apologize.

              Can you accept that, “I am sorry”? I mean it. And, I truly was just asking a question to encourage dialogue, not an attack.

              Hope this clarifies things, wishing you a good day and all the best 🙂

              Like

            • Okay- thank you for the apology-

              But what is it about my diverse, wide-ranging subject matter that means I should not be condescending?

              To restate my position. It is rarely useful for atheists and believers to debate whether Hell exists, whether it is a coherent concept, or whether it means that God cannot be good.

              In a brief Google, I found a catholic site asserting God did not so much create Hell as leave open its possibility: God allows people to choose to reject God, even though that will make them suffer, because God allows free will. I don’t care if you find that a sufficient answer, but why on Earth should anyone scurry about trying to find answers that will satisfy you?

              I tend to feel that nothing will satisfy you. I said I followed Origen, but you persisted- even though I do not believe in Hell!

              When nothing either says will satisfy the other, condescension is a valid tool. We are merely scoring points off each other. It can be wearing, and is rarely creative, but condescension lets me get some enjoyment from it.

              Perhaps you could comment on something where we have a measure of agreement. We might then have a more worthwhile conversation.

              Do not tell me what to think
              Do not tell me what to do
              Do not tell me what to be
              I Am Who I Am

              Do not tell me what to feel
              Do not tell me what is right
              Do not tell me what is true

              Tell me who you are.
              Tell me what you love.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Clare, The most recent post on my blog says a lot in a few words on who I am and what I love…possibly even on things we can agree on. 🙂

              But, I do differ on this. I want to hear differing thoughts-and engage them–even if they may be offensive and even reflect a person’s attitude of “I’m right-you’re wrong” That’s ok with me.

              Otherwise, how can you seek to learn, grow and share perspectives? Recycling and re-spinning is surely not what you offer–you have confronted a lot of religious folk with a new perspective–one based much more on facts. I think that is wonderful–not from a perspective of non-belief but simply intellectual integrity and honesty. Cheers! And, that is why I asked what I did–not to change you (not in any way an intent) but to engage you to hear what I perceived would be a different view on the question.

              Sharing what you believe with the same, like-minded folks seems to be a self-fulfilling effort and lacks the positive-friction of defending and answering–asking and learning. I experienced this when, as a professing Christian at the time, I similarly held very similar views as you do today. And, I was banned, deleted, blocked, attacked and ridiculed…and that was again as a “believer” at the time. Not what I expected from then brothers and sisters in Christ…

              I say that all in deep respect…I do. I’m not trying to “change” you in any way–I truly wanted to hear your thoughts…and still do. 🙂 Best, luke

              Like

            • I went to your blog post with eager anticipation. I found it an attack on a Christianity I find of little value. What is the legacy I would want to leave for my children…my grandchildren? To put their faith in superstitions? In “I don’t know.” To live a guilt-laden life because a religion tells people they are inherently “sinful”, need a “savior” and must, at all costs, avoid a hell? “We believe in life before death” was a Christian Aid slogan, and is the heart of my faith. Many Christians use our faith to live as well as we may, here, now, not because it will get us to heaven but because it is heaven, here.

              I did not like the Sky interviewer referring to “work ethic”, because that seemed to miss entirely what Ivo was saying: Bowie was far more in the joy of creation, being himself in what he did, rather than “working” for some purpose beyond the activity itself. That, you articulate in your two last paragraphs: “Live the best life we can live”. Of course. I observe that many atheists are better at that than many Christians.

              Perhaps we could start again. Quakers assert “Christianity is not a notion, but a way”. I have little interest in debating doctrine with you, even though what we believe about God or afterlife or whatever- homoousion or homoiousion etc- has been of great importance to Christians since the earliest times. The link will give you some idea of where I am coming from.

              Christians have been disputing simplistic Biblical literalism for a long time. Consider the Calvin quote I aimed at ColorStorm, or bishop Frederick Temple.

              Now, let us share what “living life to the full” means for us!

              Liked by 1 person

  3. Clare,

    Speaking for myself (the Toad), I wonder if I am listening as much as I think I am, or if I am in fact listening, whether I’m as willing to learn as I let on. Thank you for your compassion and patience. In many cases, I suspect, YOU are right, and I am wrong…

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Good post Clare and very thoughtful. Saw a new post on Evolution is True or whatever it is called and there was a pic of a lion. So Colorstorm!

    In discussions with others, listening is an overused word these days. Back in my management jargon days we had active listening. Sometimes I think STFU (from the minority viewpoint) is more helpful.

    But in so many areas, there is no wrong or right. I don’t think there is a god, you do. Who knows? I think women and transpeople are oppressed. I think you do. Other people disagree.

    It is difficult within our oppression to sometimes elucidate logically and clearly to those who disagree with us. Why is it not obvious to ‘them’? And so we dance.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you.

      It is Why Evolution is True, and it was Aslan from the films of Narnia. Lots of people on Youtube or Google Plus use CS’s lion.

      I want to associate with trans people, but since there are so few of us, also with the Muggles (gender-typicals, cis, whatever). The reassurance we get from each other is important, but some of us have to go out and explain ourselves to others. And when they are completely hostile, it is probably better for allies to speak than we ourselves- because “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” does not apply.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sometimes Clare, when I read the amazing illogical incomprehensible ramblings by CS, I wonder why you are religious. But then, you don’t think like CS, so … But your final comment was beautifully acid. Very British. An admirable … exchange? It achieved not only a snort, but a worthy of reading out ranking.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Thank you.

          I deleted my own comments, because googling I found admonitions in Proverbs, and Mark Twain saying something like, “If you argue with a fool, onlookers may not tell the difference.” What he says is internally consistent, though completely ridiculous.

          I am religious for the same reason as ColorStorm: because it works for me.

          Like

            • “The Scriptures provide all that is necessary,” he says. It is the key to him. He will not consider contradiction. I deleted my comments because they are “a chasing after wind”, completely useless.

              You have seen what I said initially, on his blog. I rather liked what the insane one said there: I live in a place where first we start saying the bible is not the literal word of God, is is just full of metaphors and myths. Then we proceed to saying, “there are many paths to the Father.” Next comes, “there’s no need for conviction or recognition of sin, Jesus Christ just loves us all unconditionally.” And lastly we have, “His very name offends some people and we wouldn’t want to offend, so let’s just edit His name out completely.” It’s like dinner with no meat and vegetables or trying to fry ice or something. Well, yes, I would say that: even the last bit, as I would not refer to anyone’s “Christian name”; and trying to fry ice is a lovely metaphor.

              Liked by 1 person

            • @clare

              Tell the truth and shame the devil clare, you cannot tolerate believers who have absolutes regarding scripture. Next thing you are going to say is the donkey the Lord rode into Jerusalem on was really a cow or a camel.

              I am certain the Lord knows more of His own word than you and myself for that matter, so when He speaks of Noah and Jonah, He is not trying to fool you, He is not trying to be ‘creative,’ no, words mean things and His words are always, always truthful and reliable, so unlike the wavy opinions of men whose names are Reuben.

              And btw, your lame commentary on my friend regarding people who cut the scriptures to their liking, and who choke on a diet of artichokes only, is insulting to a spiritual mind.

              @ark

              You came late to the party. It’s not a lack of response, but an erasure of comments. She/he was smart to bury the evidence, but in the process was weighed and found wanting.

              Like

            • I loathe false Christians, but those who “believe” in the literal truth of the Bible are the most harmful to the word of God. You distort it and make it a thing of ridicule. Listen to Calvin: Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.

              Like

  5. @ Colorstorm

    Next thing you are going to say is the donkey the Lord rode into Jerusalem on was really a cow or a camel.

    It was a ”Hog”, wasn’t it? 😉 – a not so subtle cameo the writer lifted from the OT I think?
    And even though Abraham may have got up early and saddled his ass Yeshua ended up seeing his, did he not?

    You came late to the party. It’s not a lack of response, but an erasure of comments. She/he was smart to bury the evidence, but in the process was weighed and found wanting.

    Amazing; with every comment you cement your reputation as the biggest Nob-Head on WordPress.
    Tell, us, CS,does this come naturally to you or did you take an online course?

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm is a virtual troll endlessly using the same three ploys: circular reasoning, question begging and hyperbole. I suspect that he’ll continue his counterfeit of reason for as long as we encourage it by providing the attention he so desperately craves. Really, what would be the purpose of trying to reason with him? Reasoned discourse that contradicts his interpretation of the Bible is to him “vain conceit.” I’ll give him no more attention.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Quite right about the attention, but there are so many people like that it’s a thing, with a name- Presuppositionalism, the idea that they presuppose the truth of the Bible, which those outside their group do not, so will always argue past each other. It is a name they use, sometimes, to explain themselves.

        Like

How do you feel about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s