Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Hither and thither 1/19/11


Aw, heck, you know sometimes Christmas just comes a little early.

Turns out I have so much right now that I figure Friday would be too long, by the time it came. So here you are. It may mean Friday's short... but I've got a back-up plan in that case. So enjoy! Tell your friends.

And hey — if you haven't "Followed" the blog, now's a good day. Use the tool over in the side-bar, and join the family.

And remember the usuals.
  • A cautionary note: posing for the camera is nice... but safety first!

  • Courtesy of reader Squirrel, Lego enthusiasts can read about the man who built a model of the Ohio stadium from Legos.
  • So: a person says he's a Christian struggling to be free from temptations to a vile sexual perversion. He asks a Christian counselor for help. She tries to help. Surprise, he was lying! And he sues her! And he tries to get her license revoked! And he gets an award for it! Quick: name that perversion. Aw go on, try: think of folks always thinking of what's best for society at large... then reverse it. Try.
  • Related: in Britain, apparently one can't even ask commonsense questions or make commonsense observations in public without an outcry. Don't sneer, fellow-American: we're on that same path being headed in that same direction.
  • Necessary periodic clarification: Very seriously: I have all the sympathy in the world for Christians who are struggling with temptation, including temptation to any vile passion. I am dead-serious about that. Ah, but: the key word = "struggling." I have zero sympathy for anyone embracing such perversion and trying to force approval on everyone else. Clear?
  • Kinda nice... this post at Pyro is sending folks to this article on the web page, and some are (with permission) reposting that: like here. Tomorrow's The Boys' turn.
  • Ah yes, everything looks good on the drawing-board:


Mike Westfall said...

No road kill for me. Unless, maybe, I know how long ago it was killed...
And even then, I'd probably want to brine it for a couple of days before cooking and eating.

I like those ear rings. My first impression (before I took a closer look) was that they were real breakfast plates with very generous helpings of maple syrup..

Herding Grasshoppers said...

Wow, Dan, it's like a surprise party! Yay!

Ooo, like that bumper sticker. I already have a Messiah. Amen.

And the grasshoppers are going to love that video of the evaporating boiling water.

And there's more coming Friday?!

threegirldad said...

Oh, come, come, come. Nothing wrong with eating "road kill" as long as you can identify it first.


Wendy said...

That Chinese mother video was funny :) Still waiting patiently for your article on that...

I think I've learned more about politics in the last few months of following your blog than in the last 14 years!

Anonymous said...

Love the Theory of 'DUH'!

AND the mid-week surprise!

Marla said...

Love the circling vultures. So true. I don't get the hamburger - what is it supposed to be? (Must be slow today.) Thanks for the mid-week surprise!

DJP said...

Ahhh, BwaynM! I fat-fingered your comment and accidentally rejected it!

Here is BwaynM's comment:

There is a Crepe stand in Breckenridge Colorado that used Nutella. They have one called the Blue Lagoon. It's basically Nutella & blueberries. I like Nutella, but with blueberries? I'm not so sure.

Sunday said...

Ninjaburger is awesome! Also, the evaporating water thing is amazing. Love the surprise!

Robert said...

@Marla - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle

And so the Eu calendar thing was just an "error"? Riiiiiiiiight. I'm sure the increasing Muslim population of Europe had nothing to do with that at all.

Merrilee Stevenson said...

And what a pleasant surprise!

I finally found some paper for my printer, and I just printed up that article with 17 questions (aka my self-imposed homework assignment). Glad to hear it is getting more reads.

And I actually read the whole article about how to eat road kill. "Use the temperature as a guide. Roadkill in winter is likely to remain fresher longer than roadkill in summer."

SUCH helpful information and common sense coming from your beloved blog, Dan. Many thanks!

Rebecca Stark said...

It's -32C (-26F) outside here right now but I'm not going out to try the boiling water experiment.

DJP said...

Aww, c'mon, Rebecca. Be a sport. Take your iPhone.


Moon said...

you know about that roadkill...last november when I flew to PA to spend thanksgiving with Penn and his family, a deer jumped in front of his sister's car and died, and one of the neighbors saw the accident and drove there to get the dead deer the next day and called her asking her if she wanted some of the deer meat!! :P I actually wanted to try it! :P I've never had deer meat before, but she said no.

Herding Grasshoppers said...

Road-kill has other uses among home-schoolers... ahem. Free biology/anatomy/physiology lessons. In other words, dissection.

Haven't tried it myself, but then, Grampa Grasshopper is a hunter so we have plenty of opportunity already.

Si Hollett said...

Robert - while the EU calender thing was such a stupid and difficult error to make that it must be deliberate, I highly doubt that rising numbers of Muslims in Europe has anything to do with it - far more to do with aggressive Secularism, and an attempt to rewrite history to make Christianity either disappear, or the cause of all our ills.

Christianity gets the rap, when Islam doesn't simply due to Christianity being part of the establishment and mainstream about 100-200 years ago (depending on what part of Europe), whereas being a Muslim wasn't. Islam is only tolerated by the European equivalent of 'liberals' as it challenges Christianity, is 'new' and the guys who practise it aren't normally middle-class white people.

Sonja said...

Yowzaa!!! A mid-week H&T -- thanks Dan! :)

I didn't know what the burger was either ... I seem be visually challenged by "My Food Looks Funny" and in need of a caption. Yeah -- a ninja!

Mike Westfall said...

There is an English version of the Chinese Mothers video for those of us that get distracted and can't read the subtitles while watching and hearing Chinese..

trogdor said...

Now that the stadium is finished, the dude needs to make some Lego-Wolverines so we can watch them lose there over and over and over again.

The comment on 'struggling' is very appropriate, for sins of all types. One of the rules for my Bible study is that we can deal with temporary setbacks in our fights against sin, but we absolutely cannot abide surrender. Lots of grace for those who are fighting, Matthew 18 for those who aren't.

I'm not seeing the colors clearly enough to say for sure, but it looks like that is the Raphael burger.

Perhaps the world should have ended somewhere before the invention of Jar Jar.

Rupert said...

A bonus round of 'fun and frown'! You do realise that my fun and frowns are probably the inverse of yours in relation to what you post :-)

I have zero sympathy for anyone embracing discrimination and trying to prevent others living as they wish when it does not harm others.
Now that's inverse!

DJP said...

If memory serves, you started here with an apropos-of-nothing non-sequitur just like that.

Scot said...

Tactical bacon may be the best bacon related image you've posted to date. Now I can fulfill my dream of living out a zombie apocalyse while still cooking bacon Bleu cheese burgers.

And crepes with Nutella are delicious! Add some bananas and you're set.

Rupert said...

Isn't 'apropros of nothing non-sequitur' almaost a tautology?

Since you made two clearly homophobic statements within your post it's hardly either.

As it wasn't back then either.

Maybe neither of us has changed. You're still rabidly homophobic based on your version/interpretation of the Bible. Possibly underpinned by an innate fear/hatred?

I still see no reason to rail against people doing things which harm neither you, nor any other non-participating party.

DJP said...

Homophobic statements? Name them.

Are you telling us what we should or shouldn't say, think or do?

Kirby said...

That Chinese Mom is a marketing genius. You gotta take some lessons from her to market your first book.

all kidding aside
I had a friend in L.A. whose Korean mother makes Chua look passive.

Rupert said...

"a vile sexual perversion" and "to any vile passion.....such perversion" are the key phrases which render the fuller statements homophobic.

No DJP, I would not tell you what you should or shouldn't say think or do. Would you do so of me?
I merely pointed out that your remarks were homophobic and questioned why you wish to prevent people conducting themselves in ways which have no direct negative impact on you. I actually think I expound slightly less ferociously than do you on these matters.

The word verification is 'taboorip', how remarkable!

DJP said...

How pc of you. How do those statements betray irrational fear of sameness? Or irrational fear of sexual perverts? How would the wording be different if they instead revealed acknowledgement that the acts are vile and perverse?

Ah; so you are not saying that we should not say what we are saying.

Then what are you saying?


And yes, of course I can say that you should or should not say, do, or think certain things.

But you can't.

Rupert said...

Homophobia has a broader definition than 'irrational fear'.
Homosexuals are only sexual perverts within the confines of your personal beliefs, that doesn't mean that they are.
There is nothing vile and perverse to be acknowledged.

Did you not see that what I was saying was that your words were unjustified and unnecessary?

Of course you can say what I should or shouldn't say, do or think. Doesn't mean that I need or must adhere though.

And vice versa. I can say.
Unless you are only referring to this site of course, which is your exclusive domain :-)

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I understand what you're saying.

A couple of guys walk into a school and murder dozens of schoolchildren. In doing so they were conducting themselves in ways which have no direct negative impact on you.

Thus, you would not wish to prevent people from doing such things as they were conducting themselves in ways which have no direct negative impact on you.

Does that pretty much sum it up?

Brad Williams said...

Rupert, I think that you are Christophobic and Biblephobic. For one, Christianity has taught that homosexual sex falls under sexual immorality since the beginning, and Judaism has taught it longer than that. Dan doesn't get to take credit for it, and you should hardly be shocked that as a Christian he believes it. I find you comments either terribly misinformed or just simple posturing to take a shot at Christianity.

Paula Bolyard said...

I can't believe nobody has said this yet, so in honor of trogdor and his poor Wolverines....


RE the Chinese Mothers video - gotta love the bong(?) smoking "Western Boy."

@ Rita - don't they have to get permission in PA to take a road-killed deer? In Ohio you have to get permission from the game warden or some such nonsense to prove you indeed hit it with your vehicle.

(checking in from Wayne County, OH, where every third house has a deer head mounted over the mantle and all the cool kids at the high school are decked out in Carhart jackets)

DJP said...

Ah, so like the Queen in Alice, words mean what you want them to mean, Rupert? Hydrophobia may mean an irrational fear of water, but (on your lips) homophobia means acknowledging that homosexuality is morally perverse.

You'll have to deal with the fact that not all bow to your private beliefs in that.

As to the rest, I am quite sure this is exactly where you came in, both insisting and denying that your real point is that you demand that Christians not practice their faith out loud.

Which is interesting on many levels. Here we are, admitting the elephant that is in the room (homosexuality is vile and perverse), harming you in no way — and you can't stop objecting, because of your private beliefs. On what basis? That homosexuality does not harm us in any way.

I hope you can come to see the irony others have long noted.

Robert said...


Just tagging on to what DJP has written in his last comment. You are upset that Christians are bold enough to proclaim their beliefs because they go against what you believe. You say you don't want people to force their beliefs on you, but you have no problem trying to do the same to us.

You are wanting for Christians to accept something that goes against what we know to be the truth. You can deny the truth of the Bible all the you fact the Bible talks about people doing so and the path that they follow in Romans 1. You might not like how that goes or what is written, but it seems rather fitting to the particulars here. My hope is that your eyes will be opened and you will see where you fit in the progression that is described there for people who suppress/deny the truth and that you will repent and follow Jesus as you accept His forgiveness. I will tell you that your sin is no greater than my own and He has paid my debt and forgiven me.

Robert said...


Sorry about your Wolverines, but I'm happy they didn't get Les Miles (I'm an LSU alum). At least the Rodriguez fiasco is over with.

trogdor said...

Ahem. There's an odious stench infecting this thread that needs to be removed right now.

My Wolverines?

Oh no. No, no, no, a thousand times no. Let me rephrase and see if this helps:
"Now that the stadium is finished, the dude needs to make some Lego-Wolverines so we can watch them lose there over and over and over again. And there will be much rejoicing! (Yay!)"

Born in Ohio, not a traitor, my two favorite teams are and always shall be Ohio State and whoever's playing Michigan.

There. Now we can return to debating whether perversity is perverse, and being hateful by pointing people away from self-destruction. Carry on.

Paula Bolyard said...

Well then, prove yourself, man!


Rupert said...

Hello good people. As an aside I do actually think most of you are intrinsically good by dint of the fact that you have sought out something which will assist you in leading 'good and moral' lives. Some people of faith have said that without God's word they would be a murdering rapist. Me, I seem to have achieved an evolutionary level where I have an innate drive to not harm others.

Stan, I meant the "royal 'you'", not just Dan. Sorry, should have clarified.

DJP, as I said before, homophobia had a broader definition than fear, hatred or belief that it is perverse.

Practice your faith out loud, say that you think certain things are such or so. But why interfere with other peoples' choices if they harm no others? You revile homosexuals, no one can stop you from doing so. Neither should you attempt to stop homosexuals from marrying each other. Homosexuality is not vile and perverse in fact, only in your belief.

The irony is that you claim the right to denounce others yet reject others saying anything that you may find derogatory of your faith and practices.

Pot, kettle Robert. Can you see that?

DJP said...

Nice try, but we still can see you.

Practice our faith, but don't say anything about it — which our faith requires that we do. But we shouldn't, because homosexuality doesn't harm us — yet our speaking as Christians doesn't harm you, but you want us to stop.

All you have, Rupert, is your baseless prejudices and opinions. You can't even make a rationale that explains why you bother to voice them. After all, matter in motion has no meaning, does it? So why move pixels?

Of course, since the universe is not as you imagine it to be, you can't live as if it weren't. You steal Christian capital; you can't help. You climb in God's lap to slap His face.

That you don't admit it changes nothing. But there's a limit to the times you can repeat yourself, get your lunch handed you, then repeat the process as if nothing had happened.

Rupert said...

For probably the fourth time on this thread, yes you can speak, say what you wish. Did I not say "Practice your faith out loud, say that you think certain things are such or so"?
Just don't act against others, that's the difference.
You understand the level of disdain I have for religion and faith, yet I would never try to stop people possessing their Bibles or going to their Churches. So what gives you the right to stop gays marrying.

My prejudices and opinions are no less baseless than yours. I actually believe yours to be more limited of course. And they do have a rationale. You merely deny this as it doesn't fit your own rationale.

Actually the universe is as I imagine it to be, surely it is you who won't see that. I live within the reality of that universe. I think you'll find that Christianity stole capital from innate and evolutionary mores, behaviors and morals which had been developing well before any religions were created. I climb in no-one's lap.

Things do change. Women gained the vote, as did blacks. Miscegenation laws were removed, women were given choice and control of their bodies. And gay marriage will proceed.

A fritz and sauce sandwich would be nice.

CR said...


I'm curious, this is an honest question(s) - what do you think of bestiality, necrophilia or Incest (between two consenting adults).

Ken Abbott said...

As thrilled as I am by my first mention in these hallowed annals, honesty mandates that I acknowledge Mr. Lucas has recanted. Evidently he was...kidding! All just a joke! Boy, that Seth Rogan, what a maroon, we got him good!

For the interested, has the details.

Aaron said...

To kinda expand on Stan's point, Rupert, Christians believe the practice of homosexuality does affect us. That is why we object to it.

I'd also object to your view of yourself on the evolutionary food chain.

DJP said...

Rupert (held up in moderation until I had the time to respond):

For probably the fourth time on this thread, yes you can speak, say what you wish

Great, then you're retracting your many complaints over the weeks and silly faux-accusations of "homophobia." Progress at last.

Just don't act against others, that's the difference.

Wow, what a chaotic society you must long for. No prohibitions or consequences for murder, theft, rape, perjury; no bars on incest, bestiality... thank God Rupertism is not in power.

So what gives you the right to stop gays marrying.

That has been answered many times. Each time you say "Yes, I know." Then you're back, as if nothing had happened.

So, what's our answer?

My prejudices and opinions are no less baseless than yours.

Oh mercy, such self-unawareness. No, they're not — not even if you don't believe Christ. What is your transcendent, objective, unchanging, self-interpreting authority, Rupert?

Actually the universe is as I imagine it to be, surely it is you who won't see that.

There you go. Rupertism. And poor you, you've stumbled on a site of dogged non-Rupertites.

I climb in no-one's lap.

Every time you borrow the language of should and ought and meaning, and speak as if you have the right to mouth universals, that is precisely what you do.

Things do change.

God does not. (See blog-title -- yes, by golly, I'm certain this is where we started.)

DJP said...

Well, then, I see Rupert threw a tantrum in a comment I can't publish for mild but un-allowed language, because my moderation didn't match his sleep-cycle in Australia.

Rupert, email me again soon, I'll re-send your comment, you can post it in cleaned of language but with all the tantrum intact.

CR said...


I was wondering when you get a chance to, if you can answer my question. I wanted to get your thoughts. I'm wondering if you find any of those aforementioned acts disturbing or unnatural in any way. Thank you.

Rupert said...

You held it in moderation for that length of time so you could come up with a response and that's the best you can do!

Yes you can say what you wish but what you say is still homophobic, plain and simple.

Ah, the good old aligning of homosexuality with murder, theft, rape, perjury, incest and bestiality - how redundant.

You have not yet given a legitimate and rational reason why gays shouldn't marry.

Authority? What authority? How about the truth of evolution. Not just biological but intellectual, social, moral and emotional. These are where those universals stem from. Religion has merely purloined them for purposes of power and control.

Your denomination would be one of a scant few abrahamic based faiths which does not present an ever changing image of God.

That was no tantrum. I merely stated the things that I have either stated before or that you have been able to discern from what I have said previously. I just didn't adhere to your supreme restrictions. I must say I have a very strong suspicion that you did not intend to post my previous comment, the fact that your response to it is so bereft of value contributes to this.

I will email you an amended version of my most honest and unfettered response. Show me something real.

Rupert said...

Bother, how heartbreaking! Cut off again because you are unable to face the truth that your truth is a minor and pathetic false truth.
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to content myself with smirking and chortling if I decide to check out what you have written.
What angers you makes me smile. What makes you smile does not anger me as I know that those things will not come to pass. Your battle is lost.

On more than one occasion you have told me that I have no right to an opinion, a position, because I don't have your God. What a defensively feeble, unjustified load of tosh. I draw my knowledge, thinking, observations and 'morals' from a larger source of wisdom, experience and factual proof and reality than your myopic, self-restricted little carapace.

I have read your "Why I am (Still) a Christian" piece a number of times. Here's how it goes:
duck the problem
tell us it can't be proven (how convenient!)
false premise
wildly imaginative pre-supposition
'you can't KNOW anything' (that would include God then)
you think we really really want to know of your Bible! why?
then the inevitable and always laughable 'God-Bible-God-Bible-God-Bible therefore it is'
A completely non-evidential cycle of self-delusion. Did you make that decision or do you have 'issues'?

Hm, still not as inaccurately nasty as some of your comments. Oh well.

DJP said...

No. Remember, while you're sleeping, I'm working. Anyone who knows me knows that my response times vary; friends sometimes find it vexing.

It's just that I've let you have free rein for awhile, making your angry snipes, letting other folks respond. This, I wanted to respond to myself.

So, you're back to "homophobia." Even accepting your Rupertized redefinition of the word, should I be homophobic, Rupert? Should I not? Prove your moral imperative without appealing to anything that cannot be proven by the standards you say you demand of others.

See, we're coming to the point where I begin to be more concerned that you're simply wasting good people's time. You came here with some vast areas of ignorance even of what Christianity is, let alone of basic epistemology. We've tried to help you.

But you've got to show that there is some progress.

So let's start here: we have answered you a number of times about homosexuals marrying. What has that answer been -- our answer, the one we've given you that's stopped you dead, not some comfortable cliche that you think Christians might give?

DJP said...

PS - I note you didn't manage an actual response to my response. I mean, unless sneering is all you've got.

DJP said...

NOTE: Rupert's JANUARY 21, 2011 5:50:00 PM comment is the earlier one that had to be censored and resubmitted.

No, I never said you couldn't have an opinion. I said you can't have a compelling opinion. All you have is Rupert. All you have is your opinion - baseless, warrantless, ungrounded.

There's the irony. All you have is your god, you, Rupert. Yet you tower in judgment over others — who, by contrast, do not rest their authority on themselves, but on a transcendent, objective, immutable, universal authority.

There's irony there to power a city.

Rupert said...

OK Dan, I'll let that go. You were busy. Still not a very compelling response though.

Angry snipes? You're the one with the freedom to speak as you wish on this forum.

It's not my definition of homophobia, have a look at a few dictionaries. Your answer has not stopped me dead. You have either obfuscated the question or provided something which lacks premise. "A homosexual can marry a woman", how droll.

All your attempts to denigrate my opinion are futile. They are simply based on your own opinion. And mine is sourced from broader, deeper and richer veins than yours.

I am no God. There is no God. Again, the reality that is life and humanity is of itself evidential of there being no transcendent, objective, immutable, universal authority. That's why things are the way they are.

I did respond to your response, I certainly haven't intended to avoid anything.

Show me something real.

I'll be away from a keyboard for the next couple of days.

DJP said...

By "not compelling" you mean it didn't force you to think otherwise against your will, I take it. Clearly not that you had an answer for it, unless you're saving that for later.

And still you have given us nothing but bald assertions, followed by insistence that we do better.

We already have. We point to the Creator God, self-existent, unchanging and transcendent. We point to His Word.

Now, as I say, even if you don't believe it, honesty would (wait for it) compel you to admit we've already gone you one better.

We have "Thus says the Lord."

So far, all you've adduced is "Thus says me."

Rupert said...

The world according to Dan versus the world according to Rupert, that's what it amounts to. You paint yourself as a God as much as I do because you speak based on what you believe to be true just as I do.

Yours is based on "Thus says the Lord". A single source adhered to by a small clique. Because you've already stated that all the other versions of Christianity and indeed the abrahamic faiths are, well, wrong. Not to mention all the other faiths and religions of the world; past, present and future. See a trend?

Mine is based on the biological intellectual, social, moral and emotional evolution of mankind. Science, history, exploration and discovery. As this expands and extends, the space for God diminishes even further. God is not 'self-existent'.

All you have is "Thus says the Lord". I have "Thus says everything else". Far from you having gone one better, I think I've gone a multitude better.

DJP said...

That is not only inaccurate and untrue, it's dishonest. I could die right after hitting "Publish," and the authority for what I'm telling you would be unaffected. The basis is objective, unchanging, external to me.

Yours is just you, period. You redefine words, you appeal to no authority outside yourself - indeed, you cannot even demonstrate that anything outside of yourself exists, on your terms.

I can't see how we can make any progress if you won't even be honest about what you're trying to reject, Rupert. The one thing any honest observe must admit about the entire premise of Christianity is that it is extrinsic to believers. You have no such authority and, indeed, on your premises, you never can.

Rupert said...

So again, you say that yours is right because it is what you believe and mine is wrong because it is not what you believe. Therefore it becomes evidence based. Facts and proof versus faith and belief.

The factors that I base my claims on also exist without me. Take me out of it and everything would still be the same. Evolution, science, biology, morals and the way mankind exists. The universe would not become geocentric, it wouldn't rain for 40 days and 40 nights. It is objective and unchanging.

Yours is just you. You predicate all your claims on your personal version of God and the Bible. That's it. On what basis do you claim that Christianity is extrinsic to believers? Mind you, it's not intrinsic either. It is a choice based on a decision to believe or else imposed by something along the lines of brainwashing. Compared to evolution it is non-evidential, that's why I reject it.

DJP said...

If you can't even be honest about what Christianity is, or deal with simple dialog, we may be reaching an end to any point of this. You've got to show you can interact with others, even on a simple basis, or you're taking the position of a troll.

So let's start with something very simple, see if there's any point.

Rupert: So again, you say that yours is right because it is what you believe and mine is wrong because it is not what you believe

Show me one place I've said exactly that in so many words, or apologize and retract it.

To be clear, that will be your next published comment. Attempts to dodge or change the subject will be rejected.

Rupert said...

In so many words:

"You don't have the right to a view on it, since you do not have a transcendent norm against which to weigh anything. The transcendent norm in this case is God" - to you, not to me. My 'transcendent norm' is the factors I have mentioned.

"Yours is just you, period" - well no its not actually. It is based on a broad and deep range of factors far eclipsing one version of belief in one version of God and the Bible.

"Now, as I say, even if you don't believe it, honesty would (wait for it) compel you to admit we've already gone you one better." - what, because you have your God and I don't?

" can't have a compelling opinion. All you have is Rupert. All you have is your opinion - baseless, warrantless, ungrounded." - Rupert's opinion is mined from a vastly richer vein of information than a singular entity.

"All you have, Rupert, is your baseless prejudices and opinions" - that'd be opinion then.

You repeatedly tell me that what you say is right because your God said it and that what I say is wrong or invalid because there is nothing to support it (what you really mean is that your God didn't say it). I disagree. Facts, evidence and science all point to evolution, including the moral, intellectual and emotional mores of mankind and society.

Rupert said...

About 10 years ago I finally got around to reading Robert Pirsig's 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance'. I had read reviews speaking of it's profundity for some years.

I was enormously disappointed. The entire premise of the book hinged on the use of the word "quality" as an adjective. I find this to be flawed. It is more a 'fuzzy logic' unit of measure.
"look at this quality item!" - yeah sure, what sort of quality? Poor, good or in between?

Extrapolating just a little from that, let's look at good and evil. Are they specific black and white factors? I don't believe so. I think there is a linear trajectory of good and evil, they vary. Added to this are vertical permutations according to what different peoples, races, creeds etc, see as 'good' or 'evil'. Maybe it's a fuzzy bell-curve.

Sure there is a fundamentally consistent sector agreed by an almost overwhelming majority of people, but overall - who knows.

Robert said...

Wow...I feel like I'm gonna get smacked by the revolving door of these comments. I'll be respectful of Dan's comment and hold my tongue even though I see so much smoke and mirrors in the justification/basis that you have provided, Rupert.

DJP said...

Rupert, which of those says anything like "So again, you say that yours is right because it is what you believe and mine is wrong because it is not what you believe"?

I'm trying to be gracious and patient with you, but there's a limit. You came here an absolute cognitive mess: full of anger, arrogance and ignorance in equal measures. But you at least gave the appearance of attempting dialogue. We all like you, and care about you.

However, it's how-much later and, in spite of good folks' attempts to help you, you're right back where you started.

You've shown us a lot of misery lurking under denial. Every time you attempt a justification, it's a chaotic, all-over-the-map mess.

So here's the bottom line:

You want help? We can try.

You trying to convince us to leave the truth of Jesus Christ for the dead-end of Rupertism? It simply is not going to happen.

So maybe that's the heart of it. Neither I nor my readers have the time to run around putting out fires ("I'm evidence-based and you're not!" "You're homophobic!" "Shut up about your faith!/Feel free to speak your faith!"), only to have you crumble and then re-light the exact same blazes shortly after.

So which is it?