Skip to content

Doesn’t understand Some People

January 17, 2010

So, I did this little interview with PZ Myers and I think people had unrealistic expectations. I think people wanted to see a knock down drag out fight.

First, that was never my plan. As this was an interview, I wasn’t out to lead PZ into a trap or make him look like an idiot. Some people even wrote that I should tell PZ he is going to hell.

Or, I got this comment a lot, “This preacher is a nice guy, but he obviously doesn’t know his faith.”

Rolling eyes.

Sometimes, I think people really do enjoy rolling in the crap.

Advertisements
96 Comments leave one →
  1. John Morales permalink
    January 17, 2010 4:14 am

    I got this comment a lot, “This preacher is a nice guy, but he obviously doesn’t know his faith.”

    So, what is your faith?

  2. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 9:14 am

    John,
    The Nicene Creed.

  3. January 17, 2010 10:01 am

    Is there of a recording of the interview anywhere?

  4. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 10:06 am

    Jake,
    We are working on it. I’m not sure if Ashley recorded it or not.

  5. January 17, 2010 11:14 am

    Yes, clearly, since you didn’t talk about how PZ was in league with Satan and was only claiming to be an atheist as a way to attempt to avoid divine retribution, you don’t understand your own faith. Apparently you’ve forgotten all those passages where Christ commanded the apostles to set the unbelievers on fire. Oh, wait…

  6. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 11:25 am

    The Nicene Creed posits God the Son sitting in judgment of the living and the dead at the end of time. You literally believe this will happen?

    Bully for you, but how do you relate to the non-believer who holds this as much a mythical tale as the Rape of Europa, or whose cultural stories inform a view of the universe as never ending cycles, a dream of Brahman, no creator or judge needed, entirely self referential?

    The problem with faith is it admits to no falsification in the face of objective reality. I love a good story, myth, or morality tale, but prefer plain rather than stained glass when observing how the world actually works.

  7. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 11:34 am

    So, what exactly is plain reality in your mind?

  8. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 11:37 am

    Ha, thanks Jim. I needed that. I’m trying hard not to post a blistering rant this morning. It seems like people are more pissed that I didn’t confirm their little fantasy that all Christians are people hating morons, so they have to find something wrong. What did they find wrong? That I actually agreed with PZ that some pastors are in it for the money and that science is a good thing. Horrors.

    Shrug. Oh well.

  9. January 17, 2010 11:42 am

    Thomas, I know exactly how you feel.

  10. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 11:50 am

    Objective, observed reality. What can be posited by thought and confirmed or falsified by observation and experiment. Remember Galileo? “But yet, it moves!”.

    I’ll grant that “reality” is vast, and maybe full knowledge of it is entirely beyond the scale of human comprehension. Such is the realm of stories, myths, and faith. But we’ve become more and more informed as a species as we’ve learned how to look, and we know a good deal more about the universe than we did when Ba’al fought YWHW for the loyalties of the Hebrews.

  11. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 11:56 am

    Actually, if I remember my Hebrew bible correctly, there was no real fight.

    In seriousness, I remember Galileo quite well, but also remember that objective reality for him also meant being a fully devout Christian.

    Reality is vast, especially on the Quantum level. It isn’t the god of the gaps there, it’s that the more we scientificially test things on that level, the more we realize we aren’t going to be able to figure it out. Same with the Big Bang. Same with, probably, the process that started evolution in the first place. So, I find the objective reality statement that many people make highly misleading as it usually means an Enlightment point of view in regards to the world, which is being demonstrated by science itself as not tendable.

    As for being more informed as a species, I think that’s highly debatable. Do we more now than our ancestors? Depends. We know how to do a lot of shit, but we have less grasp on the why then ever before. In the 20th century, we had more wars, mass killings and death than in nearly all centuries combined. If this is what being enlightened means, then I’m a bit frightened.

  12. January 17, 2010 12:00 pm

    No problem, Jonathan. Some people are just weird. Some atheists forget that not all Christians are Pat Robertson, and some Christians forget that not all atheists are Stalin. I’ve participated in discussions on messages boards where, in the same thread, I’ve been called both a “bible-thumping fool” and a “God-hating moron.” I’m sure you’ve gotten the same kind of thing.

  13. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 12:16 pm

    I didn’t say we were more enlightened as a species, I said we know more about how the physical universe functions.

    I believe we find enlightenment in the encouragement of Hillel, Christ, and Gautama to treat our fellows as we would wish to be treated, and striving to follow that path. Belief and practice in that kind of personal holiness and compassion is ultimately more beneficial than any number of recited creeds, whether they invoke the supernatural or not.

  14. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 12:24 pm

    Oh man, that’s exactly right. Well, maybe not the God hating moron, but a “liberal”, which for some, means the same thing. Funny enough, I’m not either.

  15. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 12:27 pm

    Fair enough, I misunderstood you. But, I would still question the part about the physical universe, I think that comes in waves. For example, there were a few Greek Philosophers who were talking about evolution and atoms long before the modern era. The difference is that in the modern era we have developed the tools to test certain theories. That’s probably the only difference.

    I agree there is innate law built in all of us, but I also think it’s important to say where we stand. Some would equate that with being dogmatic, but it doesn’t have to be. I prefer to think it’s just being honest.

  16. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 1:25 pm

    Yes, there was philosophical speculation regarding atoms. But the scientific method wherein a theory is propounded and its consequences predicted thus making it subject to proof or falsification is rather more modern (Bacon).

    With the blessings of dogma, natural philosophy and medicine were weighed down by the mistakes of prior precedent and belief into the 1500’s and beyond in Europe, and with the closing of the “door of ijtihad” by the eastern Islamic scholars of the 11th century, much inquiry and expoloration was stifled in that realm as well. Interesting that Ibn Rushd (Averöes) in Al Andalus kept commentary and philosophical speculation alive long enough for Aquinus to take it up, presenting the Church a method to argue to faith through Aristotelian logic (all the cool religions were doing it).

    I do not believe that “there is innate law built in all of us”, save for the physical laws that order this universe, which we should never cease trying to apprehend. I believe that apart from those, moral rules like the Golden one are taught: through parable, myth, story, song, poetry, art; by humans. I trust those that teach compassion, and avoid those that encourage strife. I believe that study, experience, and thoughtful meditation is enough to discriminate one from the other. I believe that God is not in the gaps, but in the eyes of your neighbor, and in your own. Tat tvam asi.

    It’s possible to believe in a supernatural Lawmaker, but not necessary for either physical laws to exist, or moral doctrine to be widely accepted. Unfortunately, too often those who ascribe lawmaking to a God imagine their own preferences to be His laws, whether in regard to shellfish, cotton/polyester blends, or who it is acceptable to be intimate with. The rubber really meets the road when we allow such nonsense the coercive power of the state in addition to whatever collective power a sect of believers might wield within their own community.

  17. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 1:44 pm

    (Thomas 3) Jesus said, “If those who lead you say to you, ‘See, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.”

    (Thomas 108) Jesus said, “Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.”

  18. ferret wrangler permalink
    January 17, 2010 2:16 pm

    Yes, viewers definatly watched this with the “Ford or Chevy” mentality – praising what they support and calling out the faults of the perceived ‘inferior’ side and doing the “I told you so!!” dance. Many already made up their minds even before the discussion started.

    I’d like to see a transcript if at all possible, crummy ‘puter hates video streams.

    (BTW – Fords rule 😉 )

  19. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 2:48 pm

    “For example, there were a few Greek Philosophers who were talking about evolution and atoms long before the modern era. The difference is that in the modern era we have developed the tools to test certain theories. That’s probably the only difference.” – thomas2026

    That comment demonstrates conclusively that you have no understanding of science whatsoever.

  20. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 2:54 pm

    To clarify: “talking about atoms and evolution” does not demonstrate any understanding of the universe at all, unless that “talk” is based on empirical evidence. But then, why would one expect someone who thinks theology is self-correcting to understand the first thing about science?

  21. January 17, 2010 2:58 pm

    Wow, I just read some of the comments on PZ’s blog about “the pastor” from this video conference.

  22. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 3:08 pm

    “Apparently you’ve forgotten all those passages where Christ commanded the apostles to set the unbelievers on fire. ” – Jim

    Nah, it seems he reserves that particular enjoyment of others’ suffering to himself:

    Matthew 11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
    11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
    11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
    11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
    11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

    Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
    13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
    13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
    13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
    13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
    13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
    13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
    25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

  23. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 3:21 pm

    34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    I think you need to include these for the context. The plea here, viewed as story, is for social justice.

  24. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 3:23 pm

    This comment, Knockgoats, shows you have no understanding about the history of ideas.

  25. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 3:23 pm

    Truthfully, Ferret, I don’t think any Christians watched, that I know of anyway. I think the crowd was mostly atheists.

  26. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 3:24 pm

    Jake,
    Yes, lovely, aren’t they?

  27. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 3:29 pm

    This comment, Knockgoats, shows you have no understanding about the history of ideas.

    And this one might indicate you are more interested in a pissing contest about that history than a rational conversation.

  28. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 3:40 pm

    Lovely chatting. Pax vobiscum.

  29. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 3:43 pm

    Sidhra,
    I’m not even sure how to answer that. Yes, the comment was a bit snarky. I was up late with a puking kid after the fundraiser last night. However, I grow tired of people assuming what I know and what I don’t know. Knockgoats comment, frankly, was something I found stupid and offensive. I have very little patience with people who make generalized ignorant comments about stuff they know nothing about. I will grant that I’m not a scientist, but I try to educate myself as much as I can in this area.

    I don’t know about you, but I don’t normally begin rational conversations accusing someone of being a moron, as Knockgoats has done on PZ’s blog and now here. So, tell me again, who is interested in rational conversation?

  30. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 4:32 pm

    “I will grant that I’m not a scientist, but I try to educate myself as much as I can in this area.” – Thomas2026

    Then you’ve failed miserably. On Pharyngula, I accused you of blogwhoring, which you were.

  31. January 17, 2010 4:34 pm

    Maybe everyone thought it would be a big knockdown fight because you kept saying that PZ was going to cry. 🙂

  32. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 4:35 pm

    Knockgoats,
    As for blogwhoring, once again, I’ll point out that PZ has mentioned a few times on his blog, so I don’t need the hits.

  33. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 4:40 pm

    How is
    Posted by: Knockgoats Author Profile Page | January 17, 2010 1:34 PM

    The Thomas Society – blogwhoring for Jesus since 1994!

    or anything he’s said in this thread calling you a moron? He’s saying you don’t understand anything about science. Rather than attempt to dispute that statement by arguing why, exactly, you think that the philosophical speculations of Democritus are equivalent in form and effect to Dalton’s science, you fire back a so’s yer old man kind of comment.

    I hope you and your child feel better.

  34. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 4:41 pm

    Probably. However, he said it first and so it became a running joke. Well, at least it raised the money we needed for New Orleans.

  35. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 4:43 pm

    Well, at least it raised the money we needed for New Orleans.
    Thanks so much for helping.

  36. sputink permalink
    January 17, 2010 4:51 pm

    “Theology is self-correcting, like science.”

    Yeah, and that’s why there are thousands of denominations within Christianity alone. I guess ‘self correcting’ in your world means ‘pick and choose what I like, reinterpret, and then start a new cult.’

  37. AdamK permalink
    January 17, 2010 4:54 pm

    “I favor, under the current system we have in this country, a civil union plan for gays and lesbians. I think they should have full access to rights under the law.

    As a minister in the church, I believe that marriage in the church realm should be between a man and a woman. On the flip side, I wouldn’t marry a guy who had committed adultry on his wife and then wanted to marry his girlfriend either. ”

    –Jon, in a comment on PZ’s blog.

    Separate is not equal. So which is it?
    Where in the creed do you find an excuse for rank, vile bigotry like that, you phoney?

  38. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 4:56 pm

    so I don’t need the hits., – thomas2026

    So why bogwhore? Enquiring minds want to know. And why accuse me of calling you something I didn’t? You’ll find another epithet from me back on Pharyngula, but it still isn’t “moron”.

  39. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 4:59 pm

    Adamk,
    Really? After all the time you have been here, suddenly I’m a phoney. I think I would only be a phoney if I had something in direct contradiction to anything I have ever said here. So, yeah, not sure how that makes me a phoney.

  40. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 5:05 pm

    I apologize for thinking you called me a moron, my mistake.

    But, as you said much worse over at PZ’s, it’s hard to work up a lot of remorse.

  41. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 5:10 pm

    I’ve called you nothing you don’t deserve to be called.

  42. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 5:13 pm

    As I said, Knockgoats, we are done.

  43. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 5:14 pm

    AdamK, really, Christianity is all about rank, vile bigotry – against women, against Jews, against unbelievers, against gays, against other Christians who happen to disagree about the precise nature of the Trinity – if he’s going to be faithful, Jon can’t avoid endorsing it.

  44. AdamK permalink
    January 17, 2010 5:28 pm

    If marriage is a sacrament — a sign of god’s love — why the hell is it for straights only? Wouldn’t want gay families to think god loves them EQUALLY — he just loves them sorta-kinda. As long as they don’t fall in love, get married, have sex, and raise children.

    You claim to be a pastor and a loving husband and father, but would deny that to others.

    You’re a phoney.

  45. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 5:38 pm

    You claim to be a pastor and a loving husband and father, but would deny that to others.

    See the Golden Rule, op. cit., Jon. AdamK is right, and you know it.

  46. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 5:38 pm

    I never said marriage was a sacrament.

    And God does love them as much as He loves me, maybe more. I don’t make any claims about myself other than I’m a sinner in need of God’s grace. I probably am a phoney in just about every respect. I lie. I cheat. I steal. What other confession would you like from me? I claim no moral superiority over a gay person or anyone else. In fact, I believe deeply that my sins of pride are much worse.

    So, keep calling me a phoney if you wish, that’s fine. As I have said, nothing on this blog will be edited. You and Knockgoats can pile what you need to on me. However, just don’t direct it other people.

  47. AdamK permalink
    January 17, 2010 5:44 pm

    “As a minister in the church, I believe that marriage in the church realm should be between a man and a woman.”

    Belittling and dehumanizing others is a much worse sin than “pride”, Jon. Did it ever occur to you to think about human beings first, and the “church realm” last?

  48. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 5:48 pm

    I don’t recall belittling or dehumanizing anyone, Adam, and if I did, I’m sorry.

    As for being human beings first, I certainly think about it all the time. As someone who believes that everyone is created in God’s image, I try to treat everyone as a human being. I don’t expect them to listen to the church if they aren’t in the church.

  49. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 5:50 pm

    I steal. – thomas2026

    Then turn yourself in to the police, give them a signed confession to your crimes, and take your punishment.

  50. AdamK permalink
    January 17, 2010 5:58 pm

    “As a minister in the church, I believe that marriage in the church realm should be between a man and a woman.”

    “I don’t recall belittling or dehumanizing anyone…”

    “Really? After all the time you have been here, suddenly I’m a phoney….”

    Really.

    Really.

    Really.

  51. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 6:00 pm

    You and Knockgoats can pile what you need to on me. – thomas2026

    I don’t need to pile anything on you. I just came here to laugh at you, as you invited. Don’t you remember? Or perhaps you didn’t really mean it – but that would mean you’re a phoney, no?

  52. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 6:05 pm

    Nope, laugh away.

  53. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 6:06 pm

    Not sure how that was belitting anyone, but whatever.

  54. AdamK permalink
    January 17, 2010 6:10 pm

    You don’t want gay people to get married in your church, and you’re not sure how that’s belittling anyone.

    I’m rendered speechless.

    Maybe gay people aren’t included in your definition of “anyone.”

  55. AdamK permalink
    January 17, 2010 6:12 pm

    And your final “whatever” about sums thing up for you. You really don’t give a shit, do you, Jon?

  56. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 6:14 pm

    Over at PZ’s place, you said:
    For the record, I make no claim to moral superiority. In fact, I consider myself a bigger sinner than anyone here. I confess I don’t treat people as I should. I confess I harbor hate in my heart. I confess I’m a selfish bastard. I’m not asking anyone to believe as I do, nor do I wish to see the government enforce my beliefs on others.

    And I replied:
    Then, will you support allowing civil same sex marriage to be recognized under law on the same terms that opposite sex marriage is recognized? And the same for marriages performed by other sects than your own? Will you allow people to be married in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of their faith, even if not in your own eyes?

    If you answer no, how do you square that answer with your statement? You would have the state deny to others a state in law available to you on the basis of your religious belief alone. You want to know what hell is? You’re soaking in it.

    For once in this colloquy, I’d like a straight yes or no answer. You may recall the one about the fig tree: by their fruits ye shall know them?

    We are all imperfect clowns in need of redemption. I think we need to redeem ourselves in the here and now.

  57. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 6:16 pm

    Adam,
    We could keep going on like this forever. You can keep thinking that I hate gay people. I don’t. I think they are wrong in regards to sexual orientation but I think they are human beings worthy of my respect and love. Not sure what I can say beyond that. I’ll take responsiblity that maybe Im not communicating clearly. Allow me to quote Mr/Mrs Garrison, “Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn’t mean you have to approve of it”

    Beyond being able to sit down and chat with you at some point, I have nothing more to say here.

  58. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 6:20 pm

    I think they are wrong in regards to sexual orientation but I think they are human. thomas-the-phoney

    I guess a few decades ago you would have considered black people wrong in regards to skin colour, but would still have graciously allowed them to be human. You make me want to puke, you homophobic hypocrite.

  59. AdamK permalink
    January 17, 2010 6:21 pm

    “I think they are wrong in regards to sexual orientation…”

    That thought IS hate. Having that idea constitutes hating gay people. And hate harms others, severely.

    You are very confused, but you certainly are communicating clearly.

  60. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 6:22 pm

    I came to laugh, I stayed to puke… still, Aussies call vomiting “the liquid laugh”.

  61. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 6:56 pm

    “This preacher is a nice guy, but he obviously doesn’t know his faith.”

    100% wrong, clearly.

  62. January 17, 2010 7:37 pm

    Knockgoats, do you know what trolling is?

  63. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 7:45 pm

    Jake,
    Yes, I do. Trolls come uninvited. I came by specific invitation to laugh at the blogowner. He repeated that invitation above. If he wants me to go away, he has only to say so.

  64. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 7:59 pm

    It is true, Jake. Knockgoats is here by my invitation. The only time he will be banned is if he attacks others the way he has attacked me or if the community asks that he be banned. Other than, he can keep vomit on my blog all he wants.

  65. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 8:38 pm

    Jake,
    However, I probably won’t be able to stand the stench of his bigotry and faux-humility very long, so don’t fret.

  66. here's your sign permalink
    January 17, 2010 8:49 pm

    Knocksupgoats is the new resident self-centered jerk, ‘kay.

    :::rewrites scorecard:::

  67. Mike permalink
    January 17, 2010 9:06 pm

    Was this a productive afternoon for the participants in this thread? I ask this without a shred sarcasm. From my view as an outsider, there doesn’t seem to be any desire for a dialectical conversation, so I wonder why you engage each other at all. What was the point of this argument? Who won? Do any of you feel like you’ve accomplished something of significance today? After 65 posts, are any of you in a different place than you would have been if there had been 0 posts?

    I don’t presume to know any of the participants. Maybe this was valuable to you. If that is the case, I would just like to know why. Thanks.

  68. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 17, 2010 9:12 pm

    Not especially.

  69. Knockgoats permalink
    January 17, 2010 9:18 pm

    Was this a productive afternoon for the participants in this thread? – Mike

    No, an amusing evening – during which I also undertook some unrelated useful activities on my laptop. You don’t think writing a few short comments takes up all my time, surely?

    Heresyoursign,
    Well, at least I’m not a homophobic hypocrite like our host. Still, being rude on a blog – evil; promoting the hatred of gays – A-OK, yes?

  70. Mike permalink
    January 17, 2010 9:38 pm

    “No, an amusing evening – during which I also undertook some unrelated useful activities on my laptop.”

    As I said, I don’t presume to know you. I haven’t asked you to tell me how you spend your time. Your activities–unrelated or related, useful or otherwise–have little to do with the questions posed.

    “You don’t think writing a few short comments takes up all my time, surely?”

    Strangely enough, I haven’t given what takes up your time all that much thought.

    I asked you, among other things, why participating in this thread has been valuable. For you, it was “amusing.” Thanks for the reply. Since you’re willing, would you answer the other questions I posed above?

  71. sidhra كلبة permalink
    January 17, 2010 9:39 pm

    Again, I hope you are of some use in NO. Glad the PZ thing helped raise you the bucks. Take care of your brothers, and sisters, and yourself.

  72. Richard Eis permalink
    January 18, 2010 5:40 am

    I see knockgoats wasted no time in being all angry-fied.

    -“I think they are wrong in regards to sexual orientation…”-

    Certainly an odd choice of words. You make it sound like we filled out the biology details incorrectly and now have to be told off for messing up the “make a human” form.

    The whole marriage thing is centered around the fact that marriage as a lawful contract sorts a lot of stuff out (hospital visits, effect of death of spouse etc…). I’m guessing most gays couldn’t care less about the religious aspect.

    This is what happens when you mix government and religion. Eventually someone ends up being discriminated against in law.

  73. John Morales permalink
    January 18, 2010 6:34 am

    thomas2026,

    So, what is your faith?
    The Nicene Creed.

    You perhaps failed to note that, in my question, I linked to a list of Christian denominations, and thus that I was in essence asking what denomination you have chosen to believe, and from which you draw your prescriptive and proscriptive ethos.

    I’m not trying to impute that you are careless at reading, or being deliberately vague or evasive, but I will say that your response has left me little wiser, except insofar that I now know you’re not a Jehovah’s Witness or other Christian sect which doesn’t profess the Credo.

    So that I (and possibly others) may better understand your position, I hope you’re willing to be a little more informative: Are you a non-denominational Christian, or do you identify with one of the many denominations of Christianity which does profess (one of the versions of) the Creed, and if so, which one?

  74. Knockgoats permalink
    January 18, 2010 7:18 am

    What was the point of this argument? Who won? Do any of you feel like you’ve accomplished something of significance today?

    From my point of view, to expose hypocrisy and bigotry. I feel this was accomplished.

  75. Knockgoats permalink
    January 18, 2010 7:19 am

    Richard Eis,

    If hypocrisy and bigotry don’t make you angry, what would?

  76. Richard Eis permalink
    January 18, 2010 7:37 am

    Knockgoats,

    I have found our host to be quite accomodating in the past. I like to give him the chance to change his mind given new information, rather than going straight for the jugular. Unless this is in connection to some earlier spat that I wasn’t privy to.

    Our host seems more confused on the issues rather than being a deliberate attack of the bigotries.

    I will get angry when I want to get angry. I am, at the moment, merely disappointed.

  77. Knockgoats permalink
    January 18, 2010 7:46 am

    Richard Eis,

    Fair enough. I wasn’t telling you to get angry, merely enquiring what would make you so. The hypocrisy, bigotry and faux-humility so prominently on display here was practically my first exposure to Jon/Thomas/whatever-he’s-called. I find him exceptionally creepy.

  78. Knockgoats permalink
    January 18, 2010 7:53 am

    As someone who believes that everyone is created in God’s image, – thomas-the-bigot

    What? You think everyone is a pathologicallyjealous psychopathic sadist and genocidal megalomaniac???

  79. Felix permalink
    January 18, 2010 8:02 am

    If homosexuals are wrong, which part of ‘wrong’ raises the probability of younger male siblings to be homosexual by a huge margin? Is ‘wrong’ defined as ‘not born the first son’ here?

    I can only shake my head in the face of such reality denial. I hope it’s just ignorance – but then the ignorant shouldn’t be the ones who instruct others from a position of assumed authority.

  80. Richard Eis permalink
    January 18, 2010 8:13 am

    I find him exceptionally creepy.

    I think a visit from the average mormon would soon put that in perspective. I got angry on the mormon invaded gay-marriage thread on Pharyngula. Mostly because they acted like bullies. Hurting other people, then when they get told off getting all sulky and blaming everyone but themselves.

    Throwing off the chains of repression is always going to insult the guy with the key.

  81. Knockgoats permalink
    January 18, 2010 8:32 am

    Richard Eis,

    I chose “creepy” carefully: I mean the faux-humility, and the pretence of being all nicey-nicey, under which lurks the typical Biblical bigotry.

  82. John Morales permalink
    January 20, 2010 7:25 pm

    Well, it appears thomas2026 doesn’t care to state what (if any) denomination/sect of Christianity he belongs to.

    Such indifference is telling.

  83. Knockgoats permalink
    January 20, 2010 7:34 pm

    John,
    You can find it on the “About” page. He’s an ordained pusher in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church: no bishops, and committed to harassing people.

  84. John Morales permalink
    January 20, 2010 11:10 pm

    Thanks, KG.

    Presbyterianism is the religion of a number of different Christian churches adhering to the Calvinist theological tradition within Protestantism, and organized according to a characteristic Presbyterian polity. Presbyterian theology typically emphasizes the sovereignty of God, the authority of the Scriptures, and the necessity of grace through faith in Christ.
    […]
    The roots of Presbyterianism lie in the European Reformation of the 16th century, with the example of John Calvin’s Geneva being particularly influential. Most Reformed churches who trace their history back to Scotland are either Presbyterian or Congregationalist in government.

    Interesting. Perhaps someone should point out to the Pastor that self-correction ≠ schismatism.

    I’d inquire as to how he rationalises the “authority of the Scriptures” with science, but I guess as a heathen I’m not worth engaging.

    My tone must be not sufficiently obsequious for that.

  85. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 21, 2010 12:43 am

    John,
    I have explained my general reasons for not responding to you in a blog post. My denominational affliation is in the about section of this blog. It’s very plain to see for everyone.

    Your tone doesn’t have to obsequious to me. It just has to be kind to other people. If you don’t like it, go back to PZ’s blog.

  86. John Morales permalink
    January 21, 2010 2:42 am

    thomas2026,

    I have explained my general reasons for not responding to you in a blog post.

    Yeah, you’ve been in a bad mood, caught a cold and have a book to write.

    My denominational affliation is in the about section of this blog.

    I got that, via KnockGoats, as you can see above.

    It’s very plain to see for everyone.

    Only if one expects someone called Jonathan to be using the ID thomas2026 when posting here, though the “about page” shows your email UID to be jweyer179. Perhaps I’m obtuse.

    Your tone doesn’t have to obsequious to me. It just has to be kind to other people.

    I’ve addressed you, not other people (except for thanking KG); nor have I been unkind. But I shall bear this in mind, that I must be kind to other people if I address them.

    If you don’t like it, go back to PZ’s blog.

    I’ve never left PZ’s blog, hence I cannot “go back”. 🙂

    So, any response regarding my question about your claim of (Christian) theological self-correction? I mean, one would think such would imply there’d be an unification of sects over time, yet the historical evidence is entirely contrary to that proposition.

  87. Knockgoats permalink
    January 21, 2010 5:13 am

    with the example of John Calvin’s Geneva being particularly influential

    Calvin’s Geneva was effectively a theocracy, although he did not rule directly. He established a totalitarian system of controls on every action of the Genevans, enforcing church attendance and “moral standards”. In November, 1552, the Council declared that Calvin’s “Institutes” were a “holy doctrine which no man might speak against” – Stalin would have approved. Several dozens people were executed, often after torture, either for “libertinism” or for disagreeing with Calvin, during his rule.

    Calvinist theology is uniquely vile, even within Christianity: God chooses, at his whim and in advance, who will get to heaven, and who will spend eternity screaming in agony. Calvinists, therefore, worship infinite evil.

  88. Knockgoats permalink
    January 21, 2010 5:53 am

    Only if one expects someone called Jonathan to be using the ID thomas2026 – John Morales

    That puzzled me for a while, too. I think he calls himself that when he’s making an ex cathedra pronouncement on faith or morals.

  89. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 21, 2010 9:13 am

    Not really, on the ex cathedra. The name of the blog comes from the story of Thomas the Doubter in the Gospel of John. The 20:26 is the reference where the story begins. I just wanted the blog to be thethomassociety, but for some reason, wordpress didn’t like it. As I registered the blog, that’s what posts when I make comments. I’m too lazy to change it because frankly, I could care less. 🙂

  90. John Morales permalink
    January 27, 2010 1:46 am

    I see I have no response yet.

    Probably a wise move (when in a hole and all that).

  91. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 27, 2010 8:48 am

    What and who exactly are you refering to John?

  92. John Morales permalink
    January 27, 2010 7:01 pm

    thomas2026, I refer to my comment of January 21, which itself refers to your contention during your conference with PZ that “Theology is self-correcting, like science.”

  93. thomas2026 permalink*
    January 27, 2010 7:37 pm

    Ah, got it. I’ll get to it after the book is finished. Most likely by the end of next week. Sorry, I’m on a deadline with the book.

  94. John Morales permalink
    January 27, 2010 10:33 pm

    Thank you, Jonathan.

  95. John Morales permalink
    February 9, 2010 5:29 am

    It is said: “patience is a virtue”.

  96. thomas2026 permalink*
    February 9, 2010 7:45 am

    John,
    I just posted on why theology is self correcting.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: