Comment on Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians by Wesley Kime.
The tone of voice and vocabulary of a speaker reflect the speakerâ€™s image, not necessarily the validity of the message, and are the determining factors for awards by both the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Academic Peer Reviews, not infrequently in mutual consultation, a little known fact.
For our in-house peer review, the following pretty representative aliquots of recent EduTru drag-and-drops, certifiably [sic], are submitted.
Tone of voice and vocabulary for Evidence-free Faith: â€œrepetitive,â€ â€œceaseless,â€ â€œmonotonous,â€ â€œcontinual,â€ â€œad nauseum.â€ â€œirrational,â€ â€œdude,â€ â€œliar.â€ â€œBlasphemy,â€™ â€œheresy.â€ â€œcyberbully,â€ â€œpersecutor,â€ â€œbigot,â€ â€œarrogant,â€ â€œpreying on our students,â€ â€œinsult slinger,â€ â€œlibeler,â€ â€œslanderer.â€ â€œcriminal theft of private creative property,â€ â€œunchristian,â€ â€œunlovingâ€ â€œabuserâ€; â€œdude,â€ â€œmore than heresy and blasphemy. It is ANTI-SCRIPTURE, ANTI-CHRISTIANITY, and ANTI-SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM.â€ â€œDude, this is total, utter, complete, unadulterated HOGWASH.â€ â€œBaloney!â€ â€œstep off your imaginary pedestal and come back down to earth,â€ â€œreally tired of this Satanic crusade,â€ â€œnothing but trash talk from a street gutter.â€ committed the unforgivable sin (against the Holy Spirit) [and worse:] Un-peer reviewed. â€œDude.â€ â€œHell-o-o-o-o!â€ “war of attrition,” â€œHell-o-o-o-o-o-o!â€ [sic, sic, sic]
Tone of voice and vocabulary for Evidence conjoined to Faith: â€œIâ€™ve said many times youâ€™re mistakenâ€, â€œyou forget,â€ â€œyouâ€™re forgetting,â€ â€œyou seem to forget,â€ â€œas I already explained,â€ â€œI read the same article,â€ â€œreally bothers me,â€ â€œthe real argument here is in regard to your notion,â€ â€œIâ€™m sorry, but you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth,â€ â€œI donâ€™t care if people agree or disagree with meâ€; â€œhope this helps,â€ â€œerosion rates do vary.â€ [sic etc.]
Recent Comments by Wesley Kime
Brilliant and Beautiful, but Wrong
Brilliant, beautiful, and so right! Speaking of your presentation at LLU recently. Great to see you and your family (especially my namesake, Wes. God bless! WK
Evolution from Space?
Hats off yet again to Sean for pursuing this topic as a scientist should, no nonsense, and in it’s proper setting — as a revival of one of the ancient ideas recently upgraded as a desperate alternative to the increasingly compelling intelligent design data. I had occasion to review panspermia a few years ago and as is my wont I found it more amusing than scientific. If you would like what was intended to be a satirical response to panspermia and other related curiosities you could check out: http://www.iessaythere.com/black-hole-humor.html
Meantime, Sean’s article is of far more cogent worth.
The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
As he has done on this site many times, Sean in his line-by-line-item response to C. White (not EG or EB) has, to my mind, clearly enunciated the issue and resolution.
When all the hermeneutics, quoting, and arguing and inordinately judgmental riposte are over, it comes down, as I understand it, to two things: 1) Whether the 7th day Sabbath (whether enunciated in the famous 10 commandments or otherwise) is still valid, and 2) Does the grace obtained by the vicarious sacrifice by the shedding of Christ’s blood or other divine process too deep for us to understand in this life, cover every sin automatically and without ado, altogether passively on our part, or is it only on condition that we first totally and deeply accept it? Other details always hassled forever are distractions.
I accept that I must accept it, wholly, actively, even with agony, with my whole being.
Nobel Prize Winner “Blinded by Belief”: Retracts 2016 Paper on RNA Self-Replication
The confession that Szostak made is boggling! If anybody has been on a “journey”, Szostak has! And this analysis by Sean of that journey and its implications is truly awesome. It should be published widely… I’m surprised nobody has commented on it yet. No comment could do it justice.
I’m reduced to being simply curious. Was there talk of rescinding Szostak’s Nobel? I propose another Nobel category: a prize for most honest scientist, and Szostak would be the first winner. Few other scientists would be eligible, particularly among evolutionary scientists, who collectively seem to have suffered a blindness mutation. He should be TIME’s Man of the Year.