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 speaker’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: “repetitive,” “ceaseless,” “monotonous,” “continual,” “ad nauseum.” “irrational,” “dude,” “liar.” “Blasphemy,’ “heresy.” “cyberbully,” “persecutor,” “bigot,” “arrogant,” “preying on our students,” “insult slinger,” “libeler,” “slanderer.” “criminal theft of private creative property,” “unchristian,” “unloving” “abuser”; “dude,” “more than heresy and blasphemy. It is ANTI-SCRIPTURE, ANTI-CHRISTIANITY, and ANTI-SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM.” “Dude, this is total, utter, complete, unadulterated HOGWASH.” “Baloney!” “step off your imaginary pedestal and come back down to earth,” “really tired of this Satanic crusade,” “nothing but trash talk from a street gutter.” committed the unforgivable sin (against the Holy Spirit) [and worse:] Un-peer reviewed. “Dude.” “Hell-o-o-o-o!” “war of attrition,” “Hell-o-o-o-o-o-o!” [sic, sic, sic]
Tone of voice and vocabulary for Evidence conjoined to Faith: “I’ve said many times you’re mistaken”, “you forget,” “you’re forgetting,” “you seem to forget,” “as I already explained,” “I read the same article,” “really bothers me,” “the real argument here is in regard to your notion,” “I’m sorry, but you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth,” “I don’t care if people agree or disagree with me”; “hope this helps,” “erosion rates do vary.” [sic etc.]
Table of Contents
Recent Comments by Wesley Kime
Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
@Ken: Ken, re. yours of May 31, 15 12:42 pm: … those standing up for FB28 have every right to do so…until they [presumably the FBs, not the communicants, although either could be changed in a twinkling of any eye] are democratically changed.”
FB28? What’s that? You probably know better than I. Genesis 1 I can quote; FB28 I can’t. And won’t bother to check. I couldn’t even tell you where to find those FBs. I read what you say more assiduously than the FBs. (What’s FB? FaceBook?)
In the first place I think you’ve got Adventism wrong, or at least Adventism as I know it. Well, maybe you haven’t, the postmodernist kind anyway. I’m pre-catechistic, ergo prehistoric, alas. I’m that old.
FB28 or whatever it is, if it WERE changed, democratically or otherwise, dramatically or creepingly, by evolution or edict, even if expunged and expurgated in the interest of big-tent accord, which seemed on the verge of happening pre-T. Wilson, and may yet, I wouldn’t even know it until I saw it here. You’d know before I would.
With or without and despite FB28 or whatever, or EduTruth, I’d still honor Genesis 1. I’d honor it, A, by faith, because the Bible, i.e. God, says so. A validated faith validated by B, The evidence, good scientific falsifiable evidence. And C, the consummate cosmic multi-vectored syllogism. Everything fits.
Seriously, though, discussion has to start somewhere and be referenced by something, for convenience if not citizenship. But I’d prefer to start, if granted “every right,” with Genesis 1, at the beginning.
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
@Ken: “something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap (forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality, such double standard is not acceptable. …[therefore] I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey.”
I can, of course, dear friend, understand why, and respect that, you would see the two directions of leaping, forward and backward, by Harvard and LSU, as a double standard.
But might it also be seen as simple Einsteinian Relativity? It all depends on from whence you’re starting or observing. Two venues, Harvard vs. LSU, two vectors, not two standards. At any rate, a parting of our ways. The Chair did it. A very unlucky ill-omened Chair, from the start.
Parting — that indeed is sad, especially this parting. I grieve too. In sadness we are agreed. That’s not double speak; only you could I say that to.
For these several years you, and your courteous ways, even your questions, have been most fascinating, even endearing, inspiring to both poetic and, I now regret, rasping response. I’ve so much enjoyed your postings, always looked for them first, and appreciated your uncommon patience and politeness, and our camaraderie in the bomb shelter and on the grandstand. Too bad the Chair, our double bed, didn’t work out.
As benediction, maybe we can all get together again, somewhere. Meanwhile, the Mizpah, which I think I should be the one to deliver, seeing it was, you say, my one-liner that was the last straw, for which I’ll get heck all around, and rightly so: “The Lord watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another.” Genesis 31:49.
What the heck, have some popcorn for the road. And don’t forget your cyber plaque. You will be remembered, appreciated, thought about, prayed for. Do come back soon.
Until then, your jousting friend, W
Strumming the Attached Strings
@Phillip Brantley: Excellent! I shall quote you: “learn something from Sean Pitman.” Indeed, indeed — there’s so much to learn from that man.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Bill Sorensen: “I don’t know if anyone has really been able to follow your thinking…”
A tad, a smidgeon, just slightly overstated maybe? Just a tad, just a smidgeon, at the cost of not a few dislikes? Well, I for one do follow it. And with great admiration. Great.
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
@Ervin Taylor: Out of purely poetic symmetry of rhetoric, Ervin, your trademark whimsical “…I guess someone who rejects…” is asking for — I was waiting for it! — a Pitman’s “I guess someone who accepts…” Lovely diptych, ping and pong.
