WHAT IS A GOOD BLOG SUPPOSED TO DO?

What is a good blog supposed to do? Well, ColorStorm has a first class blog, and one is the reasons for that is that it inspires constructive debate. Here is an example of one of his posts, I bet you can’t watch this to the end.

When I commented, another commenter added his two cents.

Professor Taboo

August 26, 2017 at 2:49 pm

For Citizen Tom above and any others. I hope CS doesn’t censor out this comment…

I want to try and meet everyone here halfway for courteous dialogue about knowledge-ignorance and how it is learned and shared with regard to most comments here and in particular CT’s above. And so to be completely fair we (non-believers) must…

…understand the danger posed by people like Jerry Falwell, Joel Osteen, and Billy Graham, etc, we have to listen to and understand their arguments. It may be thoroughly unpleasant, but we do not have a choice.

Why do we have little choice? Because in more subtle covert terms the conservative American Taliban, as they have been appropriately labelled by many moderates and liberals, peaceful or otherwise want to remove our Constitution’s First Amendment. In order to have a remote chance of intellectually getting through to these groups peacefully, we/they must first understand the initial MAJOR difference between these two diametrically opposed positions:

1) Christianity and its (Greco-Roman) doctrines of Jesus’ person (the claims, character, and resurrection), about sin and its consequences, the death-salvation by Jesus, then finally humanity’s response to all of these doctrines — fortunately for non-believers — have been set in stone (canonized) since 325 CE: Revelations 22:18-19. Christianity’s doctrines and Scripture CANNOT be changed, modified, taken from or added to anymore. Done! There is (or should be?) only ONE church and ONE true group of followers, right?

Therefore, for over 1,690 years the Christian faith has beeen thoroughly examined and scrutinized exhaustively not only by very intelligent secularists, but devout Christians as well! This begs the very serious, glaring, evidential question: Where is the ONE single church? The constant breakup and fragmentation of Jesus’ church(es) is a reflection of the New Testament’s fallacies, amputations, and inadequacies. The canonical New Testament is quite simply unsustainable by its own demise: it is NOT allowed to adapt or evolve over time. Period! Yet…

2) The next major problem between these two diametrically opposed positions is ironically “change.” How is it understood and implemented in science and how CAN it be implemented in Christianity? For example, the numerous benefits of contraception for women and women’s safety and well-being. What is Christianity’s cumulative consensus on this incredibly good advancement for women!? This is undeniable.

You see, canonically biblical Christians cannot operate in both diametrically opposed camps. They must either OPEN UP their 1,690+ year old bible for revisions, additions, reductions, or complete overhaul — which I seriously doubt Christians could unite to do that — or… fully embrace the science that has placed humanity in its most advanced state in its history AND science’s fluid adaptability to uncertainty as well as certainty.

Thanks for allowing this comment CS.

  • ColorStorm says:
    August 26, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    Censor tabbs? Went right through did it not?

  • Citizen Tom says:
    August 27, 2017 at 2:50 am

    @Professor Taboo
    I am not an expert on the politics of Jerry Falwell, Joel Osteen, and Billy Graham, etc., but referring to those people as the American Taliban is just stupid. Even lumping those three together is bit silly.Of course, you can find some fringe group that horrifies most Christians, but you cannot produce any substantial evidence that Christian churches are a threat to the First Amendment. If Christians had not ratified the First Amendment, we would not be talking about it.You could point to the argument over what constitutes pornography, but that is about it. Few Christians have much interest in stifling political debate.Are Christians without sin? No. I will readily admit that the public school system was created by people who largely subscribed to Christianity. One of the reasons Protestants promoted the public school system is that they saw it as a counter to the Catholic school movement. Protestant/Catholic rivalry has gotten out of hand more than once, but even that is slowly simmering down.Even after being born again, Christians don’t claim to be perfect. It is rather obvious we are not. What we say instead is that churches are full of sinners.Why is there a First Amendment? You mention the rivalry between different Christian sects. In the past, before Christians got it through their heads that the Bible says Jesus is our judge, Christians fought violently over doctrinal issues. However, unlike just about any other belief, the Bible clearly says God is the authority, not man. When we argue over doctrine, we are still supposed love each other, not kill each other. With the First Amendment, in the United States we made it illegal to attempt to use the government to erase our religious differences. In fact, the Bible makes it clear Christians should do their best to resolve their differences without resorting to violence, even violence under the control of the government. The Apostle Paul did not much care for us taking our problems to the government.

    Some Christians subscribe to the notion that the First Amendment applies only to Christianity. In particular, they look upon Islam with horror. Nevertheless, the First Amendment does not say it applies just to Christians. So in practice arguments over the First Amendment generally boil down to whether or not it is legal to put “In God We Trust” on our currency and whether chaplains belong in the military. Frankly, I think that anyone who trusts the currency itself is an idiot.

    What about your two points? You say the Bible was canonized in 325 AD. I have looked at the history of that event. What happened is that a bunch of respected Christians got the books of the Bible together and made 50 copies. That is just about all there was to it. They did not argue much, but I suppose including Ecclesiastes bothered some of them. Until you study it carefully, that book does not sound like it belongs in the Bible, but it does.

    Is the Church unified? Christ is the head of the Church. I am just a member. Why don’t you ask Him? He knows who is part of the church and who is not. I don’t. It is that sort of admission that led to the First Amendment.

    Christians don’t embrace science? What we don’t do is make science more important than it is.

    Science is a tool for modeling cause and effect. In the ideal, what scientists try to do is mathematically model the cause-effect relationships that exist in a system. Such modelling begins with certain well defined boundaries. When the system becomes too complex and/or there are too many unknowns, our models break down.

    Any system which includes God is beyond our capacity to model. So are far simpler systems described by expressions like the Theory of Evolution or Global Warming.

    What makes a Christian a Christian? Well, the first step is this. It is the admission that God is God, and I am not.

    Has science made us advanced? Well, maybe, but it has not made us gods. In fact, it has just made it more difficult to keep us from destroying ourselves. So it is a mixed blessing, at best.

    What has Christianity done for us? Jesus taught us the importance of loving each other. Jesus’ disciples, people He taught to love, were far more advanced than any of us. They had a solution for our most basic problem.

Where is this going? Not certain, but it could be interesting.

Note: I made the post private temporarily because of some formatting headaches. Sorry if that caused confusion.

80 thoughts on “WHAT IS A GOOD BLOG SUPPOSED TO DO?

    1. Hi Cookie, the mention of those three Fundamental Evangelicals is understood in the context of Citizen Tom’s comment about the Bill Moyers and Neil DeGrasse Tyson video interview. “American Taliban” is a literary reference of articles from Medium.com and the Washington Post.

      Did you read the entire comment-thread and articles? It helps in understanding the full context of our very brief exchange.

      Thanks Cookie. Best regards.

      Like

      1. What I do understand is that the use of a word, in this particular case “Taliban,” is wrong as it carries with it a tremendous connotation of nothing good…as in it is a word that is equated with that of violence, all things dangerous to the sanctity of human life, a word which to American ears means “the enemy” and a word that is only full of hate….
        It matters not that the word is being misused by the media and various individuals in order to promote a negative agenda against various American religious individuals or groups… the bottom line is that the original word, “Taliban” is directly associated with Osama bin Ladan…nothing more and nothing less.
        So for Progressive groups who claim to be oh so tolerant, to use a word such as “Taliban” to promote a certain mentality or mindset, is simply wrong.
        Equally as wrong as those who now attempt to use the word “Nazi” to describe the President.
        Each word is being terribly misused and is a huge insult to the millions of lives that were lost at the hands of Germany’s Nazi regime or the hundreds of lives lost to Terrorism that was orchestrated by a Taliban leader.
        So to equate someone like Billy Graham as a new American Taliban is egregiously in poor taste.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Perhaps. But these are the perceptions of the general public and a number of journalists; I was just repeating a descriptive term that has some accuracies. But I believe what you are missing Cookie is the intolerance, unChrist-like, and ill-temper of many Fundamentalists, which actually does equate to behaviors and mentalities of the Taliban or ISIS… just not with the violence/murder, obviously.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. I do not care for the likes of the Joel Osteens or Jerry Falwells among us…but I would never equate what they do or how they do it with Osama bin Laden, never. I would just chalk up their ignorance to misguided egos…

          Liked by 1 person

        3. So to chunk Christianity into a single pot of intolerance, which is something our Culture police seem to relish in these days, is utterly misdirected and wrong.
          Those individuals of misguided agendas and egos who used Christianity to define their path, were and are wrong…Of which is now an excuse the progressive left are using to blur the real message of Christianity, which is Salvation found in Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ alone…
          The fact that Joel Osteen or Jerry Falwell have become the poster boys of Christianity is just a result of more ignorance.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. They would quote (and have defended their beliefs with) all sorts of Scripture and apologetics Cookie to refute your claim. And since the Bible and its exegesis is open to anyone and EVERYONE, for their personal interpretations as given to them “by God and the Holy Spirit”… they have every right to be as popular as they actually are — similar to David Koresh and Jim Jones.

          Liked by 1 person

        5. Yes. I’ve heard many, many faith-followers all over the globe say exactly those words: “false teachers.” It would eventually seem to a curious bystander then that everyone are false teachers. 😛

          Liked by 1 person

        6. I don’t know anything about Joel Osteen. Jerry Falwell just got tarred by the news media. They hated him. The public may be ignorant, but that is because news media bias is absurd. Those people cannot be trusted.

          Liked by 1 person

        7. Cheezy is what comes to mind with Osteen,
          I’ve just never been a fan of the mega church stars….because that’s what they seem to be stars in their own eyes….
          I prefer the locust eating, camel hair wearing types who are usually off by themselves speaking Truth while pointing the way for the lost.

          Liked by 1 person

        8. “But I believe what you are missing Cookie is the intolerance, unChrist-like, and ill-temper of many Fundamentalists, which actually does equate to behaviors and mentalities of the Taliban or ISIS… just not with the violence/murder, obviously.”

          That’s quite a statement.
          Yes, indeed….”many Fundamentalists are just like the Taliban (except for the deaths, destruction, and violence obviously)”
          You’re essentially saying they’re the same except for the harm. Let’s look at some other “equivalencies” by this rationale:

          The chicken pox is JUST LIKE the bubonic plague!
          A political pundit is JUST LIKE a fascist dictator!
          Tofu is JUST LIKE apple pie!

          we could go the other way, too, and make it complimentary….
          I am JUST LIKE an astronaut because I keep a pet rock!

          (hey, this is fun….hurray for me)

          Liked by 2 people

        9. Tofu is very dangerous…
          lol that’s what I get for posting before coffee.

          Point is, absurd comparisons used for rhetorical flourish are….absurd.
          Unless they are INTENDED to be absurd, they make the accuser look foolish.

          This seems a common tactic. If you’re trying to start a conversation with “some Christians are like ISIS” in my experience there’s little point in engaging there.

          Liked by 2 people

  1. I like your artful handling in response to the prof CT.

    The notion of ‘science’s adaptability to uncertainty’ per the good prof. leaves open the door that ‘nothing’ is certain.
    True science is certain. Arithmetic does not change. The law of absolutes is relied upon by the Japanese carpenter the same way Bob Vila measures, using the exactness of the inch as well as the level. There is no deceit in the bubble.

    While our understanding of things may change, based on technology, there are still 24 hrs in a day, as well as hot and cold.

    And in this, degrasse and types, fail miserably for not admitting that there are absolutes, things certain that they cannot change. God rules the heavens. That is certain. He rules the seas, and says that the waves go no further than the shore. That is certain.

    But is it a false narrtive that believers do not embrace science. I have a friend who is PhD molecular biologist. His understanding of the material world is stunning. He has admitted many times that his unbelieving colleagues are neither convinced of evolution nor atheism; they simply cannot tolerate the alternative, Quite a revelation and indictment of academia.

    It is not that the information is lacking scientifically, they simply do not like the information given about themselves! God is always right. Of course. He created the heart and conscience.

    Good stuff by you in your defense of the faith too.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Thank you.

      The ignorance of some who think themselves wise is appalling. For all practical purposes, the Romans were atheists. Yet these people could not advance technology. Why. I could speculate, but technological development accelerated after the first book was printed. That book was the Bible.

      The Bible says God is not the author of confusion. When they expect none to be found, why would atheist look for order in the universe?

      Liked by 2 people

    2. CT and I hardly scratched the tip-top of the surface CS. The subject(s) realistically and honestly require more than 2-4 blog-comments to adequately cover. Many months or years actually.

      Like

    1. As I’ve tried to explain to you SoM, “leftist” is incorrect. I am a Freethinking Humanist — no religious/political party has my blind loyalty sir. Thanks for the compliment too. 😉

      Like

  2. Citizen Tom,

    Hopped over here to let you know that I’ve responded again to you, however, now (for some new reason) my comments are moderated by ColorStorm first and are not immediately posted. Not sure why the change there. I don’t mind at all continuing further civil discussions with you or anyone.

    Perhaps we need to continue here or on my blog, eh? 🙂

    Like

      1. That’s certainly a possibility. However, WordPress “Happiness Engineers” (i.e. Customer Service or Tech Support) have helped me numerous times and they are EXCELLENT and prompt at what they do. Besides, my comment — that is still in moderation — is/was only about 30-words. Also, CS has an established history of malicious responses to me & others. I honestly do not know WHY he feels I am a threat to him. I simply ask a LOT of questions.

        But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt…
        again.

        Like

        1. Humans and their endless forms of articulation — much of which is beautiful! — are certainly imperfect at times. No doubt there. That’s why cumulative consensus is the best hedge against fallacy. Yes, it requires much time, much patience, but for the sake of higher accuracy, higher degrees of truth… it IS the best method so far. 🙂

          I always give ANY total stranger — as I did CS many months ago — the benefit of doubt. I’m not sure if our very first encounter & correspondence is still on his blog, but if it isn’t I can tell you this… he treated me as if I was a imbicile leper (in 1st century Judea) when he knew nothing at all about me. Why as a total stranger do I deserve that? I challenged him today about mimicking the Beatitudes in Matthew 5 of which I am not entirely sure he is at all familiar with their profound teaching.

          Bygones. It seems with you CT it could be different. I hope so. Thank you for your basic human courtesies.

          Like

        2. Well, basic human courtesies do not include people I hardly know speaking ill of those I do know and like. It lowers you, not ColorStorm, in my estimation.

          If you did not care for the way ColorStorm treats you, don’t waste your time griping. Don’t comment on his blog.

          Like

        3. If you did not care for the way ColorStorm treats you, don’t waste your time griping. Don’t comment on his blog.

          That’s exactly what took place, hence the meaning of “many months ago.” I stated earlier.

          Tell me how well you know CS. Does it include in-person, for an extended period of time? How long have you known each other? And that concerns me CT that you do not extend equal courtesies to total strangers — unless of course you have some sort of psychic abilities to judge people? 😉

          My upcoming week is very busy — Hurricane Harvey has made it worse — so I will not be very prompt in future responses. Fyi.

          Thanks again for the “interesting” conversations CT.

          Like

        4. Hurricane Harvey? Well, there are lots of people who need help and prayers. That is a bad one. I hope your losses are minimal.

          I like ColorStorm, and I visit his blog regularly. Not exactly sure how long, but it has been years. It is no secret he edits some comments. What does he consider offensive? Ask him.

          Why would I extend the same courtesies to total strangers that I extend to people I have been blogging with for years?

          Is blogging with someone the same as meeting them in person? No, but we do get to know quite a bit about the people we blog with, and I think you know that.

          Like

        5. Yes, Harvey has set all sorts of records. Fortunately, the excellent meteorological science gave us over 60-72 hours PRIOR notice. Had that not happened, Harvey would’ve taken an estimated 300-900 lives/souls or more.

          I have only a brief second or two… regarding total strangers, if there is no established track-record/history, why form complete presupposed notions about them? I am a big proponent of “innocent until proven/shown guilty” and due process. That’s my motto at least.

          Must run. Have a great week CT.

          Like

        6. Been through several hurricanes. Storm tracking and modeling is a lifesaver.

          I let anyone who wants to comment on my blog do so. I have just posted some rules. Over the years I have just found it necessary to block two people.

          Same to you.

          Liked by 1 person

        7. CT is correct prof. No malice. Surely if CT, insanitybytes22, and many other good friends go into spam or moderation for no reason, you can extend a bit of patience.

          Besides, I do not sit in front of a computer all day long; I get to it as time permits. And be careful what you hear from others.

          Liked by 2 people

        8. You are gradually coming around to some basic universal etiquette CS, unlike your first response and attitude toward me on your blog. There might be some hope for you yet! 😉

          Like

        9. Tks but nothing changed from day one….maybe your tolerance in admitting ‘there may be a God, as in One God.

          And if I recall, the environment in which you frequent is generally hostile toward believers, maybe you observed some well deserved combat laced with honey.

          Like

        10. Sure I know about you. I’ve seen your hand in many places, with covert and overt ops.

          I’ve seen the snickering about delusional believers, about ‘no God,’ about the so called geniuses of godlessness (Nye, Tyson as mentioned)

          So yeah, I’ve seen enough. and known enough, as your agreeing with atheists is enough to go on.

          But don’t get lost on the ‘tone’ of words. Don’t miss the wonderful ocean for an inconvenient rain drop on your spectacles.

          Liked by 1 person

        11. Sounds pretty paranoid CS. I am not a threat to you. I have no desire to threaten you — just ask you questions… challenge your posture and cognitive structures. If that makes you uncomfortable, then I will stop. 😉

          Like

        12. Not sure where you got the paranoia idea from. But no sense in taking the convo into the weeds.

          Go ahead and ask your questions; surely someone in this zip code is more than adequate.

          I have been accused of not answering, but some people confuse that with an answer that is uncomfortable for them.

          There are some who actually know how to not accept bait. The LORD was master in this. His answers turned on the accusers.

          He is above all. His word is good. We borrow His truth, that’s all.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Tom’s got a good blog going here for this reason. So long as you’re sincere, he’ll engage you in debate. One of the blogs that I blog for All Along the Watch Tower, which is ecumenical in nature, has suffered in the past year when emotions got ahold of contructive debate. I hope it survives, but some of the better voices have vanished.

    Another aspect of great blogging is consistent posting. As a working adult in my 30s, I simply can’t post every day with my schedule. Tom keeps his posts fairly consistent and I usually peruse everyone.

    I don’t always agree, but it’s a good craft you got going on here.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Mr. Augustine,

      I’m a fan of anyone who at least listens, reads, and respectfully engages on many subjects or issues (ecumenical), not just one. So applause for you; I tip my hat sir. In the art of multilingual communication and learning, one cannot help but learn the endless ways to experience a life FULL of endless diversity, endless points-of-view… not all wrong or evil, not all right or pious either. “Degrees” galore.

      Like you Mr. Augustine, my time and schedule are sometimes limited. In fact, on a subject such as the Abrahamic faiths, the internet — certainly social media — is not at all the ideal format to examine, discuss, debate, such an important topic. I think the subject and their controversies deserve MUCH MORE time, precision, and respect than most bloggers can or are able to give. That said, from my 20-years on the world-wide-web then internet… for propaganda purposes, like Facebook, the internet & social media are ideal fertile ground for fly-by-night ideologies and attention spans that last no more than 5 to 20 minutes. Not ideal for such critical ideologies that have existed over millenia, yes?

      I will go visit your blog and see what’s happening over there, see what trouble I can find. 😉

      Best regards sir.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Different Christian blogs take differing tacks. I know of several blogs who do Bible exposition quite well. Others do topical posts. The trick is to do a series of posts. That allows the author to delve quite deeply and readers to take in the topic in bite-size chunks.

        Like

        1. The good thing about a series of posts is that it’s more likely that readers will be exposed to most of the material. I learned this the hard way. Most folks will only read something between 500-1000 words (And 1000 is pushing it sometimes). Often, I’ll write something 2,500-3000 and attempt to break it up into approx. 3 posts.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. I have run into the same problem. I get locked onto a subject and don’t take the time to organize into multiple posts. Sometimes the material itself is an obstacle to partitioning it, but mostly I forget to make the effort.

          Like

    2. Thank you for the compliment. Since I am retired, I have a bit more time.

      Never tried to blog as one of the members of a team. Expect it would be tough to keep a team together, but would add variety and increase the number of posts. I hope All Along the Watch Tower manages to keep going.

      Like

  4. For Citizen Tom,

    One of my all-time favorite films is “Dances With Wolves.” There is so very much to be gleaned from a story like that, about encountering “foreign” cultures, foreign thinking/customs. Can you guess WHY it is so powerful, why I love it so much and how it applies and relates to us here… me, you, and any of your other Followers?

    If you think you know, please share. 🙂

    Like

    1. I vaguely remember seeing the advertising for the film. I don’t watch movies these days. Have not so for over thirty years. Every time I get the urge I find there is something else I would rather do. Use to see parts of films at the gym, but the place I go to now just has things like the history and food channels and cable news. Makes running outside more attractive.

      Like

  5. Interesting thread at CS’s.
    I do think it’s interesting the “You would have a nation of intellectually bankrupt morons if Creation were taught!” crowd seem to see nothing wrong with teaching little Johny that a person can be both a girl and a father, and male and female are just social constructs.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. @Professor Taboo

        Anon’s initial response was spot on.

        Anomalies are not social constructs. Anomalies are anomalies.

        Consider this link.
        http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html

        The concept presented in the link above is not easily grasped, but it is important.

        The rule in this case is that it takes both a father and a mother to make a marriage and a functional family. Two mommies or two daddies are not an adequate substitute. Other possibilities, man and beast, adult and child, group marriage, and so forth, present even greater issues.

        A man and woman are required to produce children. To keep their family together, the man and the woman must have both good character and bond strongly to each other as husband and wife.

        Considered the nature of the genetic problems you identified. You called them anomalies. You immediately recognized your own discoveries as outside the norm. These deviations from the norm don’t just deviated from a “social construct”. They clearly interfere with procreation and the proper formation of families. What Anon referred to as a social construct is simply a recognition of what is, not an arbitrary rule based purely upon ideology.

        In some cases we can bend the rule to conform to new information. However, the institutions of marriage and the family are relatively old. We are not talking about new data. Instead, we are talking about trying to remake the institution of marriage (and by extension the family) so as conform to desires of people who cannot properly marry and form a family. That is not correcting a rule; that’s fantasy.

        If all the mental and physical parts are not working in both the father and mother, that family will most likely suffer severe disruptions. Either the man and the woman will be unable to have children or their marriage will not be stable, threatening the integrity of their family.

        A marriage with two mommies or two daddies prove the rule. Such marriages cannot produce children. Even if they could such marriages are highly unstable.

        And we have not even gotten to the religious implications.

        What about the legal implications? Why does government have to be involved in the institutions of marriage and the family. Government job is to protect the rights of people. When they are not raised in the context of a strong family with both a father and a mother, children suffer. Are there exceptions? Maybe, but trying to encourage unlikely exceptions (or anomalies) does produce good social constructs.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Merriam-Webster defines anomaly this way: something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified; deviation from the common rule.

          I think if you surveyed 1,000-5,000 people on the streets of several U.S. cities, none of which work in the medical fields or pediatrics, “Do you know what an intersexed birth is? Do you know what 5-alpha Reductase Deficiency is or Guevedoces?“… most or a majority of the respondents would say no. Why are they not familiar with intersexed births or 5-alpha Reductase Deficiency? Usually psychologists & sociologists determine a combination of three reasons:

          1) ignorance/innocence — not common knowledge
          2) perceived (false) social “norm” so they doubt/deny
          3) inhumane treatment of society for those BORN differently, again related to #1 and #2

          Sorry CT. I do not see how your last 7 paragraphs have anything to do with the ACTUAL records of intersexed births or ACTUAL records of 5-alpha Reductase Deficiency, the latter being found also in Papua New Guinea, Turkey and Egypt by the way. The National Institutes of Health and the ISNA feel the cases are very conservative numbers because of inhumane treatment by society and their “constructs.”

          If you don’t want to use the word anomaly, then I’m fine with you and Anon replacing it with “atypical” or “extaordinary.” I’m inferring that you and several others here will biasedly(?) interpret and interpolate this factual data. I simply ask that you all do not. Diligently study and research these subjects from actual experts in the related fields. See the facts for what they are. That’s all I can ask here.

          RELEASE OF LIABILITY CLAUSE:
          I’m not an expert licensed embryologist, endocrinologist, or geneticist. Just sharing the data and facts from those experts. However, if anyone HERE is a licensed practicing embryologist, endocrinologist, or geneticist… we should hear from them, yes? 😉

          Have a good evening CT.

          Like

        2. @Professor Taboo

          Don’t confuse me with the “facts”?
          https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/13/confuse-me/

          How does it help if both of us are confused?

          Seriously what you are doing is corralling a bunch of facts and assuming you have proved something. These facts don’t tell us how to produce healthy babies or to nurture them in healthy families. They just refer to people with certain types of defects and dietary issues that get in the way of producing healthy babies and nurturing them in healthy families.

          Glorifying our problems and solving them are two entirely different things. In the former instance we amplify our problems until the dysfunctions they produce render life impossible. In that latter instance we minimize the complications our problems produce just so we can get on about the business of living and being good to each other.

          It is not about being mean or cruel. It just about dealing with the situation as it is.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. How does it help if both of us are confused?

          Perhaps. Or neither of us are confused, or one is… the other isn’t. It’s also possible that both of us have differences of predisposition, of language, differences of examining information, and differences of cognitive styles. Afterall, not one single brain on this planet thinks identically, right? I embrace this. Sorting all of this out takes more patience, more time than MOST care to put forth. Hopefully we BOTH want to find some common ground or at least understanding of each other’s points-of-view. Yes? Unfortunately though this week and the next my time/schedule is very stretched — so I will be unable to keep tabs on this blog-post, comments, etc.

          I really don’t follow your next paragraph, especially this sentence:

          They just refer to people with certain types of defects and dietary issues that get in the way of producing healthy babies and nurturing them in healthy families.

          How on EARTH are these defects!!!? These are “God’s creations,” to use a language familiar here, that were born this way, straight from “His workshop.” Dietary issues? Sorry CT, are you a licensed nutritionist? Would there not be several other possible factors for these types of births!? Wow! Are you aware of your implications in saying they are not healthy babies, let alone have many chances to BECOME very healthy, ASSUMING there is unhealthiness!? And “healthy families” is very subjective — are you implying there is one set standard for all families on Earth? I hope not. And holy crap, 😮 I’m going to skip over that next paragraph out of courtesy.

          It’s just about dealing with the situation as it is.

          Now THAT I do agree with, however, I think we have very different approaches to life, human nature, and the empirical evidence they present us. Again, do we have ANY licensed practicing embryologist, endocrinologist, or geneticist… we really should hear from them, even more so now.

          Good night CT.

          Like

        4. How on EARTH are these defects!!!? These are “God’s creations,” to use a language familiar here, that were born this way, straight from “His workshop.” Dietary issues?

          Such sarcasm reveals a misunderstanding of scripture. It is quite clear from Genesis 3 that God cursed the ground for our sake, and Romans 8:18-25 speaks of the corruption of the whole of Creation. Such things I don’t pretend to fully understand, but since it is obvious no one understands most of what we feel the need to debate I don’t see the need for legal waiver.

          Like

        5. “If you don’t want to use the word anomaly, then I’m fine with you and Anon replacing it with “atypical” or “extaordinary.” I’m inferring that you and several others here will biasedly(?) interpret and interpolate this factual data.”

          What are you talking about? Seriously….what earthly point are you arguing?
          No one is claiming anomalies (your word, I’m comfortable with it but you didn’t seem to be…strangely since you used it first), abnormalities, or extreme outliers don’t exist.
          You’re throwing a lance at a windmill.

          Liked by 1 person

        6. “Again, do we have ANY licensed practicing embryologist, endocrinologist, or geneticist… we really should hear from them, even more so now.”

          What exactly would you like to ask them?
          If you’re looking for an opinion on something, you should start with a question.

          Liked by 1 person

        1. You’ve misunderstood the point. The term “anomaly” would be used from an ill-informed or incomplete ideology and/or group TRYING to describe an event that does not fit in their own paradigm, their own construct, which is often social, but not reflective of the statistics and tangible evidence. For example, that 1 out of every 1,666 births have no clear XX or XY chromosonal distinction. Or 1 in 100 births have bodies differing from “standard” male or female. In other words, “standard” or “binary” constructs are very rarely set in stone and are certainly not supported by the actual, exhaustive tangible data.

          Like

        2. “You’ve misunderstood the point. The term “anomaly” would be used from an ill-informed or incomplete ideology and/or group TRYING to describe an event that does not fit in their own paradigm, their own construct, which is often social, but not reflective of the statistics and tangible evidence. For example, that 1 out of every 1,666 births have no clear XX or XY chromosonal distinction. Or 1 in 100 births have bodies differing from “standard” male or female. In other words, “standard” or “binary” constructs are very rarely set in stone and are certainly not supported by the actual, exhaustive tangible data.”

          Wow, that’s quite a mouthful. I’ll try to deconstruct it (this might go a bit out of order):

          “The term “anomaly” would be used from an ill-informed or incomplete ideology and/or group…”

          Well, if you look above you were the one that chose the word “anomaly”, not I.
          I would have chosen the word “abnormality” myself. Perhaps you can Google the term “genetic abnormality” and see if it’s “sciency” enough for you.

          “For example, that 1 out of every 1,666 births have no clear XX or XY chromosonal distinction.”

          This is worded very very oddly (in the context here) for an ostensibly “sciency” kind of fellow. XX and XY aren’t the only male and female distinctions. The distinction is actually with the Y. Males have Y. A person might have an abnormality (diagnosed or undiagnosed) such as an extra X or extra Y or missing chromosomes.

          Now I’ll try to address this gobbledegook again:
          “You’ve misunderstood the point. The term “anomaly” would be used from an ill-informed or incomplete ideology and/or group TRYING to describe an event that does not fit in their own paradigm, their own construct, which is often social, but not reflective of the statistics and tangible evidence.”

          It seems to be you who have misunderstood the point.
          My statement: “I do think it’s interesting the “You would have a nation of intellectually bankrupt morons if Creation were taught!” crowd seem to see nothing wrong with teaching little Johny that a person can be both a girl and a father, and male and female are just social constructs.”

          In the above I’m pointing to something that is being proselytized in public schools. I’m not the one asserting that gender is a social construct. I’m not the one asserting that males can self identify as females and ipso facto become females (and vice versa). I’m not the one disputing biology.
          From this you point to a list of genetic abnormalities and write a very confusing (likely) copy and paste job that applies in no way whatsoever to what I wrote.
          But, I understand that ideological blindness is hard to overcome. It can create the illusion someone said something they did not…as demonstrated here

          Like

      1. Did you know that some people are born without a frontal lobe? It’s called anencephaly. And some have no limbs. These fun and interesting facts are spread out all over the globe, FYI.

        Like

  6. Tom, when you read the following foolish statement……..

    “Because in more subtle covert terms the conservative American Taliban, as they have been appropriately labelled by many moderates and liberals,”

    In my opinion, you are wasting your time and talents honoring the fool with a reply.

    Fool in ancient times was a term for a person who did not believe in a God. In modern times, in my opinion, anyone who compares Christianity, regardless of human faults, as American Taliban, not only is a fool in ancient terminology, he or she is a fool in knowledge of Taliban .

    It is not a religion, it is a political movement, making use of a ancient writings that instruct believers they have the right to kill another human being who is not a Muslim.

    Trying to reason with a fool is a waste of time in my opinion.

    King Solomon wrote a proverb when he observed fools 3000 years ago

    Do not answer a fool when he speaks nonsense, let you, too, are reduced to his level, Answer a fool when he speaks nonsense, lest he suppose himself to be a wise man. (Proverb 26:4-5) .

    In my opinion, he may write well, but when he writes nonsense. He is two kinds of a fool.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There is such a thing as being too clever. Unfortunately, it describes lots of people.

      If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain. (from here => https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/)

      I suspect most of us look back at our youth and wonder what we were thinking.

      Reasoning with fool does not terribly well. Experience is the better teacher. If experience were not so hurtful, I would not bother with this blog.

      What young people in particular don’t realize is how easy it is to produce unintended consequences. Grand schemes for solving all the world’s problems look great until we actually try to implement them. Then in our pride refuse to admit that our changes have just made things worse, that people were better off when they were allowed — even required — to solve their own problems. So we demand more of the hair of the dog that bit us (from here => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_of_the_dog). Thus, unintended consequences tend to escalate until they become unbearable and produce a crisis. Sort of like what we are seeing these days.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. I doubt if he is particularly young either, but he has yet to set aside childish things.

          1 Corinthians 13:11 New King James Version (NKJV)

          11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

          Here is an explanation of the expression.
          https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/too_clever_by_half

          I suspect the professor spends much of his life looking for rationalizations to justify his behavior. So he throws up a cloud of “facts” and makes of them what he wishes to believe. When he can persuade others, he fancies himself quite clever and for a brief time feels himself justified.

          Those are observations based upon the professors “facts” and the pictures on his website. They relate solely to the current discussion. Beyond that I have no desire to judge. I do not have any reason or even the capacity to judge the professor’s character.

          I understand your annoyance, and I hope he quits being condescending, but I doubt he will. So I suggest you consider the possibility he will probably find a soft, reasonable answer more difficult to stomach. Is it not honest, true and loyal love that a self-described bohemian would find impossible to reconcile with his lifestyle choice?

          As Christians we have the most cause to appreciate the weight of the burden we left at the foot of the cross. It is because we have left it at the cross that we understand the immense weight of that burden.

          Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Musings Of An Imaginary Billionaire

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Christians in Motion

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

Communio

"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Professor Of Communication

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

altruistico

People Healing People

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Nickel Boy Graphics

Comic Strips (Some Funny, Some Serious)

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: