Photo by Kateryna Artamonova on

Here in this post we have a sequel to YOU WANT TO DEBATE A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT?, a response to OPPOSING EVIL by Ben Berwick, of the United Kingdom.

The debate got started when I commented on Berwick’s post, and that comment grew into a string of comments. We eventually got frustrated. I insisted Berwick stick to the topic of his post, and Berwick insisted that I defend the Tories from his attacks. The Tories are the epitome of evil, supposedly.

What crime have the Tories committed? They are trying to regulate immigration.

PM Rishi Sunak has made dealing with immigrants arriving by small boats one of his government’s top priorities. At a time when our bills are rising and Tories are getting rich off the back of poverty, is this really the electorate’s main concern? Of course not. However, the Tories (and their mates in the right-wing media) will scream and shout about immigrants, as they so often do, to avoid facing responsibility for their numerous shortcomings, and to distract people from their shortcomings.

continued => OPPOSING EVIL

Next thing I know is Berwick wrote post defending himself, WHERE I STAND… TAXATION AND WEALTH. What was he I upset about? I pointed out he is essentially a Socialist.

Because I rail against the Tories, and the culture of greed they embody so readily, I am called a socialist. I dare say that some of the people throwing this label at me A: conflate socialism with communism, B: don’t fully understand socialism, and C: are misrepresenting my argument.


Where did Berwick get the idea that I think he is a Socialist?

You are trying to use your supposedly noble ends to justify the means. So, you used a video that misrepresents both immigrants and your opposition. On top of that you argue that the only possible solution is the one you demand, and opposing your noble solution is the vilest extremism.

Even though you are using the end to justify the means, you ignore the fact that your solution risks creating more harm that it is supposed to fix. Redistribution of the wealth is essence of Socialism. Socialism never works, never has worked. When Socialism is implemented without violence, it takes more time to corrupt a government, but the ideology of Socialism will corrupt any government.

Berwick does not understand the old proverb about letting a camel’s nose under the tent. Berwick wants to invite foreigners into his country so he can use the government to take money from his fellow citizens (tax them) and spend it on those foreigners. If that is not an abuse the United Kingdom’s taxation system, what is? If redistributing the wealth of a nation so cavalierly is not Socialism, what is?

Look at our own southern border. We have millions of illegal immigrants entering our country pretending to be victims escaping persecution. Everyone knows that is a lie, that these people are just looking for better jobs, but our government still refuses to stop these illegal immigrants. Instead, our government spends thousands of taxpayer dollars on these so-called refugees. If that abuse of our taxation system is not stealing, what is?

So, if Berwick and I are just talking pass each other, what was the point of our ping pong comments and posts. If we are going to live in a free country, we must be able to have a dialogue where we can exchange our ideas and work out our differences. Berwick and I are trying to do that, but we are running into a problem in logic. Instead of examining the ideas of his opponents, Berwick is engaging in ad hominem, a logical fallacy.

Why would anyone engage in ad hominem? There is no single, simple answer, but children do it almost reflexively. When Mommie won’t give little Johnnie what he wants, what does little Johnnie say? “Mommie is a bad Mommie. Mommie does not love me.”

We should learn as children that just because we want something to be true doesn’t make it true. Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop some people from listening to leaders who make promises they cannot keep.

Other Views of the Absurd

116 thoughts on “PING PONG?

Add yours

    1. First off, thanks to Citizen Tom and Silence of the Mind for defending me in some of the comments. I appreciate it. Second, the owner of the MM website is tricky. As he stated in a comment above, he does not change the sentences and makes one a liar.

      What he does is distort what a person who disagrees with him says. Yes, he will quote exactly what you said BUT then he will change what those sentences mean to fit what he wants them to mean. Not what was actually meant.

      At that point is id fruitless to carry on a discussion. That is why most of my comments on the MM website read the way they do. it is a casting of pearls before swine because the owner of the MM website has no intention of interacting honestly or with an open mind.

      He does not want to discuss he wants to bash others and make Christianity look terrible. As for the owner of the BG website, whenever I think about his bad decision to leave the faith I get sad.

      But he is a person that let his personality dictate his Christian faith and did not let God dictate to him what he should do and learn. That makes one vulnerable to the attacks of evil. He also did not follow the scriptures correctly and is a class A narcissist, every post has to be made about him which is why he mentions he time in the ministry, where he went to school, how many sermons he has preached, and so on.

      We check their websites, and we probably shouldn’t, to see what they have written but we have no interest in having any sort of discourse with those two website owners.

      The first post under your Ping Pong Article by the owner of the BG website is a complete lie. except for one point we have already addressed in a post here. But then he will believe what he wants to as it attacks me and tries to tarnish the messages God has us post here.

      P.S. We have also explained countless times why we use the material on their websites. But that information is ignored as it doesn’t fit their narrative. Another point, we are free to use any pen name we want to use. There is no law against using one or more.

      Still having a hard time as I am logged in and it still has me submitting the password. Plus, this post ended up who knows where on your website

      1. Thanks for your comment and thank you for your thanks.

        My guess is that your latest comments went into the spam bucket because you have commented upon the websites of bloggers who don’t want to listen to opposing views. So, they have spammed your comments. Generally, I have learned not to comment upon the websites of bloggers who fashion themselves as tolerant.

        1. TA, Here is a comment from Ben Berwick, March 18, 2023, False Accusations P3; he is addressing a critic named David:

          “I thought I’d approve this comment, because it is wonderfully ironic. I wonder if ‘David’ appreciates that irony. He who abandoned his responsibilities should not lecture others on being a man.”

          So there we have Ben demonstrating that he censors comments he doesn’t like. Censoring is a form of lying and edits comments out of existence.

          I stand by my own eye witness of Ben actually changing words (editing) in some of my comments. Atheists will do anything to rig arguments so that they win because they do not have the good character or intellectual capacity to grapple with objective truth.

          1. More lies SoM. You do realise that blocking someone is NOT the same as editing comments? You have deleted comments off your site, more than once – does that make you a liar? I urge you to stop being a cowardly liar.

          2. Blocking people for unreasonable behaviour is not censorship SoM. Deleting comments, as you have done repeatedly… well, that’s another matter, but since you lack integrity, I doubt you will even address this. Practice what you preach.

          3. Ben, Your own words speak for themselves. Your words are your own confession:

            I, Ben Berwick, am a stone cold liar.

            All of Citizen Tom’s readers are witness to your confession.

            If this were your blog, you would have censored me so that no one would be able to see your confession.

          4. All that tells me is that you are committed to lying SoM. You haven’t got the decency to prove your claims, nor the integrity to retract them. You have revealed yourself not only to be a liar, but a coward too.

          5. Ben, Thank you for proving my point. In the end, all atheists argue with themselves and lose.

            My great sin is taking ruthless advantage of your stupidity.

            Believe me when I say that God holds me accountable for that. For he loves you to, and drowns you in an ocean of mercy.

          6. Thank you for failing to back up anything you have claimed. Your true sin? Dishonesty. I have challenged you to prove I edit comments, and you have failed to even attempt to do so. You then falsely equated banning people with editing comments, though you are *thoroughly* aware that the two concepts are not one and the same. If you had any honour, you’d explain why you think banning a troll is censorship (censorship would be to deny you the ability to post anything, anywhere, which is not a power I have), but you won’t explain, and we both know it.

          7. Ben, Your own words have backed me up. Yet you do not recollect because, like a child, you live in an eternal, hallucinated present.

            You recall not what you have just said, or what you have said in the past.

            And are like a parrot that continues repeating the same memorized words over and over again.

            Ben, please slink back into the fetid sewer that you call home. The stench of your self-shaming has become overpowering.

            Good bye, farewell.

          8. Ben, P a r r o t. A parrot endlessly and mindlessly repeats the same words. I entreat you again to stop shaming yourself. It blackens God’s universe of light and beauty.

          9. Unfortunately, your repeated evasions force me to repeat myself. When you stop running away from proving your claims, I won’t have to repeat myself, will I?

          10. Poor Ben, I continue to hit the nail on the head. Only in your childish, delusional mind do you see that as some sort of evasion.

            Again, I entreat you. Please stop shaming yourself. Crawl back into your atheist hole and lick your wounds.

            Citizen Tom’s blog is the light of day. However, you belong only to darkness. Begone, please.

          11. Ben, If my repeated anything forces you to repeat yourself, then you just admitted to being my slave.

            As my slave, I order to STFU, because you have become annoying.

          12. Hence you have the reason I stopped discussing anything with those two people. The fact that he could not accept the answers he was given was another reason. His latest whine and false accusation in False Accusation 3 is just another example of his inability to be an adult or a man.

          13. More evidence for his distortion and lying- “The fundamentalist is thoroughly aware of the occasions where he has lied (such as calling me transgender when I have never made such a claim,”

            I never called him a transgender but referred to a comment or post he had on one of his earlier website formats. As for who discovered who I do not remember. I have known about the owner of BG website for many years as well as the owner of the MM website and origin has been lost to time.

            What the two owners do is quote what you said, then twist everything you said into what they want you to have said. I am just tired of both of them because there is no honesty on their part.

    1. Thanks for the link and the thank you.

      I don’t know why you cannot comment on my website. The fact that your link displayed is interesting. It means you are logged in.

  1. “I don’t know much about BG.” Then perhaps you should take the time to do so before attacking my character. I’m an open book. Please ask if there’s something you want to know or need explained.

    As far as Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, is concerned, you might want to do a search on my blog for his name before throwing in with him. He is a content stealer who refuses to give proper attribution. He is also a man who abandoned his family, including an infant, refused to pay court ordered child support, and fled the United States to avoid legal accountability. He has spent most of his life as a grifter. Yet, he regularly lectures people on how they should live. Evidence? Court documents, including sworn testimony from Thiessen. You should also know that almost every post I have written about Thiessen is in response to something he said about me (or the readers of my blog).

    Be well.

    1. I suppose this was inevitable. Sigh!

      I read a post about Dr. David Tee on your website. =>
      There are accusations, but no proof. You made have proof, but it is not obvious.

      You make a point of hating Jesus. Supposedly because the Christians have created an abusive Jesus, you righteously hate Jesus. Then you happily use your time to ridicule someone to puff yourself up. That doesn’t make you superior.

      It is fairly obvious you enjoy your diatribes against Tee. I know very little about either of you. I think Tee wastes his time writing about your blog posts, and I think what you write comes from a seething anger you need to find some other way to offload.

      1. Well, you were attacking my character, what did you expect?

        Ask Tee if his real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen. If he says no, he is lying. He has used several aliases over the years: David, Tee, John Ford, David Thiessen, to name three. It is unlikely he is a “Dr.” I have evidence from his time at Bible college that his nickname was “Dr. Tee.” Believe me or not, I have evidence for every claim I’ve made. I don’t make all of it public because doing so would harm Thiessen.

        I don’t hate anyone, dude, especially a dead man who lies buried in an unknown grave near Jerusalem. It would be silly to hate someone who is dead (Jesus) or someone who is a myth (God).

        You have already built a straw man of me in your mind, so I won’t disabuse you of it. Believe what you will. I do know you will search in vain for someone who knows me that would say I’m angry, bitter, or whatever other pejorative word that is rattling around in your head. Feel free to contact my wife, children, or anyone else who knows me. Or you can keep making shit up.

        You have no idea about what I “enjoy.” Here’s the deal I’ll make with Thiessen: stop stealing my content, stop constantly writing about me (and Ben) , and I’ll never write another post in response to you. I’ll even delete every response of mine, if you will do the same.

        I have nothing more to say. I just wanted to let you know I saw your false accusations (bearing false witness). You know where to find me if you want to talk further.

        Be well.

        1. Well, you were attacking my character, what did you expect?

          Coming from you this is rich. What do you are doing to Tee?
          Read what I wrote. I condemned your conduct. I condemned your posts because they obviously stem from your own personal malice. Your conduct and words reveal your character.

          You say you have evidence. You don’t make all of it public because doing so would harm Thiessen? So, you are hanging this evidence over Tee’s head like the Sword of Damocles because you care so much? That obviously is not the case.

          You have nothing more to say. Well, your latest comment went into spam bucket. That is usually a good indicator someone is tired of hearing from you. So, I expect you always have more to say, unfortunately. But I would be happy not to hear from you again.

  2. I only ban fanatics who are deceitful SoM. You are repeating lies, which is not a good Christian trait. In different circumstances, you’d face the problem of being libellous/slanderous. My challenge to you is to provide ONE piece of evidence that I edit comments. It should be easy, if you’re honest and have integrity.

    1. You do realize that what you are demanding that SOM do is all I have asked that you do with respect to TA. Instead, you provided a couple of long, rambling blog posts, and all I could see is that you disagree with TA, and he reluctantly allowed you to post comments. I don’t think TA actually likes debating.

      1. You realise that SoM made his allegations FIRST Tom, did not substantiate them in *any way*, and so far, you have not held him those same standards you are holding me to? I provided examples, and you rejected them, but that’s on you. Why are you giving SoM a free pass?

        1. TA is not here to defend himself. You are and so is SOM. I don’t think TA would defend himself.

          Anyway, I am just asking you to do what you have asked SOM to do.

          I have not accused anyone of lying, but I am responsible for what is posted here. So, if you two cannot be more precise, I will assume neither of you can prove anything.

          1. You strongly hinted that SoM was right Tom. You’ve not pressed him to back up his claim, in any way. I am asking *you* to do with him what you have asked me to do.

            In the meantime, since you feel my examples are not enough, what would be the standard (that I presume you will hold SoM to as well) of evidence you require?

          2. I am not a judge or a jury. I can’t hold anyone accountable. All I can do is ask for evidence. So far, I don’t think either of you have provided specific evidence. Since nobody is paying me to be a private investigator, I am not going to spend a huge amount of time looking for it.

            You are perfectly capable of pressing SOM for proof. If he cannot provide it, that speaks for itself.

            My problem is that you did not leave the burden of proof on SOM. You called TA a liar. Since TA is not here, I asked you to back up your accusation. What else am I supposed to do?

            If someone calls you a liar, you demand proof. You don’t expect to be held to the same standard? Apparently not. Yet you are suggesting I am guilty of hypocrisy. 🙄

          3. The difference here Tom, is that you have accepted SoM’s claim *without* proof (I refer to your own words):

            [Quote]Berwick edited your comments? Well, thanks for the heads up.

            That is a shame that he did that. Kind of pointless. Everyone knows that the administrator of site can do that. Do that enough times and nobody will bother to visit your website.[/quote]

            Meanwhile, you allowed SoM to distract from his false accusation by focusing on my conversations with the author of Theology Archaeology. When I provided evidence of his misleading arguments, you decided that evidence wasn’t satisfactory, but I’m sticking to my guns on it. I feel it perfectly displays what needs displaying, even if it’s part of a diversionary smokescreen that SoM threw up (and that you fell for).

            So hypocrisy is right. You believe SoM, despite your own experience on my site, and despite a lack of evidence from him. You won’t even push him the way you’re pushing me. I asked you what standard of evidence would be acceptable in your eyes; it seems when it comes to SoM accusing me of something, there is no standard, you accept the accusation.

          4. Ben

            SOM believes you edited his comments. Since SOM is a friend, I take his word for granted without proof. Nevertheless, I have allowed you to defend yourself.

            Be glad I am not your judge.

            Deuteronomy 19:15-21 New American Standard Bible

            15 “A single witness shall not rise up against a person regarding any wrongdoing or any sin that he commits; on the testimony of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16 If a malicious witness rises up against a person to testify against him of wrongdoing, 17 then both people who have the dispute shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18 And the judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has testified against his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as he had planned to do to his brother. So you shall eliminate the evil from among you. 20 And the rest of the people will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. 21 So you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot.

            Instead of giving me grief, I suggest you focus your attention on SOM. He is the one who accused you. Confront your accuser.

            Consider also the one you accused. So, far you have no proof.

          5. I’ve offered proof, you rejected it, whilst holding SoM to a different standard. Hence the hypocrisy. As you are happy to employ double-standards, there can be no reasoning with you on this conversation, so I consider this conversation over. It is fortunate for you that libel/slander situations do not apply here.

          6. You offered up a couple of post. I did not see an example of where you accused TA of lying. Why is it so difficult for you to be specific?

            You are asking SOM for evidence. You are demanding specific evidence. If what you are demanding is reasonable, why can’t you abide with the same request?

  3. Tom,

    Thanks for your link.

    After reading your post and comments posted, , “ping pong” is a very appropriate description of the effect of trying to debate Christianity with an atheist is an “impenetrable game” or “hobby”instead of well spoken words description written by Solomon following verse,, in my opinion..

    “Solomon compares a timely, well-spoken word to “apples of gold in pictures of silver” (25:11). Unfortunately, our language is being butchered by a generation that is either incapable or too lazy to communicate meaningful thoughts and ideas in succinct sentences. The majority of what is spoken or written today has no lasting value and is unworthy of reiteration.”

    Regards and goodwill blogging.


  4. Ben, Here is a comment I made last October at theologyarcheology concerning your online behavior:

    “Ben’s question, “If God ordered you to kill him, would you?” only makes sense during the era of Old Testament Antiquity. Since Jesus ushered in the era of Christian modernity, such a question is nonsensical. After explaining that to Ben, he banned me from his website. Yet he repeatedly returned to mine to keep the argument going.

    I don’t think Ben is worth the bother based on his lack of character and diminutive capacity to think rationally.”

    Theologyarcheology is another WordPress blogger whom you treated just like you did me, ie, you edited his comments and banned him after he successfully refuted your arguments.

    1. Interesting. I don’t have time to investigate their behavior thoroughly, but it seems to me that BG and MM run around looking for Christians to harass. On the other hand, Theologyarcheology seems to think they provide great bad examples. So, I don’t know who discovered who. Don’t really care. As a rule, I don’t go looking for Atheists and Agnostics to debate with.

      Theologyarcheology seems to be a high value target for BG and MM. I actually found a comment on a Christian blog labeled with Theologyarcheology’s name and a link to his website, but the writing style didn’t match, and it didn’t reflect the character of Theologyarcheology’s website. I have to wonder what that was about.

      BG strikes me as a rather hateful and vindictive character. BG, in particular, will get his pants sued off if he isn’t careful. Give a man enough rope.

      Thanks again.

      1. Bruce takes a lot of flak from a lot of fundamentalists, who wish him serious harm and death on a regular basis. It’s no wonder he takes a dim view of fundamentalists.

    2. Another set of lies SoM. I do not edit comments. I don’t need to. Your arguments, and those of the author of Theology Archaeology, are not significant enough or troublesome enough for me to even *consider* editing them.

    1. I should look you up too. I see you are still active, involved and busy.

      I am in Mount Vernon, Ohio, now. Moved to where my daughters live since I need their help with my wife.

      Have not had time to get involved in local politics, but they should be quite different from Northern Virginia.

  5. My experience with Ben Berwick is that he is a bald face liar like most atheists. His arguments are so horrible that after I tore a few of them apart he would actually edit my comments to make his arguments work out for him. How mendacious is that?

    Ben Berwick is a modern day Philistine. He has no morals. I have read many of his posts and have come to the conclusion that he is a stupid fool with delusions of grandeur.

    1. Berwick edited your comments? Well, thanks for the heads up.

      That is a shame that he did that. Kind of pointless. Everyone knows that the administrator of site can do that. Do that enough times and nobody will bother to visit your website.

      1. SoM is a known bender of the truth.
        If Ben were to edit SoM’ s comments it would likely be to correct bad grammar or to remove the dribble. Now, me on the other hand …😎
        I confess to editting several of the Lion’s ( John) comments for a laugh.
        It was during the period he held all my comments in moderation then had the gall to plaster my blog with his Creationist flat earth drivel.
        So, rather than simply ban him or moderate his comments I continued to allow everything he posted but ‘tweeked’ one or two comments for the amusement of one and all.
        I made it obvious I had edited his comments as well.
        He soon got the message and stopped moderating me.
        Open dialogue, no matter how heated, is much more interesting and entertaining than having a ‘Nanny’ continually whining about how certain comments are not on topic or too abrasive or how they are doing you a favour by posting your comments.
        That type of behaviour is childish and petulant.
        If an argument/ post is worth posting then the writer should be quite capable of defending it without slapping down dissent( moderating) or banning just because it hurts his / her feelings.

        1. The arrogance SoM displays is quite astounding. He clearly believes he is such a devastating opponent that I fear him, when the truth is the exact opposite. I don’t need to edit his comments to render his arguments moot; his comments do that for me.

          1. Actually truth is simply the opposite of falsehood.
            You can find plenty of falsehood in the bible.
            Or from the mouths of many politicians, religious people and idiotic televangelists.
            In fact, you can find falsehood everywhere you look.
            Even right here on Tom’s blog!

            So, yes, I can generally recognise truth and where grey areas exist I have the intelligence and wherewithal to research and fact check.

          2. Ark

            Truth is not the opposite of falsehood. A falsehood is anything that is not the truth. That is, to know what is false, we must first know the truth.

            Here is an example. How do you a $20 dollar bill is counterfeit. The counterfeit lacks all the characteristics of a real $20 dollar bill. So, to identify the counterfeit we must know exactly what a real $20 bill looks like.

          3. Really? It is a falsehood, supposedly, that the Earth is the center of the universe. What is the truth? How is that truth the opposite of the falsehood?

            Surely, since you have read a dictionary you know the answer.

          4. You are beginnjng to sound incoherent again.

            Falsehood is an antonym of truth.
            How much more plain can this be made for you?

          5. Ark, Atheism is false since it is obvious that everything just didn’t happen all by itself. In fact, atheism is a vicious lie. So what does that make atheists?

          6. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Period.
            If you wish to assert otherwise you will have to produce evidence.
            Your call.

          7. Then perhaps you should read the entire article and see where the meaning derives from instead of trying to be br a smart alec.

    2. I think we both know you are lying there SoM. I don’t edit comments. I may not let them all through (in your case, as you are quite vile), but I don’t edit them.

        1. By all means, substantiate your claim. Tom recently made a string of comments on my site, and guess what? I didn’t change a single line. I may vehemently disagree with him, but at least he has proven himself civil, whereas you have proven yourself to be a dishonest extremist.

          1. You don’t have authority over me SoM. This isn’t your site, it’s Tom’s, so it would entirely up to him to decide if he wants our ‘discussion’ to clutter up his notifications. Besides, I don’t take orders from liars.

          2. SoM, you didn’t do anything meaningful. A vague reference to a comment left on the site of an individual who, like you, has lied repeatedly, is not proof of your claims. Can you produce screen-shots showing I edited posts? No, because it didn’t happen.

          3. As SoM made the original allegation, the onus is on him to prove it, is it not? He has thus far provided no evidence that I have edited posts, and you yourself know full-well that you can comment quite freely on my site, and you know from your own experiences that I do not edit comments, so to be frank, I am disappointed that you are lending credence to his misleading and unverifiable claims.

          4. Ben

            Here is what you said, the revelant part in bold.

            SoM, you didn’t do anything meaningful. A vague reference to a comment left on the site of an individual who, like you, has lied repeatedly, is not proof of your claims. Can you produce screen-shots showing I edited posts? No, because it didn’t happen.

            We know full well that you are familiar the Theologyarcheology website. You just accused the man who runs it of lying. That gentleman has plenty of posts about you and BG. So, if that man is a liar you should be able to easily prove it.

          5. Tom, with respect, you are being obtuse. SoM made an accusation, without basis and without evidence. He is effectively using your site as a platform for his lies, which is not appreciated. He has spun a yarn, adding into the element of Theology Archaeology, and that is your focus, instead of SoM’s claims?

            Since you don’t seem willing to address his claims, nor the *fact* that comments of yours have been posted without edit, and instead expect me to jump through hoops about a distraction SoM dragged in, I have no choice but to address the matter. I hope you will acknowledge that SoM has not substantiated his allegations, and I hope you will factor in that, as you know, I have not edited any of your comments.


            The above is a discussion (be warned, it’s very long) with the author of Theology Archaeology on the subject of faith healing. Within the post, he repeatedly (and in my view deliberately) misrepresents facts on medical practices *and* on faith healing, going to some very extreme lengths to defend his arguments, and tying himself in knots in the process.


            More of the same, this time concerning the application of science, as well as a claim made, without verification or basis, that I am transgender (not that it would matter if I were, but it was a deliberately inaccurate claim on his part0.

            I can provide more if you like.

          6. Um, in terms of a WordPress link, all I can offer is the link to my personal site, which is linked to WordPress, but operated separately?

          7. Ben

            TA disagreed with you, but I don’t see where he lied.

            My cursory reading of your first article on faith healing is that TA was annoyed. You insisting on arguing when it was not necessary.

            Most Christians use “faith healing” in addition to seeing doctors. It is not an either-or proposition. Christian Scientists tend to avoid doctors and prefer to rely on “spiritual healing.”

            Does spiritual healing work? I know people who say it worked for them. The subject is outside the realm of science.

            The second article seems to be an effort to portray TA as anti-science. There is a difference between how we apply science and science. Some people justify their actions as “following the science.” We saw a lot of that during the COVID scare. Others continue using costly and sometimes painful medical treatments well beyond the point they are expected to be profitable.

          8. I think I am experiencing the same annoyance. Instead of arguing your case, you are vilifying your opponent.

            No two people will agree about everything. So, once we decide that people who disagree with “me” are bad, we can become certain that “I” am the only perfectly good person there is.

          9. When it comes to annoyance, having one’s character maligned is quite annoying, isn’t it Tom? SoM made claims, hasn’t had the decency to verify them or retract them, and you’ve seen fit to let that slide. I don’t edit comments Tom. I don’t need to. Your own experience with leaving comments on my site should inform you of that, yet you haven’t even acknowledged that. Instead, it seems you don’t mind vilification when it suits.

          10. If you were more reluctant to avoid maligning the character of others, I suspect others would be more reluctant to malign your character.

          11. I dare say you have it backwards Tom. I note you have no reservations about permitting SoM to besmirch me, despite his lack of evidence, yet you expect me to jump through hoops for you, and when I provide evidence, you reject it! Why the double-standard here Tom? Surely it’s reasonable to expect to SoM to prove his claims I edit comments? Or are you content to operate with moving goalposts?

          12. Ben, I have not besmirched you. You have besmirched yourself with your vile behavior and your refusal to take responsibility for it. I simply reported the facts of your conduct.

          13. I expect you to jump through hoops? Your method of argument is to constantly force your opponent onto defense. Even when you are advocating open borders, you don’t actually defend the idea. Instead, you shame your opponent for daring to oppose the idea. And you are doing the same thing now.

            SOM made an accusation, You were almost immediately aware of it. SOM provided evidence. You called TA a liar. I just asked you to explain, and it is fairly obvious you know TA did not lie. Otherwise, you would happily back up your charges.

            Am I partisan? SOM and I have been frequenting each other’s and other websites for years. He can be a hothead, but I have not known him to lie. You I don’t know as well.

            Be careful of the company you keep. I don’t know much about BG, but what I have seen is not good.

            Many in our news media tries to destroy people using innuendo, and some bloggers copy their techniques. That is an insidious form of lying that works like gossip. What BG writes looks like that sort of deceit.

            I don’t blog to personally destroy people, and you don’t want to go there.

          14. SoM provided no evidence Tom, and I am greatly disappointed that you have failed to acknowledge that, and even go as far as to validate his claim, despite how, as you are fully aware, your comments meet no editing, no reservation of any kind, on my site. I backed up my claims RE Theology Archaeology, despite this being a derailment by SoM (that you allowed yourself to be manipulated by), whilst at the same time, you did not require SoM to back up his dishonest claims RE my editing of comments.

            Since you are comfortable with a double-standard, and shifting standards of evidence depending upon who you are dealing with, it is clear I cannot trust you. There is a term for your behaviour, and that term is hypocrisy.

          15. Ben, If me calling you out on your censorship and editing of comments and banning people who successfully refute your arguments, causes you to act honestly and with good character, then this discussion served its purpose.

          16. You haven’t successfully refuted anything SoM, and banning is not the same as editing comments. If you cannot behave in a reasonable fashion (and your dishonest claims of editing are but one example), why should you be permitted the freedom to comment on my site? You are not trustworthy, and have thus proven your lack of character. That’s why you’re banned. Practice what you preach.

          17. Ben, If the results of our conversation are that you stop banning people who successfully refute your arguments and you stop editing and censoring comments, then this conversation was a success.

          18. Ben, Here is a something your told me last October 9, 2022: “With that in mind, I would ask, ‘your place or mine?’, in terms of furthering this conversation (unless of course, SoM has changed their mind).”

            Looks like you changed your mind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑


A site for the Glory of God

"From The Heart of A Shepherd" by Pastor Travis D. Smith

Daily Devotional Meditations and a Biblical Perspective on Current Events

Meerkat Musings

There's a Meerkat in all of us

Sillyfrog's Blog

"Once a pond a time..."

TOWER AND FLIGHTS (An AmericaOnCoffee Blog)

In The Beginning Man Tried Ascending To Heaven via The Tower Of Babel. Now He Tries To Elevate His Existence To A Heavenly State of Consciousness Thru The Use Of Hallucinogenic Drugs. And, Since The 20th Century, He Continually Voyages Into Outer Space Using Spacecrafts. Prayer Thru Christ Is The Only Way To Reach Heaven.

Christ in You

... Life and Love in Jesus

Mark 1:1

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; (NIV)

Jill Domschot

Joy in the Southwest


Here are some of the things I have learned from studying the Bible

BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

Insightful Geopolitics

Impartial Informative Always

Libertas and Latte

Ramblings of a Disgruntled Patriot and Coffee Slave

A Blog About Healing From PTSD

Healing After Narcissistic Abuse & Multiple Traumas

Blue Skies and Green Pastures

All about Jesus, Peace, Love, and Running


From A Garden To A City - The Prophetic Journey

Philosophy is all about being curious, asking basic questions. And it can be fun!

Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

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.

John Branyan

the funny thing about the truth

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Mount Vernon, Ohio.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Mount Vernon, Ohio.

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

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

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

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: