I was following a Twitter exchange between someone with a background in medicine/science/genetics and some random woman. The random woman was trying to prove the other person wrong with a paragraph from an unsourced “report”, which pointed out an incredibly obvious point. (That a tiny percentage of the population is born with an atypical genetic makeup)
All that to say, that the random woman decided that blocking the scientist for making science arguments was a winning plan.
I’ll say this, I’ve never seen anyone on social media or in the blog world block or delete because they were winning. It’s usually the opposite.
Cudos to people like Dana Loesch who take the most vile attacks from inclusive, tolerant progressives and choooses to respond with calm, loving, graceful comments, instead of blocking people
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Dana Loesch is awesome. I see people try to take her on via various medium and I think, "What's wrong with these people? Do they have death wishes? They're no match for her." And I've yet to see someone best her in discourse.
Another is Michelle Malkin, who posted a number of the vile and hateful attacks she's received via email and other means. As you say, these women handle very gracefully, even when they go on the attack, as they don't lower themselves to the same level of vitriol (I give everyone space to spit out some snark now and then), and I've certainly never heard them (or really, any conservative) wish death or serious illness on anyone.
I agree with both. Obianuju Ekeocha is also getting lots of hate from the left.
I think that the notion of an intelligent, strong, independent, woman with the temerity not to uncritically accept the predominant narrative about women from the left, just makes them irrationally mad.
Exhibit A, the lues and deletions have begun
I’d suggest that on the basis of the common theme throughout scripture that, as Jesus clearly stated “No one is good except God”, that ontologically we as fallen, sinful, human nature is not “good”.
Of course the fact that I haven’t made specific claims about specific people and that this new claim of yours is just as false as the claim you can’t prove, is beside the point to you. You jus need an excuse to get faux offended and start deleting.
You’ve made a claim you can’t prove and you’re going to delete my comments to protect your fragile ego.
Needed a place to post this before it gets deleted as well
But, if we look at the context, maybe the point is
That “no one is good except God alone”, and that “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” , is actually the point.
That isiah was right, that all our righteousness is like filthy rags and that the only way to “inherit eternal life”, is not because we’re good or that we do good things, but because of what God does.
I’m saying once more that ontologically humans are corrupted by sin and therefore not ontologically good.
This is now the second time I’ve answered your question, I understand that you don’t like my answer. That you mistakenly believe that my answer is a personal attack on people you know. I understand that you don’t agree with my answer.
But to keep insisting that it’s not an answer, is simply falsehood. To keep demanding that I answer more questions, when I’ve answered the one you demanded I answer is simply one more example of your inconsistent standards being applied inconsistently.
April 15, 2018 at 9:35 AM
Craig said...
If THE QUESTION is “Should those lines be taken literally”, the answer (in the absence of some compelling reason otherwise) is yes.
But it seems like THE QUESTION really should be, “How many times can there be one THE QUESTION?”.
Because at some point multiples lose their singularity.
I’m sorry, I’ve never claimed that (according to your definition of choice), that there weren’t any “good” people.
I have said that humans were created “very good”, but have suffered from what Christians refer to as “The Fall”. Since that point, scripture clearly teaches that our nature (ontology) is in rebellion against God. Hence, when Jesus makes the simple declarative statement that “,,,no one is good...”, there is absolutely no reason to presume that “no one” somehow means “some people”, or that “good” means anything but “good”.
Unfortunately you’re so obsessed with me providing “proof” ,as if the plain meaning isn’t enough, of the position taken for the past 2000 years that you’ve ignored the fact that you haven’t offered “proof” of your new and novel interpretation. I guess bullying, deleting and lying are the order of the day, not providing proof.
It’s interesting that you keep that you keep trying to imply that “my silence” communicates something nefarious. In reality, my silence is due to your deletion of my on topic comments and you pretending that it’s me being silent rather than being silenced.
Because, clearly, Jesus absolutely must have meant something other than “No one is good”, when He said “No one is good”. On what planet is the starting assumption that Jesus meant something other than the plain meaning of the words he used.
Yes, that means that by your definition there are good people in the world.
1. People who are by nature fallen, sinful, ontologically “not good”, do engage in good works “with God”.
2. Ontological
3. That we all have a fallen, sinful, nature
4. Because, unless you have some magical solution to change human nature, we’re kind of stuck with the nature we have.
But please feel free to prove me wrong.
Of course, had you not chosen to delete multiple answers to your questions, I wouldn’t be answering them once again.
But, maybe that’s the point.
And I’m tired of answering the same questions over and over again while you, choose to delete, them lie about my “silence”.
But, yes I’m sticking with the concept that you’ve chosen to focus on that definition of “good”, and with classifying people as ontologically good until you can prove your knowledge of people’s motives and attitudes.
I get that you appear to hate the concept of total depravity without actually understanding what the term means, and that you aren’t particularly interested in educating yourself about it either. It gives you such a convenient whipping boy and straw man to beat up.
Post a Comment