I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Unscrupulous Ed Brayton won't let me reply directly to his potshots

That despicable dunghill Fatheaded Ed Brayton has some rotten nerve posting blog articles attacking this blog while denying me the opportunity to respond on his blog. Two such articles on his blog are here and here. And some lousy dunghills who submit comments to this blog accuse me of arbitrary censorship of comments while seeing nothing wrong with what Fatheaded Ed does.

I do want to reply to Ed's statement, "Believing something different from Jews makes one anti-Semitic?" No, I did not mean that these Cafeteria Christians are anti-Semitic just because their beliefs are different from those of Jews (particularly fundamentalist Jews). IMO what makes these Cafeteria Christians anti-Semitic is their dishonesty -- they claim that the Old Testament is one of the foundations of their faith, they often call their faith "Judeo-Christian," and they praise the Jews as their predecessors in the Judeo-Christian faith, and then they turn around and reject the Old Testament's creation story while accepting the New Testament's gospel as literal truth, even though the creation story makes much more sense than the gospel, as I pointed out in a previous post:
.
To be interpreted literally, both the creation story and the gospel require belief in the supernatural, but the bible's creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. And the creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god (except for the fact that god had to rest after all that hard work of ordaining creation for six days) whereas the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world.

It is true that many Jews -- particularly non-orthodox Jews -- also deny that the creation story is the literal truth, but at least they don't look inconsistent by accepting the far less credible gospel at the same time.

Also, the Catholic Church went so far as to exclude anti-evolutionists from a recent Vatican-sponsored conference on evolution. And the Catholic Church's celibacy requirement for priests also represents a rejection of the Old Testament -- Genesis 2:24 says, "therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife," with no exception given for Catholic priests.
.

Labels:

12 Comments:

Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Actually, calling them "anti-Semitic" was really mostly an attention-getting device -- I don't think that they are consciously anti-Semitic. But they are definitely inconsistent.

Sunday, August 30, 2009 2:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You've accused them of being dishonest, Larry. You have claimed that because they are dishonest, they are "anti-semitic". Surely that is not rational?

And what is your distinction between being "consciously" anti-semitic and "unconsciously" anti-semitic? All you've done is accuse of them of being anti-semites on the grounds that they are lying; but now you're claiming they're not lying - they can't be if it's unconscious.

Please clarify. Or withdraw the slander.

Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:30:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> You've accused them of being dishonest, Larry. <<<<<<

Well, I am still accusing them of being dishonest.

>>>>>> You have claimed that because they are dishonest, they are "anti-semitic". <<<<<<<

Well, as I said, that was sort of an attention-getter. It was sort of tongue-in-cheek. But these Cafeteria Christians really need to rethink their positions. As I said, they have it ass-end backwards -- the creation story is actually more credible than the gospel.

Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:46:00 PM  
Blogger Paul Brown said...

"Actually, calling them "anti-Semitic" was really mostly an attention-getting device"

Well, in that same spirit, you are a fucking moron.

Now that I (presumably) have your attention, have you tried to comment at Mr Brayton's blog? Was your comment removed, censored or rejected? In what way, exactly, did Ed Brayton not let you "reply directly to his potshots"? If you actually gave us some kind of facts to back up the claims in your titles (unless, of course, this is just another "attention seeker") then maybe you wouldn't look like such a twat*.

*Sorry, just in case your attention was waning, I thought I'd better chuck that in.

Monday, August 31, 2009 4:09:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> "Actually, calling them "anti-Semitic" was really mostly an attention-getting device"

Well, in that same spirit, you are a fucking moron. <<<<<<<<

You stupid dunghill, there is nothing wrong with getting attention.

>>>>>> Now that I (presumably) have your attention <<<<<<

See? Even you do it. But you really did not need to do it here, since I always read all comments submitted to this blog.

>>>>>>> have you tried to comment at Mr Brayton's blog? Was your comment removed, censored or rejected? <<<<<<<

Yes, bozo. Comments from me or that look like they are from me are routinely removed.

Anyway, are you going to comment on the issues or are you just going to attack me personally?

Monday, August 31, 2009 5:18:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

BTW, if you bothered to read Fatheaded Ed's posts that attack me, you would see that he says that he does not allow me to post comments on his blog.

Monday, August 31, 2009 5:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You slandered them. That's legally actionable - though I suspect they won't bother as your claims and influence are utterly negligible.

In addition, you have NOT demonstrated that they are dishonest. You merely claim it. On precisely the same ground, you yourself are both dishonest AND ant-Semitic.

Monday, August 31, 2009 8:13:00 AM  
Blogger Shap said...

Wait, so non-Orthodox Jews who don't believe in creation aren't anti-Semitic? Phew! I'm off the hook!

The rest of you non-creation believing Christians need to turn yourselves in to your local government for your hate/thought crimes against the Jewish people.

Monday, August 31, 2009 10:34:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said (Monday, August 31, 2009 8:13:00 AM) --
>>>>>> You slandered them. That's legally actionable - though I suspect they won't bother as your claims and influence are utterly negligible. <<<<<<<

I wish they would sue me -- the publicity would help expose the foolishness of their cafeteria Christianity.

>>>>>>> In addition, you have NOT demonstrated that they are dishonest. You merely claim it.<<<<<<<

Wrong, bozo. They reject the Old Testament's creation story while accepting the far less credible New Testament's gospel story, though both testaments are supposed to be part of the Judeo-Christian faith. These Cafeteria Christians are not being candid about the fact that they are actually discriminating against the Old Testament, which is Jewish. This discrimination against the Old Testament gives the appearance of anti-Semitism.

>>>>>> On precisely the same ground, you yourself are both dishonest AND ant-Semitic. <<<<<<<

What in the hell is the "same ground" -- are you claiming that I have not demonstrated that I am not dishonest and not anti-Semitic? There is no way I could demonstrate those things to your satisfaction.

Monday, August 31, 2009 8:25:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Shap said,

>>>>>> Wait, so non-Orthodox Jews who don't believe in creation aren't anti-Semitic? Phew! I'm off the hook! <<<<<<<

In my original post, I explained why you are off the hook --

It is true that many Jews -- particularly non-orthodox Jews -- also deny that the creation story is the literal truth, but at least they don't look inconsistent by accepting the far less credible gospel at the same time.

So you are off the hook because you are not being inconsistent like the Cafeteria Christians.

Monday, August 31, 2009 8:52:00 PM  
Blogger Shap said...

Why is the gospel 'far less credible' than the Old Testament? Aren't you placing more importance on the Old Testament than the word of the Lord Jesus Christ? Couldn't your dismissal of the gospel be interpreted as anti-Christian?

Tuesday, September 01, 2009 10:06:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Shap said,
>>>>>> Why is the gospel 'far less credible' than the Old Testament? <<<<<<<

I am talking about the creation story of Genesis 1 & 2 in particular, not just about the Old Testament in general. The creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility (there is actually not one gospel, but four of them). For example, the creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god whereas the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world. Just take the statement, "for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall have everlasting life." An all-powerful god would not be limited to one begotten son, nor would an all-powerful god have to "give" (whatever that means) his son so that people could have everlasting life. And here is an example of unintelligibility in the gospels (John 19:10-12) --

Then said Pilate to him, Speak you not to me? know you not that I have power to crucify you, and have power to release you?

Jesus answered, You could have no power at all against me, except it were given you from above: therefore he that delivered me to you has the greater sin.

And from thereafter Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend: whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.


What is Jesus saying here? Who was it that "delivered" him to Pilate? Judas Iscariot? Caiaphus the chief priest? King Herod? And whose and what sins is Jesus talking about? And why did Jesus's statement persuade Pilate to seek his release?


>>>>>> Aren't you placing more importance on the Old Testament than the word of the Lord Jesus Christ? <<<<<<

No, I haven't done that, but you Darwinist Cafeteria-Christian goyim have placed far more importance on the Christian New Testament's gospel than on the Jewish Old Testament's creation story. That's why I call you anti-Semitic. The Old Testament is supposed to be one of the foundations of Christianity -- most Christian bibles I have seen have both the New and Old Testaments. The Darwinist Cafeteria-Christians just won't come out and candidly admit, in so many words, "we reject the Jewish New Testament's creation story while accepting the far less credible gospel stories of the Christian New Testament." If calling Darwinist Cafeteria-Christians "anti-Semitic" is what it takes to get them to examine their own contradictions, then so be it.

Tuesday, September 01, 2009 10:54:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home