(1512) Afternoon all … best start shutting up shot as it’s both been non-blogging RL busy, plus it looks like being so into the evening. Wed 11 is fairly important in my eyes as a blogger, a pundit.

 

15. We desperately need third-worlding

14. Green terrorist organisation

13. Pandemic of two

12. IYE

I’m not sure but I think the custody battle for the son is still ongoing.
https://redactedreport.substack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-amanda-ungaro

11. The classic impossible question

Christian apologists (of which I am one) are notoriously easy to tie up in non-arguments … mainly because they’re operating on a metaphysical plane with a literary interface (bible). There are many bibles too but that’s just an added complication.

There’s also the old chestnut that those books cannot be documents, cannot be history, because they differ in some fine detail. The real scholar knows that, if there had been a metaphysical communication, everyone hears aspects a bit differently … that’s what history is in the final analysis.

There’s also the interference by humans over the two millennia journey … for example Mark has almost certainly had the ending added much later but many Christians are in error in saying the pages are “unerring”. RC Sproul points out that it’s not the documents themselves which are the faith … the nature of faith in itself is the core belief (John 3:16 and elsewhere) … that this incarnated man died and arose, was reincarnated, plus faith that that was so is the entire entry ticket to heaven, if there be one.

But it is not in the least that some Essene radical rocked up out of a bad town and was, in a stroke, suddenly God. While it would take the previous millennia of humankind to build the case, referring to all ancient civilisations of the area, ancient lineages, ancient books … while it would take every last incident, agreement, war, utterance, papyrus to finally reach the Garden of Gethsemane … even if I summarised it over the course of my remaining days, the chances of me missing parts are great.

The aggressive radical atheist then asks what he thinks are gotchas, for example the simple, “Explain it to me.” Wot, have you got a few thou years to sit and listen? “Well give me the potted version, the salient points.” Wot, in my remaining time on earth, dropping the blog complex here called nourishing unherdables, ignoring my ill health, neither eating nor sleeping? Sorry, there are commitments to others, there is our mission here to nail these baddies.

You not only have to go back to the Torah and the books of all faiths of the time … simply an impossible ask within a blog format.

Then there is the second vital point … the atheist says, “There, you see, you can’t coz there is no God, you’ve given me no proof.” Actually I have, over the past quarter century … it’s just that this person never bothered with it or skimmed through … short shrift.

The exercise is a hiding to nothing. Three examples of hidings to nothing:

On Meredith Kercher, one of the Knox fanbois wrote to me with 100 “unanswered” questions. Harry Rag saw it and pointed to the places in TJMK where a dozen were very much snswered. But the Knox fanboi was not interested in that … he was only interested in taking me out of the game while I wasted my time on that already answered.

On Robert Mueller and the World Core Curriculum in schools, a troll said he’d been “through everything on Mueller” and none of my allegations about being globalist were true. Prove it. Same tactic. We had proved it … I was at the end of a chain of deep divers such as Leah and MM, that sort … thousands of pages.

DK, a well known blogger around the mid to late 2000s when I first saw him, made some comments about fake charities. I asked him where, in his writings, to find the evidence? He said simply … it’s on the blog, find it yourself. End of. And he was right to say that.

Finally, after all the words, the showmanship, the haranguing, the atheist sums up: “You have no proof.” Despite everything which had gone before in human interaction over millennia.

My reply to him is … prove there is no God. Where’s your own categorical, unassailable proof? He ends up with, “No one can know.”

Which is my basic argument … it’s a stupid argument to try to debate in the first place. This is where faith comes in. The entire thing rests on faith. Based of the evidence of ages. What evidence? Here we go again, incitcles. I’ve simply neither time nor inclination.

Going to finish with this about trolling … it does not apply only to this topic but to every bit of politics we’re dealing with out there at the moment:

This is why I advise anyone Christian never to be drawn in by softly spoken invitation. But what if they were genuinely willing to reconsider? Then he/she needs to do as we had to … the long, slow process of wide reading.