User Genetic_Code brought some issues to my attention which I think may be worth remarking upon here. I regard it as being a rather unfortunate thing that I may well have lost a Reader because of a squabble I became embroiled in, and while I don't pretend that even a public apology will make sufficient amends, I would like to say a few words in humble and contrite confession.

You know, I'd very much like to just be able to address GS users by name, but I can't seem to rely on that method, because some users will be quick to report for moderation each post that mentions them in a context of disagreement. For whatever reason, it seems to be important that at least a layer of deniability be maintained...and while that drives me crazy, it's the reality that has to be dealt with. This bit about names -- someone calling me "the esoteric" and me using the term "HTML-sapience" -- is unfortunate, but also unfortunately necessary if in fact any kind of back-and-forth is going to happen.

But that's the point, isn't it? Yes, I mark myself as being in opposition to the CWU, not because I disagree with the professed Christian faith of its members, but because I disagree with its mode of witness and its anti-Incarnational Young Earth standpoint.

But it has gotten to be a bit much, hasn't it?

Now let's be clear: this isn't an issue of me wanting my opinions to be "accepted" by anyone, because in the end I am not answerable to anyone but Christ for the beliefs that I hold. If others share those beliefs, and if those beliefs are correct, then that is a good thing. But as good a thing as that would be, well...that isn't the point.

The point, good Reader, is witness.

If I'm not being as good a witness as is possible, then there's a real problem, no? Certainly, even a cursory reading of Matthew 18 suggests that this is, in fact, the case. And the fact is that, in the last few days, I haven't been a good witness.

If I have one weakness, it's that I'm a wee bit too ready to get into a scrap about these topics. I confess that I take a dim view of Protestantism, for the most part, and see the fact that there are some 30,000 extant Christian denominations as a wicked and terrible sin against the Lord. It is not fitting that the body of the bride of the Lord should be so marred and torn asunder.

At the same time, I also have little to no ability to tolerate open ignorance. I've tried in the past, but my passionate opposition to deliberate and misleading error is something I have gained by escaping from just such a manner of conducting myself in the past. I look at some of the people -- most of them probably just kids -- that I debate with here, and I see variants of myself. And I see the six years it took to claw myself out of that hole, and the damage it did to me and to others to be in that hole, and I feel compelled -- and impelled -- to speak out against it.

The thing with the "HTML-sapience" references was intended as satire, but perhaps I've carried it too far. Indeed, it would seem that my opposite number has opted to disengage, and that is good; I had been thinking of doing much the same, because to carry on otherwise would be too much of a distraction from the main topics I want to cover in the blog here.

And so, to user Genetic_Code specifically, and to other users in general, I apologize for the following things: profanity, polemicism (my use of the term "False Witness Union"), and my obsession with posting in opposition to certain members of the CWU.

I am, and have for some time been, something of a bulldog where evolutionary creationism is, and would like to continue posting blog entries on that topic. I'm under no illusions that others will adopt the viewpoint; having once been trapped in my own narrow, incorrect views, I know first-hand just what sort of intransigence will prevent the message I am attempting to bring from being heard.

But that's not the point: we aren't supposed to refrain from speaking just because we know that some people will be deaf to our message. We are supposed to speak, and let those hear who will. Because it is the profession of truth which is important, not the composition of the audience.

One final note. One thing I do not apologize for is for estabishing an informal comments policy on the blog here. Personally, I find ranking/voting features on blogs to be...well...stupid. I can't stand the feature personally. Now, in a sense, I haven't got a problem with the idea that someone might down-vote a comment they disagree with...except for the fact that past a certain threshold, Gamespot makes the comment invisible to only its moderators and the blog owner.

To me, then, the act of down-voting a comment on Gamespot smacks of censorship, of passive-aggressively attempting to silence and remove from view those opinions which one finds distasteful. That is why I have articulated an informal blog policy of "no downvoting." Up-voting is fine. Not voting at all is preferable. It's a stupid feature...why not leave it be and just drop a line instead?