Okay, I actually don't know what point my watcher was trying to make there, but...heck, it's funny. Thongs for sale, people...get'em before they're gone! Some people just don't get a joke.

(You know, I used to think it was just militant atheists that were humourless social autists, to use Vox Day's pithy description. It would seem the scope of those afflicted by said same phenomenon is a bit wider than just the "passionately godless" category.)

Still...it's Monday morning, and I need to turn my brain on. Let's fisk.

One thing I didn't mention in my prior post. The poster keeps complaining that he is being "watched" while doing the same thing, "watching". While I could use the word, hypocrite, I won't, I'll just say it is an obvious contradiction.

Hyporcisy would be a charge that could be laid against me had I in fact, perhaps, complained about being watched. I haven't -- I have merely remarked on the phenomenon. I write something. The watcher responds with a combination of poor logic, misrepresentation of other authors, and a copious amount of selected (read: cherry-picked) Scripture verses vomited out at the good Reader in the hopes of rhetorically pumelling him or her into submission to a non-point. I respond. Someone comments. The watcher responds to the comment. I defend my commentor from the gross and undue charges that the watcher brings against him or her. The watcher responds to me again.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

And I don't mind the repetition at all; the travesty of theological reasoning is, however, another matter.

Perhaps if the poster would stop spreading unbiblical doctrine and would limit himself to selling thongs, as he does on a blog, posting amateur photography, and racially insensitive photographs, then there would be no need to correct him.

It is true that on my other blog, I am guilty of posting a daily picture of my own taking. I am also embroiled in a massive debate currently taking place in Canada over the human right of freedom of expression, which elements and offices of the Canadian government, working in close proximity to various special interest groups, are actively seeking to destroy. Part of my contribution to that debate has been to re-print, on occasion, the "Muhammed cartoons" that started that uproar in Denmark a few years back.

And yes, I do sell thong underwear (and mugs, t-shirts, teddy bears, and other stuff) from a web-store that I set up at CafePress a few years back. The label on the thongs (and other products) is "THIS MACHINE KILLS JIHADISTS" -- my contribution to a joke shared with another blogger a couple of years ago.

But so what? I also work for a company that uses "Get it up safely!" as its motto -- shall I likewise be condemned for this?

Now, as to the charge that I spread unbiblical doctrine, the watcher very confidently asserts as much...and then fails to provide examples of the charge. That's not really a refutation of his point, mind...but then, without supporting evidence, it could be argued that he has no point. I have, in the past, been more than willing (and able) to defend my views from within Scripture, and will continue to do so. If that is contrary to what is Biblical, in the watcher's view, then so be it. It is more my concern to be right with Christ than with my fellow Gamespotters, anyhow. ;)

One final point, he used two examples, aliens and the Roman Catholic Church's persecution of Galileo, twisted as usual to try and somehow undermine the point that correct doctrine comes only from God's revealed Word, not man's traditions and philosophies.

Note, O Reader, how the examples remain standing; the watcher asserts that they are twisted, but does not bother to address them.

Curious.

This just confirms, once again, that he puts his trust in man's philosophies, and his Church's traditions and philosophies, rather than the revealed Word of God in the Bible.

While I appreciate the implied QED in this statement (if only because I appreciate when people use logical fallacies against me), I must observe that the watcher a) offers no evidence in support of his charge, and that b) he is guilty of the same charge. It must be remembered that the watcher rarely can be counted on to do his own legwork -- he prefers to cite, in defence of his points, whole excerpts from other authors.

Talk about placing trust in man's philosophies!

When one does that, either because they think themselves wiser that the Lord, does not listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, or worse yet, may not be indwelt by the Holy Spirit in the first place, it is no small wonder that they will find themselves in one error after another.

I'm not sure who the watcher is addressing here; I think it is me, but it can't be, since (and I have said this many times before) I fully submit and subsume my will to that of the Spirit, to that of the Lord. Having said that, I do acknowledge that the Lord saw fit to create for me a functional brain, with a capacity for reason...and out of respect for the Lord's good work, I see no reason to abstain from the exercise of that part of me, or from the exercise of those faculties.

The watcher's mileage may vary, of course.

In what is perhaps a fitting irony, I see that the watcher's latest post pertains to the issue of interpretation of Scripture. I take this as a sign of progress, since previously the watcher had stated that "[t]he entire Bible is doctrine. It is forever settled. It is unchanging. It is God's truth." This is actually an attitude that is the death of the contept of interpretation, because interpretation necessarily shifts as our understanding of things changes. This is something I alluded to in my previous examples pertaining to Galileo and aliens. In both cases, the assumption was made that Scripture -- God's revelation -- was truthful; the question merely becomes one of by which vector the truth is being sent to us.

It is true that the Earth orbits the Sun. From Scripture, one gets the opposite sense -- the Earth is said, specifically, to be fixed and immovable, and the Sun is said to be moving. But this does not mean geocentrism is true; indeed, geocentrism is false. But we believe Scripture is true, and we believe that heliocentrism is the true way in which our solar system operates; two truths cannot contradict. Therefore, our interpretation of Scripture shifts a little bit -- we re-understand passages pertaining to the "fixedness" of the Earth and the motion of the Sun as being issues not of error, but of frame of reference.

Plainly put, the Earth doesn't feel like it moves, and the Sun very much appears to move. Within the context of the author of Scripture's understanding of the world in which he lived, it made sense to speak of things in such way; the ancient Hebrews did not have access to the sophisticated instruments which made the later discovery of the true arrangement of the solar system possible. We can understand that the author had only the knowledge of his day with which to work; the Spirit did not reveal the deeper secrets of later discoveries.

But that doesn't change the message of Scripture, which is what is important in all of this. The Earth may move through the heavens, but it is still a steady, massive chunk of rock; God is stronger still. The Sun may be fixed in its place in the heavens (relative to Earth), and the motion of the Sun may be a result of Earth's rotation, but God is still Lord and King, and all natural phenomena are His to command -- should He desire to temporarily freeze the Sun at its noonday point in the sky, it will be so, regardless of what orbits what.

As to the bit about thongs, all I can say is that when the watcher grows up, meets a nice (and probably very patient) girl, and gets married...he'll understand.