No link pong for you

Link pong, the oriental game of diversion and chase that is relied upon by the masses on the interdweebs, is a game I am not fond of. ‘See it says here. See it says there. I have proof here. Your proof is not there.’ On and on and on the pong ball pings.

Image result for wimpy and popeye

Recently, there was a post written that ‘proved’ the Exodus of scripture never occurred. Ugh, ouch, and yikes. And of course, link pong was relied upon to ‘prove’ the point. Double yikes, and in the words of Popeye: Well blow me down, Olivsk.

Quite wimpy to be sure, to succumb to the opinions of so-called scholars and pseudo-archaeologists who have cough cough…..said: No Exodus for you!  Yep, this link says so. That link says so. Look at these links. This guy is smart and he knows. That guy is even smarter and he says it never happened. Blah, blah, blah, annnnd…… blah.

Yeah, like God’s eternal word is threatened by a group of disgruntled bible scholars, cave diggers, and atheists, who do not know the difference between Genesis and revolution. But are all links to be shunned? Of course not as there is much to be had via people with good intentions. But ah, there is the rub.

When the element of nefariousness is brought in, and the snares of ‘learning’ are called to witness against the truth of history and scripture, then yeah, Houston we have a problem.

To show the utter absurdity of the cat and mouse game of pong, where the ‘next’ link is supposedly better than the last, take a look see at this observation by a learned man who says the Exodus DID occur.  A Jew mind you, who has called on the carpet other ‘respected’ Jews  for coming up short as to the Exodus. This man of letters said not only did the Exodus occur, but has smitten the likes of Wolpe and Sperling by saying this:

‘After reading those articles, your readers may have concluded that scholarship shows that the Exodus is fictional, when, in fact, that is not so. There is archaeological evidence and especially textual evidence for the Exodus.’

Ouch Mr Wolpe, for your own brother has pretty much called you a liar, and by so doing, has smitten your ‘credibility.’ And oh how they who worship such ‘scholarship’ must want to run and hide under a rock. Are you paying attention Mr. and Mrs atheist?

So the game of pong continues, but me? Uh, the scriptures are enough, and the opposing sides can fight it out till the day of their death. In the meantime, God’s word is the anvil that dismisses and smites every false blow of unbelief and the absolute arrogance of men who shake their fist at the impeccable testimony of scripture which testifies to the utter truth of the living God.

But to those of you who are interested, take a look at the link below, and see how one believing ‘scholar’ dismantles another unbelieving ‘scholar,’ by simply history, reason, and attention to detail.  Even though this supports the biblical narrative of the life and times of Moses, as well as the testimony of Christ Himself, still, I have no interest in link pong, even though Friedman’s work confirms the truth of the Exodus.

If people do not believe the reliability of scripture as it is written, then a thousand links will serve no help either. SMASH! Game over. 21-nil.  One need not be Oriental to win at pong, as God’s word has a perfect winning record.

 

http://www.reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction

https://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/the-anvil-of-time/

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Unbelief (ahem: atheism) and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to No link pong for you

  1. Wally Fry says:

    Well of course your link will be said to not being from a reputable scholar. Don’t ya know if one believes then one is by default not reputable. Isn’t that how it works?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Nan says:

    … but me? Uh, the scriptures are enough

    Then why, CS, did you post a remark by a “learned Jew”, plus links to two other locations? To dismiss any reference to outside sources for validation of one’s belief/viewpoint and turn around and post two links yourself seems rather hypocritical.

    When push comes to shove, anyone can “prove” anything … at least to their own satisfaction. Whether another person finds/accepts any “truth” in the reference source is a totally different matter.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Tkx nan for this, and how have you been? The ‘link’ I included was a direct reference to the ‘learned Jew,’ Friedman. It was simply to point out the battles that exist between the notion that no Jews of mettle possibly believe there was an Exodus…..

      And the second was yep, to a page of my own, which delineates the essence of the post itself: the anvil of the word of God itself as being sufficient.

      Link pong. Get it? No hypocrisy whatsoever, as the point was clearly made.

      Like

      • Nan says:

        I’ve been good, thanks for asking. 😉

        The point I was making is you seem to feel “link pong” is, shall we say, dishonest in that it is used merely to “make a point” by referencing the opinions of so-called scholars. But then you turn around and do the same. It doesn’t matter what your reasons were for doing so, it’s still “pot calling the kettle black.”

        And Wally is wrong. Believers are not wrong by default. At least in my book. BUT … I do feel they have been led astray by years of indoctrination and teachings that have no relationship to reality.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          Surely you are aware nan that ‘links’ have been used by atheist bloggers to support the notion that ‘Jews of intellectual regard’ dismiss the Exodus as fictional.

          I ‘linked’ to show that not ALL support that view, and do so with their own view of scholarship.

          And of course, the ‘pong’ could go on forever from both sides, with endless argument. I needed that ‘link’ for context, and as I pointed out, I have no interest in playing that game, as the scriptures are clear enough, which I also presented on my own page, again, for context.

          (Now if I was to continue this convo with you, and provide link after link after link, then yes I would be a hypocrite.

          I think others would agree with my assessment.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Hi Nan always a pleasure. Actually I am not wrong. In most debates with your comrades being a believer is automatic disqualification as a scholar

          Your assertion that all believers have been subject to years of indoctrination? Well that would simply be false

          Liked by 1 person

        • Nan says:

          Wally … please read more carefully. I wrote … “I do feel …” Notice the use of the first person? I did not make a blanket statement. Nor did I make an “assertion” — as you did: Well, that would simply be false.

          See? That’s the problem when believers and non-believers try to converse on the internet. They both tend to read more into the other person’s statement than is often really there. And then the fight is on …

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Oh so saying you only feel that way isn’t an assertion

          And yes that was a blanket statement. You did not some,or many,or even most. You said believers

          Any way I stand corrected. Your feeling that believers have been subject to years of indoctrination is incorrect.

          If you didn’t mean believers in general then I also stand corrected

          Like

        • Nan says:

          This is getting rather ridiculous and certainly away from CS’s original topic, but one more time.

          Using the first person is an opinion (personal belief), not an assertion (a declaration). Yes, it was a blanket statement, but again … it was my opinion. And thus, it makes no difference whether I qualified how many believers.

          This is something that seems to happen frequently across blog-land. One person writes something that feels offensive to the reader so that person immediately “reacts.” And, like I said, the fight is on. I try very hard to qualify my statements unless I have facts, figures, and research to back me up.

          Now back (I hope) to the regularly scheduled program …

          Liked by 1 person

        • Wally Fry says:

          Good idea let’s do get back to it and talk about the fact that any scholar who is also a believer is rejected out of hand as unqualified. Perhaps not by you but certainly by most.

          Better?

          Liked by 2 people

  3. Ha! Well said. Internet culture is something else isn’t it? Ping pong, linky wars, woohoo, now I am king of the intertoobz! I win! It can be rather comical sometimes. My favorite is when the color coded flow charts and venn diagrams come out. Sooo Sciency! And maths! Maths is hard, so you must be right.

    Meanwhile, one must praise God for His steadfast patience and tolerance. I hope we at least amuse Him and provide some entertainment value. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    • ColorStorm says:

      Linky wars? Too funny.

      Maths is hard? You’re killing me ib. But yep, good thing God is patient, and that He has not blown up the internet………. 😉 which btw, has become a god of sorts if you think about it.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. When man decided that he was the center of his universe…. when he, in his lofty pursuits of the apparent tangible and observational, decided to remove the divine, the miraculous, the other than, out of his world—he closed the door on God….as we continue to spiral further away—yet God remains, despite mans departure.
    And He will judge both living and dead….

    Liked by 2 people

    • ColorStorm says:

      And this is why these blogs are important, so we may clarify ourselves, and affirm what we believe.

      It is true though, as the shadow suggests, there is always so much more if we would but pay attention. Like you say, if there is tangible, there is certainly intangible. 😉

      Liked by 2 people

  5. One thing that the Christian , Judaeo/ Christian nay saying blogs must understand is that our blogs, our thoughts- those written and expressed by Believers– are just as entitled to being expressed, written, shared and even read as their own — just because I am a Believer does not equate me with being unintelligent or “less than” as they often imply or smugly flat out state– it is a shame that the atheists and non believers feel as if they should have the final say as to wether or not a Christian, Jew or believer in God Almighty is worthy enough to dare hold as well as express their beliefs and faith– let alone joining in on the blog world.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Yep, somehow it is not Madisonaveny enough or Cosmopolitan to equate ‘intelligence’ with being a believer, yet I would say that a mind absent God, is a bit of absentmindedness, and misses out on utilizing the brain to its intended usage.

      But the post here shows the friction among Jews who read the same book. Some read with God’s help, others do not, and therein lies the difference.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. john zande says:

    >Those archaeologists’ claims that the Exodus never happened are not based on evidence, but largely on its absence.

    Ahhh, the old absence of evidence trope. There are mountains of evidence, and it tells a completely alternative history.

    So are you suggesting that a smaller group may have left Egypt? And if so, who might they have been?

    Yes.

    Ah, so the bible is false. The claims made in the bible are a lie.

    That’s interesting…

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Did you miss the greater point jz that link pong can be played to prove anything?

      I am not impressed that your hero friends Wolpe and friends were leveled by Friedman; the scriptures do that easily enough.

      As to the number, why should it matter to you when you say the Exodus did not occur regardless.

      The greater point is there are far more than you think who believe through their findings, that yes there was an Exodus, even among the Jews.

      Like

      • john zande says:

        So, you admit the bible is false. It lies.

        As you are conceding the bible is false, can you please let me know what method you use to determine which parts are actually “true”

        I look forward to reading your answer.

        And no John, the consensus position is that there was no Exodus. Freidman (a theologian) has offered no tangible evidence to support his wish. The evidence, and yes there is plenty of it, paints an entirely different story. Freidman’s “evidence” is the bible itself. Great circular reasoning there. He offers nothing external, nothing real, so it appears you’ve gone and made a complete mess of this little post of yours. Sorry, but wishful thinking doesn’t quite cut it in the adult world.

        And for your information, John, the Reform Movement (its official position) rejects vast sweeps of the Bible as simple mythology, welcomed deistic priests, and even conducts some services which make no mention of a god whatsoever. Don’t forget, I know this stuff. Look it up, if you want…

        But more importantly, i’m interested to hear your answer to my question above. As you are conceding the bible is false, can you please let me know what method you use to determine which parts are actually “true”?

        You obviously have a method or else you wouldn’t have posted this article, so could you let me know what it is, please?

        Thanks.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Don’t put words in my mouth zande. I NEVER said the bible is false. I simply pointed out that MANY Jews believe the Exodus occurred, a quite inconvenient truth to you, since your IDOLS are the ‘scholars’ ahem, Jews, who say it did not occur.

          Let me repeat: Freidman demolished your heroes by saying the Exodus IS NOT FICTION, or can’t you read?

          It is not a matter of interpretation, but of facts, which Freidman has obviously correct. As to his liberal views on other things, so what, many ‘believers’ serve your purpose too in this regard, by ‘believing’ what parts are convenient, and denying the rest.

          Don’t think for one second you have somehow managed to score a ‘victory.’ In your delusions maybe.

          Like

        • john zande says:

          Let me repeat: Freidman demolished your heroes by saying the Exodus IS NOT FICTION, or can’t you read?

          I can. Evidently, you can’t. Freidman doesn’t present any tangible evidence, he merely cites bible passages to re-cast the story as somehting completely different to what was written.

          In other words, he’s just making up another storyline.

          Freidman is, however, saying the bible is false. He is saying the Exodus narrative (in the bible) is a lie. He’s saying it’s FICTION

          You, apparently, agree.

          Why else would you post his thoughts?

          So, by you presenting his thoughts as somehow “authoritive” you are agreeing with his conclusion: that the bible is false.

          So, John, please let me know what your method is for picking the lies from the truth.

          I really like to hear what this method of yours is.

          Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          John john john, yep, three sighs.

          The Lord himself chastised the Pharisees for their INTERPRETATION of scripture. They believed the parts which were convenient to them.

          Perhaps you never heard of the Sadducees either? They both claimed insight into scripture (cough cough Friedman and Wolpe) while writing their own narrative.

          All of a sudden the Jewish scholars who disagree with you have zero credibility. At least Friedman has the courage to agree with God that yes, an exodus occurred. Stop your childish antics already.

          —Link pong, the oriental game of diversion and chase that is relied upon by the masses on the interdweebs, is a game I am not fond of. ‘See it says here. See it says there. I have proof here. Your proof is not there.’ On and on and on the pong ball pings.—

          Game. Set. Match. God’s word has never lost.

          Like

        • john zande says:

          Friedman is saying the Exodus narrative is FICTION

          (CS SEZ: Since you misrepresent him here, you will be slapped here. ZANDE. STOP IT. DO NOT ATTRIBUTE YOUR ILLUSIONS TO FRIEDMAN OR MYSELF. He says the Exodus occurred, that it is NOT FICTION, much to your chagrin. Now as to the amount of people who left Egypt, he differs, but he says it happened. And he says it HERE:)

          ———–After reading those articles, your readers may have concluded that scholarship shows that the Exodus is fictional, when, in fact, that is not so. There is archaeological evidence and especially textual evidence for the Exodus.———-(Friedman)

          What he is proposing (without evidence to support his idea) an entirely different story… a story which also rules out the entire Conquest narrative.

          And to repeat, he has nothing to actually back this idea up, just other bible passages. That, John, is circular reasoning.

          That being said, by posting his thoughts you are conceding the bible is false.

          You posted his thoughts, so own them.

          Now, as you believe Friedman when he says the narrative is FICTION, I’d like to hear your method for determining which other parts of the bible are true.

          I look forward to your answer…

          And do please stop censoring my comments. You said you were not a hypocrite, so stop acting like one.

          Like

  7. dawnlizjones says:

    I read several sources years ago about the Jesus debate of the 80s and 90’s. One of the things I realized is that letters behind the name does not indicated keepers of truth or wisdom. I feel there is a definite place for intellectually trained men and women of God in the academic/philosophical arena as there are lost souls there in need of God’s salvation also (Paul debated in his time). But your idea of link pong is certainly a valid one in that it can be used to tie up time and effort unless someone is a truth-seeker.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. archaeopteryx1 says:

    If you’re going to quote Friedman, CS, then quote him completely:

    Present scholarship on the question of who wrote the Bible bolsters this picture that the Levites were the group who departed Egypt. The Five Books of Moses were not written by Moses but by authors of four main texts, known as J, E, P, and D. Three of the four texts—E, P, and D—are traced to authors who were Levite priests, and these three are the only ones telling the story of Moses, Pharaoh, and the plagues. The fourth main source, called J, the one that shows no signs of having been written by a Levite priest, makes no mention of the plagues. It just jumps from Moses’ saying “Let my people go” to the story of the event at the sea.

    (CS SEZ Yeah, let’s cite him exactly, and put this quote right HERE, so you can be embarrassed at your attempt to discredit my post: The believers who you call fools are proven rather sane by this man; a Jewish scholar, who says there WAS an Exodus.)

    After reading those articles, your readers may have concluded that scholarship shows that the Exodus is fictional, when, in fact, that is not so. There is archaeological evidence and especially textual evidence for the Exodus.

    I respect Professor Sperling and Rabbi Wolpe. They were understandably following the claims of some of our archaeologists. Those archaeologists’ claims that the Exodus never happened are not based on evidence, but largely on its absence. They assert that we’ve combed the Sinai and not found any evidence of the mass of millions of people whom the Bible says were there for 40 years. That assertion is just not true. There have not been many major excavations in the Sinai, and we most certainly have not combed it. Moreover, uncovering objects buried 3,200 years ago is a daunting endeavor. An Israeli colleague laughingly told me that a vehicle that had been lost in the 1973 Yom Kippur War was recently uncovered under 16 meters—that’s 52 feet—of sand. Fifty-two feet in 40 years!

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Why do you care? Do you not understand the point of this post that Friedman leveled Wolpe’s premise that there was no Exodus, and that Friedman is a Jew?

      It doesn’t fit the template now does it, that there are actually Jewish people who believe at least some parts of scripture, as opposed to you who believe none of it.

      The word for the day: link pong. I do not play it.

      Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Hey Pete:
      It must be hell for you to read of Jews who believe the Exodus happened eh? My goal?

      To point it out, and to say without compromise that a thousand links will add nothing or take away from the truth of scripture.

      Rather simple.

      Like

  9. ColorStorm says:

    I hear water dripping………………

    It is quite amusing to watch you dance around the fact that there are ‘scholars’ of many opinions who argue that the exodus did/did not occur. This must be painful for you.

    You can enjoy this argument, I am merely pointing it out. I do not care one whit that the article comes up short with an opinion that the ‘numbers’ are hard to prove.

    Some Jews believe in angels, some do not believe in the resurrection. Some believe there was a tower in Babel, some do not.

    Some believe Daniel spent the night in the den, others say there were no lions. Some believe the man from Nazareth was the Messiah, some do not. The disagreements are ageless.

    As for me? Scripture interprets itself and is clear as a bell. Like it or not, believe it or not, there was an Exodus, and God’s word is just as good today.

    Your endless comments and doubtful reasonings (as this post suggests) cannot change the truth of history.

    Liked by 1 person

    • john zande says:

      Your “scholar” is saying the Exodus narrative (and Conquest) are FICTION.

      You’ve really shot yourself in the head here, John.

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Oh johnz
        You read with blinders on, and this comment of yours is yet proof again of the dazzling title of this post: No link pong for you….
        He says IT DID occur, the Exodus that is. As to the interpretation of the details……you can argue with your own brothers.

        I know it must be painful to face for you, but like the Pharisees of old, when trapped with their own arguments, they slipped away quietly into the night.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. john zande says:

    Yes or no: is Friedman saying the Exodus narrative in the bible is true?

    Yes or no…

    It’s a really simple question. Please answer it without a song and dance…

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Interesting. Ah, yes, I’ll answer here too, but add more.

      Here we have a man who believes parts of scripture (him) , here we have a man who believes none of scripture (you), and here we have a man who believes all of scripture (me), and you wonder why I do not play link pong; but I give him credit for at least recognizing the account of the Exodus. But really, you should contact him to further answer your questions. I’m simply relaying information, useful yes, but ultimately boring because of endless pongs.

      Liked by 1 person

      • john zande says:

        Yes or no… Does Freidman say the Exodus narrative as detailed in the bible is true?

        yes or no?

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          I referred you to the man’s own words. Apparently they are not good enough to you.

          Ping. Pong. Over and back, back and forth. And the scriptural account is unmoved and stands tall.

          I read the article. You read the article. The answer is plain enough. But your real gripe should be with Friedman and not myself, as he at least believes some of the scriptures. So like the learned ones of old eh.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          The big, bad puddy tat seems to have gotten tongue-tied, John – he posted that link to show us that even an atheist like Richard Friedman believes the exodus occurred. but he didn’t bother to read the fine print – that Friedman stated that if an exodus occurred, it would have HAD to have been much smaller than described in the Bible, and further, he supported the Documentary Hypothesis, as do most learned, educated people, and agrees that Moses did not write the Torah – both statements point to a VERY errant Bible.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Even a liberal Jew is allowed to be half right. Now go away where spiritual pornography is applauded, because it is not welcome here.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          spiritual pornography

          Interestingly, I’ve never heard of that phrase – definition, please –?

          Like

        • Peter says:

          “Even a liberal Jew is allowed to be half right.”

          Ah yes, but which half is the issue.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Sorry pete-

          The passover, the sprinkling of the blood, and of course the ultimate Lamb of God…………….COVERS all the treachery and unbelief of sinful and arrogant man, say what you will.

          Convenient eh, to try to do away with history, and by so doing, place Christ on a shelf hoping He were but a trinket. Nice try, but no can do.

          The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

          Perhaps you have heard of the new song too?

          —And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.—

          His ways are are just and true……….ours, eh, not so much.

          Liked by 1 person

  11. xPraetorius says:

    Love it, CS! Great post!

    As I think you’re aware, I recently got into a back-and-forth with Zande and Allallt at Allallt’s place. Zande did the same thing: posed the same nonsensical, meaningless question over and over and over and over and over again. I must have answered it twelve different ways, but he shares that same characteristic as have most 11-year olds: He hits upon a theme, or a notion, or an idea that, he thinks, Proves Something Conclusively, and then can’t envision the possibility that there might be other ways of thinking about it.

    For example: I think it was Zande (but it might have been the equally sophomoric Arkenatan) who questioned the flood. Whoever it was said something to the effect that there was no evidence elsewhere in the world that there had ever been such an all-encompassing flood. I posed the question: “But what do you know about the what ‘the whole world’ meant at the time of the flood?” I then suggested that for Noah to have been aware of a “worldwide flood,” the flood itself would have had to cover only a very small bit of the planet’s surface area. I elaborated a bit more, and even gave an example. No response.

    The great, big “Oops! Hadn’t thought of that angle before!” apparently never happened for them, or they had to ignore it because they had no response for it. The point was that it was not a particularly deep question, and certainly one that scholars of the New and Old Testaments — which Zande seems to consider himself to be — must have heard before. If they’d heard it before, then surely they had a response for it. But, nothing. No response at all; just the same old, tiresome Zande tactic of saying, “Are you going to answer my question? Do you believe that blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ?”

    Back to your premise. I spent a LOT of time saying that I was not going to play “dueling links.” You called it — perfectly! — “link pong.” Zande, Allallt and Ark were perfectly unable to get their heads around the very simple concept that I could find thousands of links that would support my views, and they could find a similar number to support their views, so the entire method of buttressing one’s views with links was ridiculous. I even told them that I’d do it, and then predicted that they would immediately tell me that my source was not legitimate, and so on. It then came to pass exactly as I had predicted. The funny thing: I had researched one of their links and found that it actually supported my own contentions! They — Allallt and Zande — immediately set about to discredit their own link in the very next post!

    That’s the abysmal level of discourse that Zande uses.

    Best,

    — x

    Liked by 1 person

    • Peter says:

      So if the flood was only local why was an Ark needed? Surely the animals could have just moved to higher ground. Likewise if the flood was local how did it eradicate all humanity apart from those on the Ark?

      A local flood makes nonsense of the story.

      Like

      • xPraetorius says:

        Nonsense, Peter! 🙂

        Again, if humanity was only stretched over a very limited space at that time, then the net effect of such a flood would have been, as far as anyone then living was concerned, worldwide.

        Next: you can’t possibly envision a flood that would overtake all animals before they could take to “higher ground? Really?

        Lastly — the simplest explanation of all: God could simply have made it happen exactly as described in the Bible. Easily. Part of this is faith, Peter. All of everyone’s belief systems consists of various non-zero levels of evidence, reasoning and analysis, and … faith.

        I’m amazed at the people who think that the Creator of a universe containing quintillions upon quintillions of cubic parsecs of space and matter, all wrapped up in a space-time framework that continues to defy explanation or description, couldn’t make an eentsie-weentsie flood that would send one tiny planet’s animals scurrying to an ark. Heck, He could have just told them to go.

        Seriously! You people running around looking for scratches in the ground, and — not finding them on a planet as volatile as this one — then sneering that it proves that something didn’t happen are … kinda funny.

        Best,

        — x

        Liked by 1 person

    • Arkenaten says:

      Amazing! A (******************) Creationist tries to present a rational argument for its beliefs..
      I wonder, did your problems start because you weren’t breast fed as a child, or were you simply dropped on your head? Maybe it was some later guilt-trip because of drugs or pornography or alcohol?

      (CS sez: Of course I removed the offending not so colorful language which will never be given a place of refuge; and the insult is just as obvious without it. But if the remark was made while under the influence of the bottle, perhaps it may be excused; still not welcome, but understandable.)

      Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      -xp

      I do agree as it gets so old, quickly.

      And it’s not that there is any shortage of ‘links’ to support this or that, but more importantly, to engage the link pongers, may give the impression that there is legitamacy in godless arguments, which of course there is none. As if the Athenians brought ‘new things to the table of conversation.’ Uh no, superstition thrives in any age, and scripture meets and exceeds all lame gripes. And as far as I can tell, apes still cannot tie their shoes, throw a knuckle ball, nor read Latin!

      Didn’t someone say there is no new thing under the sun……….

      Like

      • xPraetorius says:

        Colorstorm said: “to engage the link pongers, may give the impression that there is legitamacy in godless arguments, which of course there is none.”

        Good point, CS!

        That brings out another important point: on the field of purely deductive reasoning, — just thinking about things — arguments in support of belief in God win, quite easily, every time.

        What does that mean? Well, one conclusion seems evident: the atheists and the secular humanists are completely dependent on the thinking of others. They seem to be inexorably drawn to outside validation, without which they’re completely lost at sea. Hard to conclude other than that they lack any actual thinking of their own.

        Look at Ark and Zande and others who insist that you engage in link pong with them. Why do they do that? Easy: that’s where they’re most comfortable. We believers and Conservatives in the increasingly militantly secular West, don’t have the luxury of a “most comfortable place.” We have only “the least uncomfortable place.” Hence, we’re just as comfortable in arguments using pure reasoning, as we are when using sources and links.

        The problem is, of course, that you can never get to the end of an argument with sources and links.

        It should be noted that, in America at least, the secular left, and especially the militantly secular left, is gigantically, massively guilty of confirmation bias, the tendency to consume intellectual fodder that exclusively supports their own point-of-view.

        These are the people who constantly accuse me and like-minded people of being “FOX News watchers.” It’s a sneering, jeering accusation, that’s supposed to mean: “We believe FOX News to be a non-credible source of information, and you consume its product, so you’re non-credible.” However the accusation really means, among other things: they don’t watch FOX News.

        We on the right are immune to confirmation bias, because, quite simply, we have no choice. I do consume Conservative and Faith-based thought, and I do watch FOX News, but I live in Connecticut, which I’ve described as a 24/7/365 warm bath of left-wing spittle. And, I watch and listen to Public Television and National Public Radio. If you do a search on my blog, you’ll find that we do a regular feature called “NPR Watch.” We’ve done hundreds of such features, proving conclusively that my writers and I aggressively seek out other thoughts, beliefs and opinions.

        However, like you, CS, I don’t play link pong with people at my blog. Interestingly, that completely scared away the ones who can’t think for themselves, like Arkenatan, Zande and Allallt.

        Best,

        — x

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          @-xp

          —-Hence, we’re just as comfortable in arguments using pure reasoning, as we are when using sources and links.—- Sez you. Strong as iron, and tkx for this.

          Indeed, we need not be represented by ‘others’ to prove one plus one equals two. Truth is like that.

          But that game is far too weary for my taste. 😉

          Like

        • xPraetorius says:

          Lol! Well said, CS! Well said!

          And I take your gentle reining in of my comment about all of us “being just as comfortable…” as the appropriate correction that it is.

          To re-state: “Many of us are just as comfortable…”

          Best,

          — x

          Liked by 1 person

  12. Tricia says:

    Pong was a perfectly respectable and oddly addictive game when it first came out. Rather cutting edge too for the time; all hail to the God Atari. Leave it to the Internet to complicate a good thing though and now it’s almost impossible to have a friendly debate without link after link being thrown out to articles no one reads. Talk about a waste of effort.

    You are so right ColorStorm that God’s words need no backup.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Arkenaten says:

    @Wally

    Good idea let’s do get back to it and talk about the fact that any scholar who is also a believer is rejected out of hand as unqualified. Perhaps not by you but certainly by most.

    Yes, for a change, Wally, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Of course the scriptural account is plain enough. But nice work collating the texts.

      I was amused at the Red/Reed sea garbage in the commentary, as if there is any weakness in the narrative. Certainly not for we read:

      ‘To him which divided the Red sea into parts: for his mercy endureth for ever:’

      Yes sir, God’s mercy is challenged by foolishness every day. It took God no more effort to divide the sea than it did for Him to create water.

      And keeping with the title of this post, it matters not if there was supporting help from outside the scriptures, as they stand alone as God’s word, with or without the help.

      We can only affirm the truth, and if it is affirmed by others, that’s good too.

      Liked by 1 person

      • That is correct, brother. God’s testimony is enough. Although the heathen cannot see this, it is always amusing to shut them up when they question the evidence for God’s revelations. It is also very nice for me when there is an archaeological finding made that supports scripture (which happens every few months at the most).

        Like it or not, unless we have this kind of archaeological support, there are those in the archaeological community called minimalists — who believe in the content of the Bible as little as possible, and their views are unfortunately the ones that get the most media traction as possible. So many people are influenced from those liars, and therefore there position needs to be crushed.

        The Bible tells us to destroy the arguments against the words of the LORD in 1 Corinthians.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          True enough, but no amount of ‘evidence’ will satisfy a cold unbelieving heart.

          We can link forever about a Jew who believes the account, as well as a hundred others who do not.

          But you do an awesome service, so keep it up.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Thanks a lot brother. You nailed the hammer on the nail when you pointed out some simply cannot be convinced. This is why Titus 3:10-11 commands to reject a divide person after two warnings, for they are full of sin. Amen.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Nan says:

          Oh my, oh my. I’m so FULL of sin it’s just plain disgusting. So then why am I so happy and content and at peace while those who “believe” are constantly praying to their god to help them through life?

          Never mind responding. I already know what you’re going to say. I just couldn’t resist. 🙂

          Have a nice praying day.

          Like

        • LOL! LIsten to this joker. Satan is probably happier than the happiest person alive when he watches his overwhelming control over your life. Ever since my conversion to Christianity, the sadness in my life has been literally vaporized, God utterly changed my life and I live HOLY as well.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s