We have 2 main detractors that like reading our website. They can’t seem to get enough of our content. When we say something they do not like, their websites are filled with their ‘opposing’ points of view.
We know about them because they make sure they link to our articles in their content. What we have found is that despite their demands that Christians present rational, logical, and evidence-filled (their definitions, of course), content in rebuttal to their arguments, these detractors do not do the same thing.
They would rather use innuendo, lies, misleading comments, and false declarations as if they are an authority. For example, BG says in a response to our content the following
Are you saying you didn’t write ✍️ these things? Are you saying these are not your words — word-for-word, without edit?
These are your words, David. Own them. Or better yet, repent, retract your words, and promise to do better.
He may have copied and pasted our words but we did not say the following that was said in another post
Thiessen says that he is not that “type” of person, but I suspect he doth protest too much. What was he doing in a gay bar? What was he doing in a gay man’s bedroom? Doesn’t the Bible say that Derrick Thomas Thiessen should “abstain from the very appearance of evil; that he should not fellowship with unbelievers and their works of darkness?
Here’s a general rule you can use to properly judge Evangelical preachers. Pay attention to what “sins” they harp on all the time. Pay attention to what “sins” rile them up, causing them to use inflammatory, hateful language
What “sins” is Thiessen obsessed with? This tells us much about what kind of man he really is. Forget his unhealthy obsession with gay sex, for a moment. If Thiessen wants to have consensual sex with a man, two men, three women, or a transgender person, who am I to object? Of greater concern is his continued defense of rapists, child molesters, wife-beaters, child abusers, and other miscreants, including preachers who used their power to take sexual advantage of women.
His words imply something we never said, implied, or hinted at. BG misleads his readers YET not one word is found in either article that presents a rational, logical, and evidence-filled opposing view.
He has to stoop to insults, inferences, and clever wording to get his readers to think negatively about us and our content. MM is just the same. In one post he claims:
In previous posts, I’d taken ‘David’ Thiessen to task for his horrendous takes on child-rape and abortion.
He did no such thing. That previous post says the following
As his reply wears on, he speaks of subjects that he clearly knows very little about.
Is there any point in responding? To ‘David’, details like facts, evidence and so forth, are irrelevant. The truth, as he calls it, is merely his interpretation of one belief system, as I mentioned to Aish in the comments of the Coalition post. ‘David’ can insist all he wants that God created this and God created that, and he can whine as much as he likes that a godless world is a moral-free one, but given the positions he upholds (he thinks child-victims of rape should risk their lives and well-being to have their abuser’s baby), he is not an authority on morality. There can be no rational discussion of morality with someone thinks like that.
Nothing rational there or even logical. He resorts to name calling, abusive language, and lies and he continues to try to read our minds. Of course, he makes the excuse of not presenting anything rational, logical, or evidence-filled by insulting us and using that as justification for his failure to make his point.
Both MM and BG like to attack the messenger so they do not have to deal with the truth. In the 2nd rebuttal, he links to this article. But it does nothing to prove that we do not know what we are talking about. Instead, it supports our comments throughout the Is This a Moral Dilemma Series.
There is a problem in the world and both MM and BG can only focus on having abortion available and committing two assaults with no fear of reprisals. They do not address the real problem but want to lead parents and children to sin and call it good. MM did not see the final line in the article:
Abortions are more physically traumatic for young women who tend to request services later in pregnancy.
He has argued in his responses that getting an abortion avoids the trauma of childbirth, yet he wants children to experience the trauma that abortions cause. He cannot have it both ways. If trauma is wrong for pregnancy, it is also wrong for abortions.
Those children who have been made to go through abortions should not be further traumatized by the guilt they will hold throughout their lives. Instead, they need to feel the restorative power of Christ and his love and forgiveness for committing these acts.
We know about that guilt as we have written a book too many years ago on abortion. MM then links to this article. It is mostly an article based on personal opinion as one person interviewed said
No 10-year-old anywhere in the world should be having a baby,” Lewis Wall, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, told LiveScience.
Maybe not BUT that opinion does not stop the crime from being committed. Nor do the bad effects of a pregnancy stop men from raping little girls. Nor are the bad effects justification for abortion.
Since those problems are well known, people should be creating solutions to them instead of immediately going to kill an innocent child. If you read the article, neither ‘doctor’ comments on any solutions for the trauma those girls will suffer.
Their answer to curing those problems is to kill someone. That is not rational, logical, or even evidence for abortion. Doctors are to do no harm and when a child is pregnant, the doctor has 2 patients yet the Hippocratic oath is applied to only one.
Nor is it evidence for rebutting our content. MM ends his latest ‘rebuttal’ with another two attacks on us:
Perhaps the most damming element of all this, is that someone who abandoned their parental responsibilities (and I have more and more reason to believe this to be true) is lecturing on forcing others to become parents, against their will. Such a person is not a moral authority on subjects concerning child welfare, nor parenting.
We put in bold the keywords. We never abandoned anything but MM won’t believe it. He would rather believe the false stories he is told than the truth. We are not going to say anything more on that topic.
MM & BG just want negative fodder to continue to attack us in their own sinful ways. They won’t be rational. logical or even produce evidence to support their views. Everything they have written or alluded to points to the validity and truthfulness of our content.
We never said we were the moral authority on this issue. We did say that GOD is and we write his words, not ours. Ours are not inspired but they are based on inspired words. So the problem BG and MM have is not with us but with God and his ways.
They do not like those ways, so they advocate for everything sinful. Their denial of both God and sin just shows that their arguments are never rational,. logical or even evidenced-filled. They are not honest either.
Their arguments are personally based, subjective and according to their own desires and thoughts. Unbelievers are never rational, logical, or evidence-based because they dismiss the truth in favor of their own deceived opinions.
They are not our enemy, but the evil in and behind them are. We do not wish them ill-will and are saddened that they hold onto evil in spite of hearing the truth. We also do not spread misinformation, or lies and do other things to them as they do to us.
Our actions prove we are more moral than they can ever hope to be.
theologyarchaeology 