Breaking News–I’m a moron!

Of course, that could only come from a man who is defending Debra J. Smith and her total belief of what Mark at Chesterstreet wrote earlier today.  If I’m a moron, what is she?  Maybe Mark will tell her to her face what he thinks about her and her swallowing what he had written as the truth.  I doubt it.  Instead, he erased her comment and she took down her post.  And I’m the moron here?  Hehehehehe.

Maybe the next new post Mark can do is write about how animals will be able to marry their human owners, which of course is what will happen now that gays and lesbians are allowed to marry here in California.  That would be totally new for this anti-gay activist who is obsessed with gay males–NOT. 

Mark likes to think he is being clever with this ‘slippery slope’ argument.   I hate Wikipedia, but since Mark likes to use it for his definitions, I’ll give a bit of what Wikipedia has to say about slippery slopes:

In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies. The argument is sometimes referred to as the thin end of the wedge or the camel’s nose. While the term sees a broader pragmatic usage, especially outside of the context of logic, rhetoric and philosophy, the term specifically refers to a fallacious argument. Arguments that provide a well-supported chain of contingencies are not slippery slope arguments. The term "slippery slope" is often used synonymically with continuum fallacy, in that it assumes there is no gray area and there must be a definite transition at a certain point from category A to category B.

And here is a bit more that must have been written just for Mark:

This form of argument often provides evaluative judgments on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.

 

His slippery slope from gay marriage to incestuous marriages has been debunked before and undoubtedly will be again (most recently in the California State Supreme Court finding–but I wouldn’t expect Mark to actually read that).  I wonder why he didn’t write about polygamy in the same way?  Maybe that would hit a little too close to home with all these Christian groups who form their own communities and then their male founders screw everything under the sun because God tells them it is o.k.  You can look to Texas for more than a couple of recent examples.  By the way, they get their ideas from the Bible. 

And Debra J Smith and those like her are great examples of people who believe what they read without thinking.  The analogy here that I am thinking of (in case you didn’t think of it) is reading the Bible and believing everything in it.  That book is swallowed whole and regurgitated up without any thought.  It is called Objective Truth even though that objective truth has been changed millions of times by billions of people–Mark included.  He likes to believe it is objective truth because he likes to see himself as being one of the chosen people.  He HAS to believe this.  Otherwise, what is the point of his brand of Christianity?

The only Objective Truth out there, according to Mark, is his own version.  Fortunately, anyone who wants to know about Mark’s Objective Truth only need to read up on the Protestant Reformation.  A new Objective Truth came out of that one.  And now there are hundreds of versions of the Objective Truth found in the Protestant Churches just in this country alone.  Of course, that doesn’t include the Objective Truth of Catholicism.  Or the Objective Truth of Orthodox Christianity.  And my god–let’s not even get into the Objective Truth of EVERY SINGLE RELIGION on the face of the planet.  I have to keep telling myself that only Mark has the true Objective Truth (and I suggest, Debra, that you really look up what sarcasm before you go off and make a post about the fact that I just agreed with Mark…).

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Breaking News–I’m a moron!

  1. Nelson says:

    And when all else fails, which is like all the time, he invokes me as a red herring of sorts.It\’s allright; after all, it\’s nice to have friends to help protect your identity…but for how long…

  2. Kevin says:

    Hey NG.  I was thinking the same thing.  Mark is grabbing at straws.  He is pretty desperate.  He wants to string sentences together and make them make sense, but it just isn\’t working.
    Besides, Mark, as a (so-called) Christian needs to learn what forgiveness is. I totally believe that if someone is convicted of a crime and has paid their debt, then they should be treated as equal.  I hate these laws that are now telling people where to live based on a crime they committed in the past and after they served their time.  A law like this came up in San Francisco last year or the year before, and I voted against it.  So did Doug.  Anyway,

  3. Nelson says:

    About the residency restrictions craze, unfortunately not many people fail to see that all it\’s doing it\’s providing a backdoor policy to apply the same to others. 
     
    Nonetheless, what gets me is not so much the actions of Mark and unfortunately others who have subscribed to the same practice, it\’s that people refuse to speak out against it.

  4. Justin says:

    Good morning Kevin,
     
    Well, I noticed this morning you are once again the Headliner of The Chesterstreet.blog. I must say for the most part it was quite amusing to read the lunacy espoused there.  I did notice he once or twice did refer to you as "Dr." which was only appropriate in light of your degrees versus his mmmm show shall we say it fundementalist account of matters.
     
    I did notice he tounge in cheek issued you a challenge that I found quite amusing since we have duped his Triunist views more than once. 
     
    "I suggest to Kevin, a professor (PhD) in christian history, to provide evidence that Jesus was not who He claimed to be – God in flesh. Maybe my friend will see, he too is no different than me – a sinner in need of God\’s provision through the blood of Christ."
     
    Since he is whipping out the Nicene Creed on you that claims this Godship theory because the scripture definetly does not, he could be reminded of another great Christian who also accepted this Creed and its worth.
     
    "I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it."  (underscoring my own)
    – Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pp. 239-40
     
    To the article at hand.  One item I in particular I am glad you brought up was the recent confrontation between the LDS sect here in Texas and the State.  Now correct me if I am wrong but, Poligamy and having sex with under age girl are totaly against the law.  Utah was not even allowed to apply for Statehood until it abolished poligamy.  Texas has a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman not one man and how ever meany women you can comfortably support.  Poligamy as well as sex with underage girls according to the law is not to be tolerated however, since these two crimes are being pepotrated under the guise of religion it is over looked with a wink of the eye a nod of the head by the States Supreme Court.
     
     Now, I am wondering if all the Gays in Texas would come together and form a Church say "The First Church of Homofashionology", we could get the same protections and even be allowed to marry?  Not unlike our friend Mark and Stacy we too can whip out scripture totaly out of context that would support our claim to religous protection.  After all the Bible is the absolute truth correct?
     
    "Luke 17:34-36, (34) I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. (35) Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (36) Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
     
    Have a great weekend and get that house finished inquiring minds want to know 🙂
     
     

  5. Kevin says:

    Hey Justin,
    Just seconds ago I left a comment for Mark.  He clearly doesn\’t understand what it means to discriminate.  He uses one definition while conveniently ignoring the other definition. 
    About the house–we\’ve been trying to get someone to tell us where to have these popcorn ceilings tested for asbestos–so far no luck!  After that has been determined, then are are \’go\’ to get to work!

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