Friday, August 10, 2012

"Despicable Christian Bigotry"

Yes it's a lost cause though it takes time for that to sink in. That is, the Biblical creationist position out there in "the world" is a lost cause. Unless God decides to intervene.

One of the admins at EvC decided to give a Post of the Month nomination to a creationist there, which got the backing of one member but less than cheers from others.

Including Boss Admin Percy and at least five members who gave him a thumbs-up for the following:
This post has received a POTM nomination from Minnemooseus and a 2nd from NoNukes, but what I see is a message where almost every sentence contains something that is either wrong or misunderstood, much of it about things that Marc has been wrong about in the past and already been corrected multiple times, and the comments about Bryan Rehm are just the same despicable Christian bigotry Marc has been spouting since he joined. Perhaps Moose and NN, who haven't yet participated in this thread, can chime in here and help Marc defend that post.
Standard Biblical belief is now "hate speech" all over Christendom, a development that's taken place only within the last few decades, unheard of before, thanks to what I'm coming to believe must be a tireless machinery of stealth and shrewdness operating behind the scenes to bring down the West. A version of "hate speech" is the expression in the post quoted above, "despicable Christian bigotry." This needs to be recognized as an accusation against the same standard Biblical belief that brought civilization to the western world, that was the foundation of the government of England and in some sense America too, despite the anti-Christian beliefs of the biggest names of the Constitutional generation, and many European nations that embraced the Protestant Reformation.

Anybody who SAYS he is a Christian these days MUST be regarded as a Christian, that's the Politically Correct position, and it's "bigotry" to question it, just as it's "hate speech" to apply Biblical principles to sins such as homosexuality.

PC dictates that we can't call people atheists unless they profess to be atheists, although according to our Biblical standards that's what they are if they deny the Biblical revelation, especially its gospel center but also Genesis 1 to 11. Jesus affirmed it, so must we. Or perhaps a better appellation than "atheists" would be "antichrists" -- becuase that is basically the denial that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God come in the flesh (and yes He does say He is, in many many ways apparently obscured to the view of the naysayers). Again, what used to be the pretty standard understanding. Now it's "bigotry."

I would agree that we should use more specific designations for the sake of communication these days even if "atheist" is correct enough within the Christian frame of reference, especially in the context of Biblical creationism. As a practical matter just about all belief systems other than Biblical Christianity either deny or compromise Genesis 1-11, but since there are different flavors of this denial that people take seriously we should recognize them. Reading through that thread you'll find that Marc calls everybody an atheist basically because they reject the Christian frame of reference so they're all up in arms about his failure to know those of whom he is speaking. They ARE atheists within his frame of reference though. For instance Percy makes a big deal out of Marc's notion that as a believer in God to any extent at all he should show an interest in Intelligent Design. Percy says he DOES show an interest, but his interest does turn out to amount to rejecting everything about it. Which is what Marc is calling atheism. Marc simply meant a believer should have a POSITIVE interest in ID, entertain it seriously. Just a communication problem in the end, or a semantic problem, but it apparently can't be solved in that context. (I don't agree with any of this by the way. I think ID is just inadequate creationism and inadequate science.)

Our "fruit" is attacked as unChristian because we say such truths, it's attacked as not in the spirit of Christ. Christ who called the Pharisees "blind guides" and "whited sepulchres" and held Hell up to them as their lot. John the Baptist who called them "vipers." But we, the Christians, are unChristian if we call an atheist an atheist, if we call sin sin, if we connect evolution to atheism (because there are "religious" evolutionists. "Religious," yes, false religion. The only true religion rejects evolution).

And they quote the false Christians and ignore the true ones, letting the false ones stand for "Christianity." (See Dr. A's choice of a racist "Christian" tract that suits his anti-Christian bigotry. Is he unaware of the Christian protests against slavery and racism from the very beginning or has he simply "overlooked" that reality?)

Again, this is all going down in the very Christendom that was built on Biblical revelation. "I was wounded in the house of My friends."

The truth has become "hate speech," the truth has become "bigotry" and "despicable" by the morally superior enemies of Christ. The world is well and truly upside down.

From here it can only go one of two directions. God could intervene with a great revival and turn the tide back, or He could let the God-rejecting world have its own way for a while before the end, its own beliefs, its own religion, its own rules, its world government, its false idea of peace and so on. Let's see how well human rule without God REALLY does.

At least I think that's something like what's most likely going to happen as the end comes near, but then the outpouring of God's wrath, if humanity running things isn't already enough of God's wrath.

Guaranteed to sink it all, never to rise again.

Or He could do both, at least a limited or temporary version of the revival and then abandon ship and let humanity sink it to bloody oblivion (of course we know He'll intervene before that final point. He says so).


  1. I'm not going to get deep into you message, but I will make a comment or two.

    The POTM nomination by me was intended sincerely, but further evaluation indicates that it may well have been a blotch - I may have been way over generous.

    Unfortunately, I interpret NoNukes seconding as being a seconding of what he interpreted as being less than sincere nomination.

    I also commented on this situation in the POTM topic at


  2. I'm honored to hear from you, Moose. Somebody from EvC posted on my blog! I'm typing from the floor (as it were) from which it will take a while to pull myself up.


    Whatever you said.

    I don't expect any of the evos to really like what a creo has to say. It was a nice gesture though even if you had to take it back.

    1. I didn't take it back, but I do recognize that my reason from giving it may have been out of touch with others perceptions (or something like that).

      I've been off and on following you blog since you e-mailed be about your response to the "Bay of Fundy" thing. Unfortunately, you messages do seem to be a bit long winded for my attention span.

      Would you like me to give your blog a major plug at Such may bring you attention that you may not want.


  3. Thanks, Moose, but I think some there already know about it, and since I don't want to get back into the fray there I don't really want it to come here either.

    Sorry, I know I do write at length.

  4. Clarification: The occasional visit would be nice, just not the same all-out debate that's over there.

  5. I don't know if you have access to EvC e-mail addresses, but if so, you yourself can invite individuals. I won't mention this place there.

    Are you the "Faith" at Evolution Fairytales?

    I've been posting there a bit - If you think admins are tough on creationists at, just try not being a YEC at EFT. Easy to run amuck of their rules, and to at all question the rules or the moderators is cause for banning.

    Macroevolution is close to being defined as not existing via their rules and rulings.


  6. I do have access to those email addresses that are public and I have in fact contacted a few people there over the last couple of years. Even got into an email exchange with a couple of them for a while. A rather nasty exchange in both cases -- on their side -- as I recall. Not really interested in repeating the experience.

    I've looked in on EFT now and then but haven't been inspired to join them. So no, I'm not that "Faith" who posts there (I couldn't access the page, however, to see that poster's profile). I've noticed the discussions at EvC about the rules at EFT.

    I've thought maybe eventually I would spend some time there but my own blogs seem to be enough for now. And right now I'm up to my ears in issues connected with one of them so I'm happy to let this one lie more or less dormant for a while.

    I'd probably agree with their definition of macroevolution. There is of course such a thing as speciation (defined as a population that can no longer breed with its mother population or other related populations), but a Biblical creationist sees that it gives no support whatever to the theory of evolution, and as I've argued ad nauseum both here and at EvC it really spells a dead end to evolutionary processes. If you want to call the existence of speciation events "macroevolution" we'll accept the term but only for the sake of clarity of communication, but as a matter of actual fact it's a meaningless notion.

    Did you see my posts on Siccar Point by the way?


PLEASE just register somewhere, there seem to be many options. A Google account is easy. And give SOME kind of pseudonym at least. THANKS!