We’ve all seen the telltale signs: The cowed look. The downtrodden posture. The never ending series of excuses:
He isn’t usually like that.
You don’t know the real man.
He is getting so much better.
And of course:
Pleeease don’t say anything! You’ll only set him off and make things worse!
His theology,..
it bites back…
Blog abuse leaves its victims too crushed, too terrified to speak up. We need to stand with victims of blog abuse against their blogger, so they can bring the issue to a head.
We need no fault blogvorce.
Is there some context to this post that I’m missing?
Funny.
Pingback: Helping victims stand against their abuser. | @the_arv
That’s the second LOL I’ve had in a few weeks. Well played.
Is there some context to this post that I’m missing?
Yes, be patient and likely it will become clear.
Astrapto
Whenever I write a post challenging something certain well known pastors have written, a group of commenters pop up who don’t defend the bad theology I’m criticizing, but instead offer endless excuses for the pastor. Moreover, I’m sternly cautioned that while what I’m writing is correct, I need to walk on eggshells when disagreeing with said pastors because if I come right out and say what they are doing wrong I’ll cause them not to listen to me. Pastor Wilson and Pastor Bayly are the two that come most readily to mind.
The strange thing is if I were Wilson or Bayly, I’d not want my “defenders” to do such a terrible job defending me. They are not only tacitly acknowledging the error, but accusing Wilson and Bayly (etc) of being too delicate or unstable to respond to what in the blogging world is an everyday occurrence.
“I need to walk on eggshells when disagreeing with said pastors because if I come right out and say what they are doing wrong I’ll cause them not to listen to me. ”
Sounds more like what you have to do to get a Christian woman to listen to you when pointing out a flaw in her reasoning or actions. Most women aren’t able to handle direct criticism, even when they’re supposed to be “submissive.”
@ Dalrock,
I’m defending his theology – well, really, my own, because mine overlaps with Wilson’s in this area. Also because I think you are inclined to attack strawmen, and I think it is a more productive discussion in which both interlocutors have the opportunity to land a punch.
Doug Wilson is robust enough to take a few hits, and I applaud you for dishing them out. He’s a decent guy and a good writer. I read him regularly. But like all of us, he has his weak areas, and going after men 50/50 is one of them. You’re not wrong there, and good on you for calling him out for it.
We need to stand with victims of blog abuse against their blogger, so they can bring the issue to a head.
I’m willing to do my part. Unless it becomes inconvenient.
Pingback: Helping victims stand against their abuser. - Top
@Farinata
I don’t recall you making the excuses I was referencing with this post. You have been trying to defend Wilson’s argument*. A defense of Wilson’s argument is fully appropriate. It isn’t what I’m poking at here. What I’m poking at are those who carp about how I must not disagree with Wilson’s blog posts in my own blog, or histrionically call a few blog comments disagreeing with Wilson “a blood-thirsty mob”. The argument is that what I’m saying is correct, but it is mean of me to say it, or that I’ll only provoke him into doing more of the same. Likewise see the chorus of complaints when I pointed out problems with specific things Pastor Bayly wrote. I was being mean. I wasn’t taking into account that Bayly had improved over the years, etc.
*You have also been mixing your own argument with Wilson’s which is confusing and perhaps may be why you feel like I’m attacking a straw man. Either way, I just responded to you on the other thread.
Yeah, you sit back and take that Churchian theology…good and hard. Those bruises on your consciousness will heal in time.
Dalrock said: “The argument is that what I’m saying is correct, but it is mean of me to say it, or that I’ll only provoke him into doing more of the same.”
Your understanding of “the argument” is not my argument. I said I don’t think your post or the comments will be fruitful in effecting change in Wilson. I am sorry I said “blood-thirsty mob”, but only because my point was misunderstood.
@Dalrock, sometimes it seems to me that your posts come in two flavors. The first is general issues in the sexual market that are causing the decline of western culture. And the second have a Christianity-based theme.
The first category is very interesting to me, because I see it all firsthand. You write about it well, and actually, it’s surprising that you write with so much clarity about it with so much clarity given that you are married: there are a number of bloggers whose perspective is, “well, I found a good wife, so just do that and you’ll be fine! If you found some bitch who divorced you, got custody of your children, requires half your after-tax income in alimony and child support, then you’re clearly an idiot. You should have picked a good one like me.” But I’ve been a lot of men who I would consider ‘good men’ who have been put through the divorce court meat ginder, many of whom are stand-up men. It reeks of selection bias: it’s like this XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1827/
The second is category of posts I can’t really comment on. I am not a Christian, I’m agnostic and was raised so. But I read the entire Bible at some point in my twenties because I felt a responsible citizen in a predominantly Christan culture should do so. I even attended some services at a Baptist church for a few months to understand what it was all about. And actually, I noticed a lot of positive things about it. But I eventually stopped attending because I realized that I simply was incapable of believing that God exists, and felt that I was being disingenuous with the people at the church (who treated me quite politely, in retrospect). Why should I accept thieir hospitality and goodwill if I’m incapable of walking on their path?
All this being said, it would be interesting if you’d write a single one-time post about your experience being a blogger. Do you have a lot of trolls? How many posts do you delete? And why do you delete them? Obviously, if someone posts on your blog and writes, “Do X and you can make $3000 a month!”, well, that’s spam.
But I’ve noticed another trend in these types of blogs about controversial (but basically on-topic) posts, which is this: blogs written by men will often allow the comment to stand, and sometimes with a boldface comment at tthe end explaining why it’s wrong. That’s a masculine response: leave everything in the open with the original argument and rebuttal, and let the reader decide for themselves who is right. The other side (Jezebel.com, for instance, but there are many other instances) will just delete any comment that doesn’t fit their narrative.
Pingback: Helping victims stand against their abuser. | Reaction Times
But I’ve noticed another trend in these types of blogs about controversial (but basically on-topic) posts, which is this: blogs written by men will often allow the comment to stand, and sometimes with a boldface comment at tthe end explaining why it’s wrong. That’s a masculine response: leave everything in the open with the original argument and rebuttal, and let the reader decide for themselves who is right. The other side (Jezebel.com, for instance, but there are many other instances) will just delete any comment that doesn’t fit their narrative.
Perhaps depends it does
if facts and logic on your side they are
5343 Kinds of Deplorable says:
October 3, 2017 at 1:59 pm
Doug Wilson is robust enough to take a few hits, and I applaud you for dishing them out. He’s a decent guy and a good writer. I read him regularly. But like all of us, he has his weak areas, and going after men 50/50 is one of them. You’re not wrong there, and good on you for calling him out for it.
5343KofD: I’m reminded of my late father. A child soldier in WW2, conscripted countless times, grew up tough and went to work in construction until he retired.His sports: Hunting and Fishing.
Yet when it came to women, he was a mess. My mother was fine, as she grew up in a Catholic patriarchy where the husband was respected and divorce was unthinkable. When she died, he initiated relationships where he got fleeced by a succession of leeches. He was lucky not to have died in poverty. In short, he was Blue-pilled until the day he died.
My father wasn’t a religious man, but he acknowledged God before he died. The Pastors to whom Dalrock refers to here are like my father when it comes to the Blue Pill and the effects it has on womenfolk.
Unlike my father, they are learned men who have had plenty of time to examine, soberly, the disastrous effects of the various female-led social revolutions that have forever changed Western civilization for the worst. They are also sufficiently knowledgeable to know that these revolutions have led people AWAY from the God of the Bible. Away from truth. Away from harmonious relationships between the sexes. Away from the value of unborn life.
They are without excuse.
I count myself generally to be a fan of Doug Wilson, which is why I bring some of his stuff here when I disagree. Neither he nor his ego are fragile. Considering some of the opposition he’s faced from the liberals in Moscow, Idaho where his church is, and from the disaffected people who left his own congregation, I don’t think anything anyone has written here about him would either hurt his feelings or shut him up.
But I expect he doesn’t read the meta here at Dalrock. He certainly does read the comments on his own blog (dougwils.com). So if you want him to have a chance to hear you, go to his site and comment on the appropriate post. But he probably doesn’t revisit stuff more than a week or two old, as near as I can tell. The first day is best.
A bonus: if you go there you’ll see InsanityBytes (as MeMe) in mostly cordial mode – until Doug talks about women. Then the insanity bites.
greenlander @ 4:16 pm:
“But I read the entire Bible at some point in my twenties because I felt a responsible citizen in a predominantly Christan culture should do so.”
Thank you. If more people had your attitude then America wouldn’t be falling apart.
Poke salad ? Do you propose a meet up of all ? Protesters evangelical and Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox ? A meeting of minds ? To talk about doctrine ? All in one room ? I’m with it but they just had a 21 convention on masculinity on a secular level and what will be accomplished on doctoral level ? What will be a improvement on western men ?
@greenlander
When the chances of such prophecies have a high percentage rate of 100%, so far, there is no other book like it. And don’t buy the “gilgamesh epic tablets are older than bible!” garbage, those tablets where written in 600BC, with a carbon copy modification of the Bible, as that is how Satan operates, through deception.
Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
A book that has been attempted to be destroyed by the roman catholic church in the past 1700 years, suppressed, and scientifically made fun of and set aside like another fiction fairy book, one cannot deny its historical accuracy.
Revelation Timeline Decoded Study List
Study it, forget about Sunday (pagan day replacement of God’s Saturday) church gatherings, or cultural rock music worship songs, diamond encrusted jeans with christian crosses “culture”, mega church pagan “preachers”, lukewarm pastors and spiritual-less attempts to save souls by force… the Bible is all you need if you want to test God. Test him, nobody needs to know, no stupid flesh “father/priest” in garbs of some romish church or derivative, or anything religious, as religion is of Satan. Test God, and challenge him passionately as an agnostic. No DMT, drugs, alcohol bs. No perfect and spiritually saved and filled Christian can prove “God”, its impossible, YOU need to challenge it yourself with scripture. Remember it is through faith and not through “proof”, or “I’ll see it when I believe it with my eyes” bs. Even though this sounds like an easy get out of jail card by excusing yourself as “faith”, test Him privately. And remember, salvation is through Jesus, not through works, no sin tax payment discharges to the Papacy (which funded the St. Peter Basilica btw), virgins, fat bellied statues, elephant nosed purple skinned gods, or Jesus’ closest genetic relative, none will save you as it is through His Son only.
Meh, like every other segment of society, the pastors are trapped by the women. Only Catholics and Muslims stand up to them and the Catholics, not all that well.
@ Hmm
Moscow, ID is a weird mix of rednecks and hippies. The Moscow Food Coop feels like a little piece of Portland.
Catholics and Muslims only seem like they’re viable because the feminists have been busy destroying the main culture-bearers in North America (i.e. the protestants) for the last few generations. Now that this is complete, they’re turning their attention to these outliers in a mop-up operation.
The Orthodox, the Catholics, the Mormons and the Muslims will fall to feminism as surely as the protestants did — unless they start fighting back immediately. They are already much further down the road to matriarchy than they imagine themselves to be.
Boxer
“They are already much further down the road to matriarchy than they imagine themselves to be.
Boxer”
Perhaps. Thought provoking take, Box. Also, I suppose there are going to be “pockets of caliphate” and pockets of feminist majority as the United States hollows out and divides going forward. Now, it’s feminism driving the invite the world theme and it’s in the big cities where most of these types settle in spite of the best Democrat efforts to settle them in the country and suburbs. Strange bedfellows, Islam, Muslims and the feminist Democrats that allow them to waltz right in. Merkle is another one. They’ve spent every effort to eliminate the “Patriarchy” and succeeded wildly. How to square their willingness to risk/surrender their newfound Matriarchy wrested from a mellow White Christian Patriarchy to a new and comparatively hostile and stifling Muslim Patriarchy? Hispanics are another “majority minority” culture that boasts a more robust patriarchy than White men’s. Interesting to see what happens, if I live so long. Where Muslims are majority, the men hassle the women, that’s that.
One thing: Under the new Caliphate, I get my male privilege back in spades, right?
@Dalrock
This is a different post Mister “D”…….””I’m sternly cautioned that while what I’m writing is correct, I need to walk on eggshells when disagreeing with said pastors because if I come right out and say what they are doing wrong I’ll cause them not to listen to me.””……………You don’t have to walk on eggshells for anyone.Especially,the “feelz good” pastors or the ones that tend to “liberalize” their views to correlate with “modern views”.Did you ever think that may be the main reason why you have such a consistent following of posters here at your blog?…..I think that you might be taking some of this so called “criticism” personally.Don’t! They can’t compete with you and they damn well know it!!!
I think you are describing the view when ones tries to tell another man he has been following a different set of books about his jezebel spouse, so let me rephrase,…
We’ve all seen the telltale signs: [His] cowed look. [His] downtrodden posture. The never ending series of excuses:
[S]He isn’t usually like that.
You don’t know the real [gal]. [Shes just being Independent!]
[S]He is getting so much better.
And of course:
Pleeease don’t say anything! You’ll only set [her] off and make things worse!
[Her] theology,..[She is her own god!]
it bites back…[And she bites]
So (I added a few things (grin), thats why Proverbs (continuous reading) needs to be firstplace. Avoidance is better than being entangled in a battle you have to fight. Proverbs 7:My son, keep my words,and store up my commands within you.2 Keep my commands and you will live; guard my teachings as the apple of your eye.3 Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart.4 Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,” and to insight, “You are my relative.”5 They will keep you from the adulterous woman,from the wayward woman with her seductive words.
@greenlander
I empathise with your difficulty, but are you perhaps overthinking the problem. Let us suppose you were in the process of purchasing a condominium and you were with your attorney signing the papers and he were to say to you, well greenlander, you will be able to move in Thursday but as it happens I do not believe in the register that registers all the transactions of property in this state, i’ve never seen in the register and frankly even if it does exist it is an invention of the people who work in the registry. That does not make your ownership of the condominium any the less real.The less one thinks about it the easier it gets.
I found a solution of sorts to the problem in of all places an Audie Murphy movie where one of the characters in response to another who was seeking the existence or lack of the deity said: look at it this way if you believe in him then God exists but if you don’t then he doesn’t. I liked that.
Loved the linked cartoon.
Some commentary on the current state of affairs…
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/this-should-unite-us/
Good morning, gentlemen.
Hmm,
I thought that was her when I read a comment thread a short while back. How anyone could use a name like “MeMe” is amazing if you think about it. She celebrates her insanity in her name. At least that shows part of her is honest.
greenlander,
You can believe what you want, but to see all the complexity in nature and think it just happened shows you haven’t really thought things through. Try finding any computer system that has built itself.
It would be good for you to find someone who you can personally connect with over time, rather than just going to a few services. You can find out the reality of walking out faith in a long term personal relationship better than any service. Many of us remain quite imperfect, but could help show you a better way if you ever opened yourself to it.
Though I would agree with Gunner Q that at least you made some effort to understand things. Few even do that much today.
@OKRickety
Are Dalrock’s arguments aimed at attempting to change the behavior of Pastors that have already become Feminists? Or Churchians? Or even those who are mostly good but carry the Taint?
Or do they provide a graphic warning of the insidious sin and weakness that has spread everywhere in Christianity to all those who might look to these Pastors for advice?
These are rhetorical questions. It’s my opinion here that Dalrock’s not trying to cast out a mote from an eye, but to simply point out the beam that’s there to those who can still see.
@BillyS
You’re correct, Bytes adopting a handle of MeMe reveals a lot. I think it is quite appropriate, although MeME! or MeMeMe! might fit even better.
I agreed with RPC in the post I think Dalrock is referring to. Like RPC said, it wasn’t about Dalrock’s writing, it’s about commenters calling Wilson an unbeliever that would be better done with gentleness and respect. My guess is that if I was invited to a lunch with Wilson and Dalrock, he would be much more respectful than I. But for me, I entirely agree with Wilson being in error, so there isn’t much for me to add to that. I want to see what can happen next, to get Wilson to stop the fearful asides and disclaimers.
I don’t like tone- policing, but calling Wilson an unrepentant cuck seems different than an issue of tone.
Swanny River
I entirely agree with Wilson being in error, so there isn’t much for me to add to that. I want to see what can happen next, to get Wilson to stop the fearful asides and disclaimers.
Most likely? Nothing. He’s pretty set in his ways, for a start. He’s also a big fish in his own pond.
Go look at the website of his church in Moscow for a while, it is edifying and explains the defensive way his supporters comment here.
The agenda in my opinion, is beyond (or in combination of) feminism, patriarchal destruction of American Christianity, Islamic infiltration…
Jesuits Direct Pope Benedict XVI’s Alien Roman Catholic Latino Invasion
Romanizing America through Illegal Immigration
@ Dalrock,
you said: “*You have also been mixing your own argument with Wilson’s which is confusing and perhaps may be why you feel like I’m attacking a straw man. Either way, I just responded to you on the other thread.”
Fair enough. I can understand how that would be confusing. I found Wilson’s framing of the issue basically on point, but I wanted to talk about the issue itself rather than what he may or may not have meant, and perhaps I didn’t distinguish those very well. I’ll see what you wrote; thanks in any case for the engagement.
Swanny River-
Your thoughts echo mine, or mine yours. Wilson needs to take the next step and stop the fearful asides.
Calling him an unbeliever, though, simply isn’t true.
“… look at it this way if you believe in him then God exists but if you don’t then he doesn’t.”
Or – If that thing you think about with your mind has the ability to affect someone else, then it is likely real. If it doesn’t, then it is likely only a figment of your imagination.
But then, there are some things that we don’t know exist, so we can never think about them. But they affect other people all the same.
Morale: I am not the point of reference for what is real. Reality exists, regardless of my ability to perceive it or to comprehend it.
@ BillyS says:
October 4, 2017 at 9:04 am
“At least that shows part of her is honest.”
Unintentionally.
That is certainly true, but her character still slips through Oscar. Amazing that few there seem to be able to see it.
I find it amazing that you should claim that “few there seem to be able to see it”. Ignoring my own and Oscar’s comments to that effect, the following comments about Insanity are from that one post alone:
Katecho: “MeMe has a habit of hijacking Wilson’s illustrations and reverse-casting the players for her own agenda.”
Jill Smith: “What MeMe will not see is that by defining ordinary marital problems as abuse, she is making it unlikely that anyone who interacts with her will take abuse seriously.”
Vva70: “Have you just predetermined that Jon is a tyrant, despite any obtainable evidence?”
Kilgore T. Durden: “This display of irrationality is precisely why I oppose women’s suffrage.”
CHer: “No, but the fact you’re lying and going into another hysterical misandrist rage is evidence of women sinning.”
I know there have been many other similar comments on Wilson’s blog. Perhaps you will reconsider your position.
Restated for those who might consider the previous paragraph “effeminate”: Try reading with comprehension. Until you can do that, you ought to keep your mouth shut.
OKRickety, if you read comments on Wilson’s blog then surely you also can comment there.
Have you brought this issue to his attention in comments yet? If not, when do you plan to do so?
@OKRickety, YS & RPC
It is my guess that there are two things going on here:
1) Discomfort with Wilson’s error. You like Wilson; you want to see him “do the right”, “be on our side”, etc. Having his error pointed out is painful; perhaps dispiriting.
2) You take genuinely exception to some comments about the state of Wilson’s soul, lambasts against his whole ministry, and general wishes of his ill.
The second point is understandable, and I don’t think you do any wrong to defend against such attacks. But be sure to what it is you’re reacting, and point your arguments in that direction–with clear purpose.
Two things have struck me while reading through the comments on this post.
The first is that people who attend church are very often too nice when they need to be more open with their criticism. One of the majhor criticisms of the church of England is that it became so preoccupied with being nice that it forgot that its job was to preach the Gospel.
The second is that people generally do not seem to be able to differentiate hurt from harm. Bad theology is to the soul what sugary drinks are to the teeth: harmful. Someone who stands up and criticises bad theology is rather like the dentist who fills the cavities in damaged teeth. They cause hurt in the short term, but ultimately protect from harm, provided that the persons to whom the remarks are directed take them on board.
Anyone preaching bad theology, whether from a church pulpit or on a blog on the internet needs to be corrected for the sake of the souls of those who pay heed to that bad theology.
I’ve been one of those defenders that checks in on the comments. I’ll be less likely to do it in the future since Wilson chose to attack “white supremacists” “marching to hell” without defining what a white supremacist is or showing evidence that anyone fits the definition. Its a duplicitous abuse of language. If anyone wants to attack him as a cuck or an abuse-enabling cult leader then turn about is fair play.
Barnie,
That brings another piece of, useful, data to this discussion. I would pray to be gentle with him, if I met Wilson, and part of that would probably being concise and moving on quickly before I start recalling quotes like you brought to my attention.
Cheap and easy grace is what “white supremacists are going to hell” is. Except Fortina may say, with many words though, well don’t you concede that some WS are going to be damned?
Anonymous Reader,
“Have you brought this issue to his attention in comments yet? If not, when do you plan to do so?”
No. While I thought Wilson’s first paragraph about Abigail was unnecessary, I didn’t find it nearly as problematic as the responses claiming that, because the wife felt unloved, the husband must be at fault, failing to show affection to his wife.
Here, I have believed it was important to correct the erroneous misunderstanding of my comment. Perhaps I will now have the time to study further the question of Abigail and submission. I have at least one specific question about wifely submission that I wish to understand.
I may never comment about Abigail on that post. I presume you could, and I have no reason to suppose a comment from you would carry any less weight with Wilson than a comment from me. If you believe the issue is so important, I would think you would want to comment there. Instead, you seem more interested in whether or not I will address it.
To Barnie‘s point (October 5, 2017 at 6:31 pm), apparently merely asserting that Whitey McCracker™ has a right to exist, is “White Supremacist” — see the posters shown in the photographs that accompany this condemnatory article, from New York magazine’s “fashion blog” (sic)The Cut.
Sure, the posters are from American Vanguard, and that group is a “white supremacist” group. You know, the one from Charlottesville, Va. (not that any of you would have heard of that particular place).
I don’t like’em. Not one bit. Something about equality under Christ, etc., etc.
But, you know what? I know why organizations such as theirs exist.
It’s because the <insert deprecatory adjective phrase of your choice, here> people who spew forth the content of New York “fashion blogs” like to claim, all self-righteous and virtue-signalling like, that the assertion that whites have a right to exist, is in and of itself “White Supremacist”.
See, this is why people like Boxer believe in dialectics. But probably the, uh, fashionistas at The Cut don’t get, and will never get, that they themselves are part and parcel of why groups they disdain, like American Vanguard, spring into Hegelian existence.
Nor is any of this entirely unrelated to the themes and topics of Dalrock’s blog.
Pastor Wilson, “denouncing” all of this, without clarifying (or, very probably, without even understanding) any of it — is intellectual laziness at best, and dishonesty at worst. More importantly, it’s the trendy thing to do. In other words (J’accuse), Pastor Wilson is just being Worldly. Nothing more. Move along, people: nothing to see here, just more worldliness from The Church; move along, move along.
Pax Christi Vobiscum
Cane-
Thanks for the reminder. It was mostly 2 for me, but a person can be unsure of their own heart.
I don’t think Wilson is hell-bound, and I think there is more hope for him than say, a Piper or Matt Chandler. He has said some disturbing things. I, for one, could not believe that he wrote that post about “prairie jumpers” to describe modest women. That was a needless low-blow from a Man of God.
Having said that, he has his good points, so there is hope for him. Either way, none of this consigns him to hell.
OKRickety, you are the commenter who strongly suggested that any criticism of Wilson should be handled in a specific way; go to him privately first, then with witnesses, etc. You even suggested that someone who knows Wilson could go to him on behalf of Dalrock. Then you admitted that you read there. We both know that you comment there. Right? Or is that someone else with your handle ?
If you truly believe what you wrote previously about how to handle a disagrement, you should take Dalrock’s concern to Wilson in comments. Wilson won’t ban you, other commenters there have mentioned Wilson and I believe even linked to this site.
If you are not willing to do that, then don’t demand someone else do it for you.
OKRickety
I may never comment about Abigail on that post. I presume you could, and I have no reason to suppose a comment from you would carry any less weight with Wilson than a comment from me.
I’m not the man who said that Wilson’s critics should go to him first, that was you. So now you are suggesting that I do something you won’t do..but “someone” should do, is that right?
If you believe the issue is so important, I would think you would want to comment there. Instead, you seem more interested in whether or not I will address it.
Just trying to figure out if you lead by example or not. Apparently not.
AR,
“… you are the commenter who strongly suggested that any criticism of Wilson should be handled in a specific way;….
[…]
… then don’t demand someone else do it for you.”
How does one logically move from “strongly suggested” to “demand”? I admit to the first, but not the second. Don’t make baseless claims.
Your major problem here is that you are assuming that I believe that Wilson’s reference to Abigail was as terrible as Dalrock and others believe. If I did, your argument would be valid. Since I do not, it’s not.
On the contrary, it is clear that you do believe Wilson is wrong, but you have not commented there. Unless you’re blocked there, your complaint about me is instead damning to you (and all the other complainers on this blog [unless bdash or mys are here]).
Read with comprehension, rather than with the incorrect assumptions that occur much too often here on this blog, and then use valid logic in your arguments.
OKRickety
How does one logically move from “strongly suggested” to “demand”? I admit to the first, but not the second. Don’t make baseless claims.
Why, by the tone of your writing, of course. Isn’t the tone very important?
Your major problem here is that you are assuming that I believe that Wilson’s reference to Abigail was as terrible as Dalrock and others believe. If I did, your argument would be valid. Since I do not, it’s not.
Your mindreading has failed. All I know about you is what you tell via comments.
1. You disagree with Dalrock’s argument, but you also don’t like the tone either.
2. You want someone to take Dalrock’s argument to Wilson privately as outlined above.
3. You are not willling to do that yourself – but you do want someone else to do it.
On the contrary, it is clear that you do believe Wilson is wrong, but you have not commented there. Unless you’re blocked there, your complaint about me is instead damning to you (and all the other complainers on this blog [unless bdash or mys are here]).
First off, are you claiming the authority to decide who is damned? Isn’t that a bit above your paygrade?
Second, I am sure that Wilson is wrong to AMOG men in his church. It certainly appears that he reads the account of Abigail with his own agenda as a filter. I’ve already stated that he’s not likely to read here, because critics are just ankle-biters to him.
He’s wrong in the secular sense, he’s likely wrong in the Bible sense, and he’s not very likely to pay attention to critics that he doesn’t consider important enough. Therefore I don’t see much point in taking this over to his comments; I expend too much time in comments here as it is.
But let us both recall one thing: I specifically asked you, OKRickety, if you had any association with Wilson. I asked that multiple times, and you finally answered a different question. We both know you comment on Wilson’s blog, but you hid that fact rather than admit it. That tells me something about you.
Read with comprehension, rather than with the incorrect assumptions that occur much too often here on this blog, and then use valid logic in your arguments.
Done. When are you going to take the procedure you outlined above regarding disagreements with Wilson, and apply it yourself?
Anonymous Reader,
“But let us both recall one thing: I specifically asked you, OKRickety, if you had any association with Wilson. I asked that multiple times, and you finally answered a different question. We both know you comment on Wilson’s blog, but you hid that fact rather than admit it. That tells me something about you.”
I think you are confusing me with ys. In your own words, “Pro-tip: keep track of your own words, ….”. Here is every relevant comment that I can find:
“Anonymous Reader said on October 2, 2017 at 10:37 pm
Do you know Doug Wilson or have any connection to him?”
“Anonymous Reader said on October 3, 2017 at 1:19 pm
Ok. Do you have any connection to him? Any connection at all, no matter how minimal?”
“Anonymous Reader said on October 6, 2017 at 1:23 pm
Then you admitted that you read there. We both know that you comment there. Right?”
— I saw no need to confirm. I supposed that lack of denial was adequate confirmation.
So what if I comment on Wilson’s blog? I sometimes read and sometimes comment on Insanity’s blog, but I am quite certain that she would not consider me to be her defender or even a supporter. In fact, she currently has me on “moderation”. It’s definitely not a mutually positive relationship.
As can be seen, you asked about my relationship to Wilson a maximum of 3 times, I specifically answered 2 times, and saw no need to reply the final time. Do I need to get out crayons and draw you a picture? Your repeated questioning certainly “tells me something about you.”
By the way, “damned” does not necessarily refer to eternal, spiritual punishment, but can, instead, mean to condemn or denounce, especially publicly.
“I expend too much time in comments here as it is.”
I completely agree! You can reduce that time considerably if you stop being an asshole towards me and others.
“When are you going to take the procedure you outlined above regarding disagreements with Wilson, and apply it yourself?”
It is unlikely that I will apply that process to the post by Wilson. When are you going to start reading with comprehension and commenting accordingly?
Anonymous Reader,
“2. You want someone to take Dalrock’s argument to Wilson privately as outlined above.
3. You are not willling to do that yourself – but you do want someone else to do it. “
No, Your “mindreading” is failing you again. My intent was that any individual disagreeing with Wilson take their own argument directly to him. While I think Christians have a duty to support the poor and oppressed, I don’t consider Dalrock or any others who disagree with Wilson on the Abigail topic to be in that category. So, it’s up to them to take this to Wilson, not me.
Pingback: If you only knew Wilson like they know Wilson, you would know he does not mean what he writes. | Dalrock