Comment policy

There is plenty of latitude as to ‘what is not proper language,’ but I would hope  the content of these pages draws a more thoughtful and perhaps courteous opinion, even in the most drastic disagreement.

Grace is always a safe policy, but like any thing else, can be abused. Is your comment related to the post?

Poor taste is always a matter of opinion,  and one man’s princess is another man’s witch. Say what you will, but please do not cry ‘free speech’ when your pics, vids, and links of insolence toward the name of Christ are trashed.  In addition, assassination of the word of God will not get free PR at my expense. Profane and vain babblings? they will be shunned.

Yes, scrutiny is welcome, but take note, this site blends the truth of scripture, not the untruth of scripture. Here are a few examples of comments that have no basis in reality and honest debate, and are purely designed to sow mischief:

‘Everybody knows that the book of Acts is unreliable.’ 

Uh huh, this charge is only two thousand years old.

‘Moses was a myth, Abraham was a fable, and most Jews today are wising up to this fact.’

Boy, if I had a dime for every time this one came through.

‘The writers of scripture? Anybody with an iq above that of a turnip knows these were unintelligent, superstitious Bronze cave men.’

Yep, and the ignorant and unlearned men somehow wrote exactly how men thousands of years later would respond to such stupidity.

‘There is no God. You are deluded.’

(So you see, to leave these comments stand unanswered, gives credibility to the absurdity, yet to answer provides endless fuel that feeds the trash pile, hence the much easier way:  delete)

Have you been moderated? There is obviously a good reason. Some time ago a few people flooded this site with an avalanche of comments within a short time, and the lag, coupled with WP innate nesting, created chaos and an impossible flow of cohesive thoughts. The bizarre antics ended up at the doorstep of another fine blogger, and he paid a price because of a few miscreants. The idea was to simply disrupt, and moderating was the result.

Others comment simply because they can, having no relevance to the post, but certainly having an agenda. I am well aware of the devices known to man, and I am careful what content survives.

Remember, this is my blog, so please save the whining for St. Elsewhere.

7 Responses to Comment policy

  1. colonialist says:

    Once one becomes aware of the ridiculous impossibility of just one of the aspects of the scriptures, it gradually breaks down the selective myopia and it is found that the whole thing is made up of that, interspersed with pieces of highly unlikely and utterly irrelevant.


    • ColorStorm says:

      Hi colonialist, and tkx for popping by.

      So the accounts in Genesis regarding the geography of the Tigris and Euphrates is suspect? Their location according to your own words, is ‘highly unlikely?’

      Or is it in fact, that you simply do not ‘like’ the message of scripture……. This seems more likely, since there is no other source material on earth that is more accurate, reliable, and truthful.


      • colonialist says:

        Highly unlikely, indeed, as rivers are notorious for changing their routes over millennia. .
        However, geographic detail is incidental. It is the stories from Eden onwards that come across as pure (and not very good) fantasy. Plus the fact that God is depicted as a flawed, inept, bungling tyrant in so many instances.
        I was brought up as an unquestioning Christian, and when I finally applied my intellect to the entire doctrine and the scriptures and realised how ridiculous the myths are I tried desperately to find some credible allegories, but none make any sense whatsoever.
        I wouldn’t describe myself as an atheist, however. I see too much evidence of purpose and progress in all-that-is (or all we are aware of) to be that. That should be the essence of religion; not so much the ‘how’ of creation or the un-created evolutionary start of everything, but the ‘WHY’?


        • ColorStorm says:

          ‘Geographic detail is incidental?’ Only if credibility means nothing to you.

          If scripture can be trusted with the most basic of information, surely it is equally reliable when we read of the ripe age of Methuselah at 969.

          It is all true, and fair minded people have known this for thousands of years.

          The Holy scriptures is the monarch of books, slaying false goliaths of pseudo science for ever and a day.


        • colonialist says:

          Relying on the infrequently-appearing accurate bits of geography as proof of credibility reminds me of a character in ‘Jenny’, by Paul Gallico, who would support his tall tales by hauling something out of his pocket, saying triumphantly, ‘… and as proof, here’s the very thing I had with me at the time!’
          So science that contradicts the scriptures, even though backed by factual proof (of the event, not the background) is pseudo? Whereas unsubstantiated and ridiculous events, like Jonah, are true?
          As for Methuselah, was that No. 1 or No. 15 that died 969 years later?
          Interesting that you mention Goliath. Numbers of ‘scientific’ reports exist, with photographs, substantiating his existence … all fake.


  2. ColorStorm says:

    Surely you must know that you are commenting in the wrong place. When a repost is made, and comments are closed on the original post, you need to comment on the repost. Easy. (Therefore you have made unnecessary and foolish claims at the stonegods blog.

    Science NEVER contradicts scripture. You just have looked hard, long, and honest enough for the correct answers. And btw, your petulance of scripture is completely boring.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s