Indeed, we are not done quite yet (from part 1 and part 2) as within the comments section Dale’s Husband commented on Dale’s Husband’s post thusly, “More lies from Ken Ammi” and a quotation from my Dan Barker page, “…the Freedom From Religion Foundation which was established in the USA; a country premised on the concept of freedom of religious expression.” The comment is, “Need I point out that you cannot have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion too?”
Do you discern how carefully you have to pay attention to personages who do not premise their statements on truth (even if they assert that they do so)? The context, mine, the FFRF’s, the Constitution’s is not needing freedom FROM religion so as to have freedom OF religion but the freedom of “religious expression.” This is not about the freedom of people to have no religious expression but about the freedom of religious people to express themselves—this was another instance of moving the goalpost.
Now, I wrote something which answers for itself (and is backed by the articles I posted within that section), “While his [Dan Barker’s] claim to fame is his claim to be an ex-preacher he consistently demonstrates a ubiquitous lack of knowledge of the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts.” Dale’s Husband asks, “And why does Ammi dismiss Barker’s being an ex-preacher as merely a ‘claim’? Can he prove that Barker never preached in a church or never had a theological degree?” Well, I am not claiming that he never was a preacher but that well, put it this way: if you claim to have been an auto mechanic for years but you cannot even tell me how to change the oil in my car then the claim would be suspect. Yet, I am not even doubting that Barker was a preacher but am affirming that his basic lack of knowledge of the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts speaks for itself.
Yet, Dale’s Husband further asks, “Also, how can he justify his own claim that Barker lacks knowledge of the Bible when it is available to read by anyone almost anywhere? Since he cannot, Ammi merely committed libel, of course!” What is also available to read by anyone almost anywhere is underwater welding safety procedures but how many people know about that? In short, I am not claiming that Barker never read the Bible but have proved time and again that which I just stated.
But wait, there’s “More proof of Ken Ammi’s irrational biases” as in True Christianity and the Cults I noted:
Biblically speaking, it is the followers of Jesus Christ (as described within the pages of the New Testament) whom were and are called Christians, yet the tide is turning. There are cults, which are now attempting to turn the table and claim that they are the true Christians and that it is biblically orthodox Christians who are the cults.
Let us offer a practical definition of what a cult is: a cult is a group which has gotten far enough away from its origins and the foundational orthodoxy from whence it came that it is no longer recognizable. Thus, there are four major groups that are technically defined as pseudo-Christian cults and these are The Church of Jesus Christ-Latter Day Saints a.k.a. Mormons; The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society a.k.a. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Science.
Firstly, is the comment, “FOUR? I counted only three in that sentence. Either this guy cannot count or his editing really sux, or maybe both.” Well, I was quite pleased to read this as I just went into that article and fixed the mistake by adding Seventh Day Adventism—thank you Dale’s Husband.
The last comment by Dale’s Husband is that “it took centuries for various church councils to both assemble the canon of the New Testament on which most Christian dogmas are based and to define those dogmas themselves. The implication above that Jesus himself must have defined the limits of all those scriptures and dogmas is a lie” when actually the lie is that I stated that.
Dale’s Husband ends by attempting to prove me wrong by writing, “, Luke 9:49-50 ‘Master,’ said John, ‘we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.’ ‘Do not stop him,’ Jesus said, ‘for whoever is not against you is for you’” (behold, an actual citation and quotation—even if utterly un-contextual). Now, the problem, for Dale’s Husband, is that the apostle did not say “Master, we saw someone preaching polytheism and that humans can become gods” as Mormonism does. The reason that Jesus said, “Do not stop him” is that the person, “is not against you” but was doing things commensurate with Jesus’ ministry.
Overall and in short, everything that Dale (the alleged honorable skeptic) claimed about themselves (as I quoted in part 1) turns out to be sound and fury, signifying nihil as all we got was condemnations without a premise and a series of generic authoritative assertions without an evidence to back them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.