"I Just Can't Live Without You..."

It seems that public commenting has returned to the Debunking Christianity blog. Surprise, surprise. Well...almost, at least.

Seems this time 'round John decided to make a 'blog owner approval' policy for comments. This obviously came from one of his bogus polls, asking readers if public commenting should be re-implemented after John's exasperated ego got the best of him for the umpteenth time. Funny thing is, John must either be stupid enough to think that readers would elect an alternative option besides having public commentary re-implemented. First John's ego takes a beating, and he invites fellow blog owners to use their sites as their own mediums of criticisms. Now, he's back to letting the dice roll in his favor, and his pons are unsuspecting of this. Yowser.

I think some irony should point out the inconsistency of John's mentality to the point where anything he tries to pass off is usually done under some self-serving facade he tries to pass off. Unfortunately for John, he doesn't have his head screwed on tight enough to keep up with the act, and then he manages to fall flat on his face. But we have alluded to plenty of past examples of that being the case already. This time John is still wearing his masked personality, it's just a little more subtle than on average. Consider this: If John were truly concerned with keeping it "civil" over at DC, why couldn't he have just switched to where comments would have been under his approval in the first place? Instead, he went into a power frenzy about his own personal identity issues. It turned into another endless game of figurative cat and mouse (John plays both roles, interchangeably, if you don't understand what I mean by this). In other words, John portrays himself both as the hunter and as the prey, it's all a matter of circumstantial context. John clearly stated before that only the staff at Debunking Christianity would be permitted to commit. Usually he makes this out as his final decision, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. But it never is. Eventually, in due time, despite John's assertions that words do not affect him and that he is anything but insecure, he always comes crawling back to the approval of other people. Even when it's his blog to begin with. Undoubtely, he may still be checking up on this blog every once and a while, even if he isn't outright about it.

Let's just say John could use a little therapy in establishing and maintaining priorities. Because priotization seems to be John's biggest of weaknesses.

Loftus and the Ten Duh-mandments

John Loftus can’t seem to remember that he’s in no position to make arguments like the one he just threw up (and I do mean, “threw up”) on the Ten Commandments. I’m not talking about the pedantic canards re the Code of Hammurabi, or the “versions” on the Ten Cs, or slavery, etc. – those are stale and brittle, and I’ve answered them on my site or by links, and Loftus has had the answers to these points beaten into his thick skull numerous times by now. (The stupidest one, though, is that he STILL thinks the command against images has something to do with art.)

What I mean is this, where Loftus says:

Besides, what about some other commandments that aren’t listed but could be, like: ‘Thou shalt not own slaves or beat them,’ ‘Thou shalt not treat people differently because of the color of their skin,’….

Blah blah blah, etc. But once again, Loftus seems to forget:

1) There’s a command against adultery in there.

2) It certainly didn’t stop HIM, now, did it?

3) So what makes him think it's a good argument that all of these additions of his would have done some good? Hello?

It’s pretty clear by now that Loftus never learns. Or worse: He knows better, but keeps resurrecting the same canards over and over again because he’s desperate to deconvert those who know no better, and so trust him.

Really, how low can you get?