“When they saw the star, they were overwhelmed with joy. Entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and falling to their knees, they worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And being warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their own country by another route.” (CSB – Read the chapter)
At one point in Jesus’ ministry, a group of mothers were attempting to bring their children to Jesus so He could bless them. The disciples started to scold them for interrupting their master when He was teaching. Jesus stopped what He was doing and immediately scolded the disciples. He told them to let the children come to Him because unless you come to Him as a child, you’ll never get to Him at all. That episode was far removed from the one we see in our passage here. The two scenes, though, are more connected than you might think. Let’s talk about why as we continue our Advent journey today.
Yesterday, we talked about the incredible journey the wise men made to come and see Jesus. It would have been hugely expensive for them. Given the inherent dangers of the day, they didn’t know for sure when they left that they would ever see home again. Their ability to stay focused on a single goal that long really was remarkable, especially when you consider what the goal was.
Today, let’s give a little more attention to that goal. The wise men were journeying to see Jesus. At the end of the day, they were going to bow down before a toddler. Just let that sit on you for a second. These great and wise and widely respected men, we’re going to get on their knees and worship a child who might have only known a few words—abba, ema, and etc.
We are in a season at my church when we have a growing number of babies in the community. It’s a ton of fun and speaks to a future for the church in a way that a sea of gray heads doesn’t (not that I have anything against gray heads as I am increasingly and more and more exclusively joining that hallowed club). I love little kids. They are a ton of fun. But I’m pretty hard pressed to think that I would bow down and worship one of them. That would be silly. They’re wonderful, but they’re not worthy of my worship.
And yet, look what happened when these wise and important men arrived in Bethlehem. They found the place where the star they had been following was straight overhead. That we are aware of, they did not even flinch when they discovered it was a humble stable that was perhaps little more than a cave carved out of the side of a hill. They introduced themselves to the occupants of the stable – a man and his wife and their toddler. And then they fell on their knees and worshiped the toddler and presented expensive gifts to Him. Oh to be a fly on the wall observing this scene unfold in real time!
The whole thing would have looked and, to anyone who knew who all the parties involved were, sounded like utter silliness to the casual observer. But while the man and his wife were no doubt shocked at what was happening, they weren’t surprised by it. They’d been there before. These visitors were rather higher on the social ladder than their last unexpected visitors to worship their son, but they knew what they were doing was right. And the wise men themselves were completely convinced of the rightness of their actions. They were in the presence of the Jewish Messiah. Perhaps their only surprise was that no one else had realized this is where He was and who He was.
When Jesus announced that entrance into God’s kingdom was reserved for those who were willing to come like little children, He was talking about the kind of faith it takes to get in. A childlike faith is prized not for its naivete, but for its tenacity. Children are naturally trusting. In healthy family situations, a young child is willing to take the word of her parents about things she doesn’t understand because of her trust in their character. She has experienced their love and so therefore trusts that what they tell her is the truth even when she can’t see how it could be. In other words, she has faith in them. It is not possible for her to test and prove everything on her own, and that’s okay. She knows who they are, and that’s enough.
If we are going to be a part of God’s kingdom, if we are going to receive the eternal life Jesus came to offer by His death and resurrection, faith is how we will ultimately do that. We were not there to see Him walk out of His tomb. No one was. His resurrection cannot be proven the way something like the strength of gravitational force can be proven. It is ultimately a proposition received by faith. We receive it by faith in the word of those who have themselves believed it and experienced the risen Savior before us.
Faith like this, though, has a source. That source is humility. It comes out of a willingness to honestly acknowledge who God is and who we are in light of that. And who we are is creatures who do not know everything about the world and its workings. There is more to this world than we could possibly understand. The more we learn about the world and how it works, the more we realize just how little we know. The brightest human minds are nearly always the most humble ones as well. Humility like that is the product of knowledge and wisdom. The folly and arrogance of unbelieving scientists in the past who thought they understood well enough how life worked to declare their independence of any kind of a Creator God has been revealed many times over. It is still, though, only the wisest and most humble who are willing to acknowledge the truth today. Faith is the natural byproduct of such humility.
If we want to experience the full riches of the season of Advent, the faith that comes from humility is still the way we will access them. Just like the wise men did so many Christmases ago, on a day and time that had little to do with our modern celebration beyond sharing the same object of our worship, when we are willing to submit ourselves to that little baby who grew to be the man who would show us how to live and then offer Himself as a sacrifice to make it possible, the life that He still offers to those who receive Him with that same childlike faith can be ours.
May you find the humility that once allowed great and important men to bow in worship before a toddler so that you can enjoy with them the riches of the life that is truly life.
The Nexus 
You do realise the tale of the wise men is simply a fable, I hope?
LikeLike
I’ll let you reflect on the whole history of our dialogue and see if you can piece together how I would answer that question for yourself.
LikeLike
The phrase…. ” blah, blah, nonsense drivel, secular lens.. .. worldview, ” comes to mind.
How close was that?
LikeLike
There, see? You didn’t even need me for that one.
LikeLike
I am pretty sure if I copied this and saved it I could paste it on every post you ever put up and it would be relevant. Which, when you consider the light in which it puts Christianity, the implications inform us that such beliefs are based upon a foundation of unfounded supernatural nonsense and have no basis in reality. This is quite sad, all things considered, and when indoctrinated into children should be cause for concern.
LikeLike
I could do likewise with your responses. Which keeps bringing me back to the question of why you keep reading and commenting on a Christian pastor’s devotional blog written for a Christian audience when my answers aren’t going to change, and yours haven’t either. Seems like a rather silly exercise in futility on your part unless you really are interested in the Gospel message, and by encountering it again and again it is slowly breaking through and wearing down your resistance.
LikeLike
True, but we all need some light relief and I was guided here from another non believer. God works in mysterious ways, eh? 😉
As I have mentioned before religion is fascinating and having been brought up in a (very) loose Christian environment it is Christianity I am most famiar with.
I am sure you might consider it flaterring or even weird that I would visit your blog but you are not the sole Christian I interact with and I hope this does not make you feel less special or bruise your ego in any way?
I generally learn a thing or two from reading and interacting and learning anything I consider to be a good thing.
If you consider me a drag or troll(I really am not) I would respect your decision and not visit.
My only wish would be that you would drop this ‘worldview’ facade and engage honestly where evidence is the sole basis of our dialogue.
But I understand if you are not prepared to abandon your faith based position.
C’est la vie.
LikeLike
He does that.
No, I did not for a second think I was your only date to the dance. I’m not that vain. Flattered, no more so than when anyone else visits. Weird, a little because you’ve stuck around for so long when you very obviously don’t agree with pretty much anything I say. I do agree that learning is always a good thing.
On the worldview question, my hope is that you finally someday realize just exactly what worldviews are and how significant they are in determining our understandings of reality, and why your chosen worldview isn’t the best one on the market. Your last bit of understanding is looking at the thing from the wrong angle, but that’s what your worldview does 😉
As for sticking around, by all means. I (mostly) enjoy the interaction. Besides, it provides good entertainment for members of the congregation who read regularly.
LikeLike
As mentioned before, fact is fact, evidence is evidence.
If you consider this must change simply because your worldview demands it then you simply do not understand evidence and are simply deceiving yourself.
Such a view is no better than Young Earth Creationists asserting there was a global flood and dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
This is delusional and does not comport with reality.
As I mentioned before, that you may hold with such beliefs is unfortunate, but the fact you consider it is your right to pass this rubbish onto children who generally have little defense against such tripe is nothing short of abuse.
This is why I wrote that I wish you would engage honestly.
LikeLike
Yes, and as I have explained before an equally numerous amount of times, facts are facts, but worldview determines how we interpret those facts and even whether we will accept them as facts.
In response, you’ll cite gravity, of course. You’ll also cite the YEC view which I have said over and over I do not support, which means that in raising it again and again with me, you are simply beating a straw man when you bring it up.
But then that’s always what you do. And, as I have noted far more times than I could begin to count, I have never engaged with you anything other than honestly. It is your worldview commitments that prevent you from being able to see or understand that.
Worldview lies at the heart of every argument you make, have ever made, or will ever make. You can’t escape it whether you are willing to understand that fact (yes, a fact) or not.
LikeLike
“…. facts are facts, but worldview determines how we interpret those facts and even whether we will accept them as facts.”
And if you interpret facts merely to accommodate your worldview then it neither comports with reality nor is it a fact. It is for all intent and purpose a lie.
I submit the foundational tenets of the Christian Worldview are not supported by evidence or fact and do not comport with reality.
It is at this point where I consider you do not engage with any serious degree of honesty.
However, I am nothing if not open to be proven wrong. Feel free to produce evidence.
LikeLike
I know, because we’ve been here before. Over and over and over again.
I agree with your initial statement entirely. Your second statement is merely a cut and paste point you’ve made before. Your third statement is entirely worldview dependent and you won’t ever accept that.
Your final statement is a non-starter because thanks to worldview considerations, we won’t agree on what counts as evidence or what evidence can be considered. As I said, the facts are what they are, but worldview determines how we engage with and interpret those.
We can keep spinning around in this circle, but we’re not going to get anywhere. We never have before.
LikeLike
This is the same type of ridiculous argument used by Young Earth Creationists.
When used by you it is disingenious.
LikeLike
Nope, I sincerely meant every word I wrote. But because you don’t and refuse to come to a robust understanding of worldview in the first place, that’s the only way you’ll remain able to receive it. It’s why we just keep spinning in circles.
LikeLike
Okay, let’s try this.
Consider the tale of the Noachian Global Flood.
For the moment completely ignore anything / everything you might expect I will reply, and simply produce what you consider to be evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the Bible text and how it aligns with your worldview.
LikeLike
I’ve done that before. Why do it again?
LikeLike
Maybe we can find some common ground?
We both recognize YEC is nonsense and has no basis in fact and evidence supports this. So it might help me understand exactly what you mean by evidence and how it ties in with worldview.
Just humour me for a few minutes.
It shouldn’t take long and besides, football is about to start.
LikeLike
At the dentist with the kids. It’ll be tomorrow at the earliest.
LikeLike
No problem.
You know the best time to go to the dentist?
Two thirty.
LikeLike
Waa…waa…waaaaaaaaah
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this is the one I said I’d answer.
Let me start here (and try not to spit your coffee all over the screen when you read this). That a flood of some level of epic proportions (global as we understand that concept today or global as an ancient person would have understood it are not the same thing) happened at some point in the ancient past is primarily a position of faith, not scientific evidence as, to my awareness, there has not yet been discovered empirical evidence of the sort that would satisfy a methodological naturalist to scientifically prove it happened.
Because of this and because precisely understanding the antediluvian narratives of Genesis is a more complicated affair than many people would like it to be, establishing exactly what the Flood would have been like, and its full extent, isn’t something we can clarify with the kind of archaeological precision we would like and which we have for other biblical claims like Hezekiah’s water tunnel, created to help Jerusalem endure the attempted Assyrian siege of the city during his reign. That tunnel, by the way, was dismissed by eminent archaeologists as a mere biblical fable until it was actually and accidentally discovered.
The reason, then, I am willing to accept the historical existence of an epic flood is tied up in worldview considerations, although not entirely so. Various ancient human cultures have narratives about an ancient and epic flood in their creation cycles. These stories are not all precisely the same, and they come from various parts of the world. While we can obviously just dismiss all of these as myths, another approach is to acknowledge that there seems to be some kind of a collective human memory of an ancient and epic flood. What exactly it was like and what was its extent isn’t remotely clear, but that something happened in the ancient world seems to be a proposition that is not entirely without merit.
On the more worldview side of things, because I am convinced that Jesus really is who the Gospels claim Him to be (namely, God incarnate), and because He is willing to take stories like the Genesis flood account at face value, I’m willing to give Him the benefit of the doubt. This makes a decision rooted in faith, but not an unreasonable one.
Every worldview has positions that are ultimately matters of faith when it comes to the ancient world. For instance, the worldview of methodological naturalism holds as a matter of faith that the world did not come into existence because of a designing intelligence of some sort. Let me see if I can anticipate the rebuttal: But we simply say that we don’t know how it happened. That’s not faith, that’s just being honest. Sure. Except that as a matter of worldview necessity, a designing intelligence cannot be an accepted answer. If there was such a designing intelligence, then it would have to be supernatural given the size and scope of the task of creating the universe and everything in it. But on methodological naturalism, the supernatural does not exist. So that explanation for how the world was created is ruled out a priori. Instead, there is this insistence that it must have happened entirely naturally. There are several problems with this, but the two most relevant here are that in claiming that we don’t know, but that it can’t be that option, you’re really claiming that you sort of do know, and the more we come to understand about the sheer complexity of the universe and of life and specifically the volume of information contained in DNA, the less compelling (not to mention logical) a purely natural explanation for it all becomes. The faith-based nature of the continued insistence that it must have been natural becomes more and more glaring the longer it is held.
To put that another way, and to wrap this far too long reflection up, the insistence on naturalism as an explanation for the creation and existence of the world is not made because of a trove of evidence pointing in that direction, but because of a worldview commitment serving as the filter for interpreting the facts that do exist. It is a faith commitment just like Christians make, but oriented in a different direction. Because of this, dismissing certain positions that Christians hold on the basis of faith is duplicitous at best. The it’s-fine-for-me-but-not-for-thee approach doesn’t play well.
LikeLike
The question was with regard the tale of the Noachian Global Flood,for which geological evidence has refuted, and clarified, not regarding creation in general.
Aldo, this does not take into account the biological / animal issues associated with the tale.
Therefore, for the sake of brevity do you
1. reject the scientific evidence
Or
2. accept the tale as described as historical fact?
I am happy with a reply of 1 or 2.
LikeLike
No, the prompt I was responding to was this:
“Consider the tale of the Noachian Global Flood. For the moment completely ignore anything / everything you might expect I will reply, and simply produce what you consider to be evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the Bible text and how it aligns with your worldview.”
I have given my response. What you offer here is a false choice whose premise I reject because it is rooted in your own worldview convictions. I’m not going to give you more than that because I’m not interested in hashing it out further with you. I already know where this conversation goes because we’ve had it before. A lot.
LikeLike
But you have NOT provided evidence. THAT is the point.
And thus it cannot align with your worldview because the scientific facts flatly refute it.
So, to the point of demonstrating whether you lie about the bible, and as the excuse of wilfull ignorance can only be string out for so long, I think the answer is clear enough, don’t you?
LikeLike
I addressed that concern in my response. And again, you’re asking a question whose entire premise I reject, so it’s moot to me. As always, you can’t see beyond your worldview blinders to allow for us to have actual conversations on these kinds of things.
LikeLike
Exactly. Your worldview does not comport with reality or scientific evidence.
Yet you will accept similar scientific evidence when it does not conflict with your supernatural beliefs
Thus, you lie to defend the tales in the bible. It really is quite straightforward.
Imagine you decide to buy your wife a pair of simple but exquisite diamond earrings. Nothing too expensive.
You have a trusted, lifelong friend who is a jeweler who offers you a pair that are just what you are looking for. You buy them and just to be on the safe side you decide to get them appraised for insurance purposes. When the assessor inspects them it is discovered they are not diamond but paste.
Wow! You trusted your friend and now you feel as though you might have been short changed. It could be a mistake or it could be a lie. What to do?
However because he is your friend you decide to put doubt aside accept his judgement they are diamond and reject the insurance assessor.
But now you have made this decision to reject the evidence you are in a quandary. So you get another appraisal and this too confirms they are paste not diamond. But you reject this one as well and find the top top diamond merchant and pay a not insignificant sum for his appraisal.
And guess what? He too confirms they are paste.
So while you have trusted your friend all your life you are now going to give your wife a gift that you know in your heart is fake, a gift you will tell her are diamonds because your friend told you they were. When your kids see them they too are informed they are diamond.
Later your wife shows her friends and your kids tell their friends and the tale of the not really diamond earrings becomes entrenched among family and friends…. All because you trusted your lifelong jeweler friend and refused to accept independant, multiple attested evidence.
And while you try to convince yourself the assessors and the diamond merchant are wrong or poorly informed because their worldview can’t possibly accept that paste might still be diamond…. somehow this just seems like a lie.
And you know why?
Because it is a lie.
LikeLike
Still wrong. It doesn’t comport with your worldview. And, because that worldview defines your entire explanatory apparatus for reality, that I’m lying is all you can stand on to make sense of the differences. But, because you refuse (are incapable?) of countenancing the impact of worldview on your understanding of reality, you can’t see what it is you are doing. It’s why we can have productive conversation. But you’re stuck there, so, here we sit. And you just keep coming back to argue in circles with me. Go figure.
LikeLike
Worldview that does not incorporate, fact, truth evidence etc while asserting it is fact/ truth etc is a delusion/fantasy
If one refuses to acknowledge this but uses the same scientific methodology to establish fact for something else one accepts is therefore embracing a lie.
You reject YEC.
Yet you accept the Noachian Flood.
The evidence that refutes one is the same that refutes the other.
You assert the latter is fact when you know it is not
You are embracing a lie.
LikeLike
Yes, that is the worldview-driven conclusion you are forced to make given your unrealized limitations. And it’s why we can have productive conversations about these kinds of things.
LikeLike
Why does your worldview accept refuted unscientific claims that are ostensibly lies?
More pertinantly why do you accept and transmit these lies?
LikeLike
It doesn’t. And I don’t. You keep asking that question and refusing the accept the answer I have given you over and over and over again, and wi keep giving you over and over and over again until you finally stop asking because of the worldview commitments you are bound by. Until you accept that, we’ll just keep spinning round in pointless circles. It’s the same reason you won’t accept that a designing intelligence is the best explanation for the existence and nature of the universe and the life it contains, and instead offer up the cop out plea of ignorance and refuse to grapple with the fact that logically, chance and necessity are the only other explanatory options even though both of those are beyond pathetic as far as explanatory options go. Your worldview commitments bind and limit you to that path.
LikeLike
This was why I used the flood as an example and asked you to produce evidence.
You have not and cannot, yet still defend your worldview in the face of evidence that flatly refutes the Noachian Global Flood merely because Jesus accepted it!
You have no frigging clue WHAT the character Jesus of Nazareth said. All you have are words attributed to him. Words written in an anonymous text that has undergone numerous redactions.
That you accept the same scientific methodology which refutes YEC for example demonstrates the general hypocrisy of your worldview.
That you gleefully pass on these erroneous tales as fact suggests you accept and embrace the lies they are.
What this says about you is up to the individual to decide.
LikeLike
Yes, and that is the conclusion your worldview commitments force you to draw. How many times shall I have to repeat that before it sinks in? I think this is number six in just this interchange. As I’ve also said several times in just this interchange, we’re just going to keep running around in circles like this. Why keep doing that? It’s like you’re insistent that if you try hard enough you’re going to get me to give a different answer. You aren’t. Let’s just call this one and move on.
LikeLike
You do not accept the scientific evidence that refutes the Noachian Global Flood.
You accept the same scientific method that refutes YEC.
This makes you a hypocrite
That you pass on the fantasy of the Noachian Flood as fact makes you a liar.
LikeLike
Again, yes, that’s the conclusion you are forced to by your worldview position. You’ve repeated those charges to me ad nauseam. I respond about the same way every time. Your continuing to repeat them is going to get me to change my response. Nor is it having any impact on my position. In other words, you’re wasting your time.
LikeLike
My worldview embraces fact and evidence. Your worldview embraces, fantasy and supernaturalism.
Please explain on what scientific grounds you reject YEC?
LikeLike
Yes, that is how it seems from the standpoint of your worldview framework. I get that.
And, no, because continuing to spin around in this circle isn’t worth my time anymore. It wasn’t from the start as we wound up exactly where I said we would when I told you I didn’t want to take this path in the first place. I won’t humor you on the matter again.
LikeLike
In actual fact it is important because it exposes more than the frailties of your faith based worldview.
That you now refuse to explain the grounds upon which you reject YEC once again highlights the glaring hypocrisy of your position.
There is a YEC geologist ( I forget his name) who obtained a PhD at a secular university simply so he could use his newly acquired credentials to promote his YEC beliefs on AiG or Creation Ministries.
It could hardly be argued that this is not the action of a fraud.
Your behaviour in the matter of the Flood bears similar hallmarks.
Dishonesty is not something you should be proud of.
LikeLike
No, it highlights the fact that I’m tired of going round in circles with someone with whom having productive conversations on these kinds of questions is pointless because of his worldview blinders. You are exposing exactly nothing to me, and you aren’t convincing yourself of anything you weren’t already convinced of. Furthermore, given that the vast majority of my audience so far as I can tell, believes like I do, you’re not convincing any of them of anything except that you’re one of those irritating internet atheists who doesn’t seem to have anything to do except to harass believers on a Christian blog. So, again, you’re wasting your time.
You seem to be complaining about the YEC geologist (and remember, given that I don’t accept the YEC position, every time you raise it, you are doing nothing more than beating one of your favorite straw men), except that the secular university granted him the Ph.D. If he was a fraud, they shouldn’t have done that, yes? That they did would seem to suggest they considered him to be not a fraud. Either way, this has literally nothing to do with me. It’s a pointless straw man. So, again, you are wasting your time and accomplishing little more than to reveal your worldview biases.
LikeLike
The YEC geogist did not reveal his beliefs, hence he was able to obtain his PhD. You can Google him if you are so inclined. He has even published papers.
That your prime target audience believes as you do does not detract in the least from the fact your insistance that my worldview is at fault is simply a non sequiter.
Maybe if they follow along they might even wonder why you are being so obtuse over this matter?
What is relevent is the fact you embrace the scientific method when is suits your end game – the rejection of Young Earth Creationism- yet flat out reject it immediately it comes into conflict with you faith based worldview, as in the refuted Bible tale of the Noachian Global Flood.
Furthermore, as you refuse to explain why you abuse the scientific method in this manner more than justifies the label of hypocrisy.
Disseminating this blatently anti scientific nonsense as historical fact is tantamount to telling lies.
LikeLike
Which, once again, is the conclusion your worldview position forces you to adopt. I think we’re up to nine such observations now. That’s going to be it for me. Have a good weekend.
LikeLike
Recognised scientific/geologic evidence determines whether or not the Flood is factual or not, and it has been determined to be myth. This has absolutely nothing to do with my ‘worldview’ and your continual assertion it does is both petulant, asinine and factually wrong.
That you accept the scientific evidence when it suits you (YEC) but reject it when it doesn’t (Noachian Flood) perfectly illustrates your hypocrisy in this matter.
That you disseminate such faith based beliefs as historical fact purely on the anonymously attributed words in anonymous religious text indicates your willingness to embrace a blatent lie merely to defend your religious position.
LikeLike
There’s that worldview-driven final barb that is such an integral part of your style.
LikeLike
See, rather than address the evidence you continue with asinine comments and petulance.
You must believe that your behaviour will so ingratiate you with your congregation who you hope will be cheering you on from the cheap seats.
I wonder, Jonathan when did such blatently dishonest behaviour become virtuous?
“Hey, dad, is it true the scientific evidence shows that Noah’s Flood was not really a global event?”
“Well, son, you see, Jesus thought it was, so…”
“But, dad, the evidence…”
“Oh, you can’t trust scientists, son. That’s just their worldview”
“What about dinosaurs, dad? My friend at school says they lived with us 6000 years ago.”
“That’s ridiculous son. Scientists know this YEC stuff is nonsense.”
“I thought you said we couldn’t trust scientists, dad?”
“Er…”
“Dad?”
“Hush now. Eat your cereal. Look, there are plastic dinosaurs in the packet. Oh…. and a model of Noah’s Ark.”
🤦
LikeLike
Keep on beating that straw man. It’s a good frustration release over the fact that I completely reject the whole premise of your position and resolutely refuse to engage with you on the terms that you set and which are rooted in your worldview framework.
LikeLike
Evidence is evidence We have established this before.
For you it is all about interpretation.
However, this does not change the nature of the evidence which we know flatly refutes the Bible tale of the Noachian Global Flood.
Your assertion that your worldview view is correct is not only ridiculous in the face of scientific evidence but is also demonstrably false.
You can reject this til the cows come home but were you to present your case as a genuine and reasonable alternative based on your belief the character Jesus of Nazareth also believed the tale was fact to a group of scientists/geologists and biologists and include a few of the more honest Christians you would likely be regarded in the same light as you view Ken Ham and YEC and either ridiculed or, if you were lucky, politely ignored.
Such a position is risible and the fact you accept and use the same scientific method to refute YEC simply smacks of hypocrisy.
That you refuse to engage me on the subject from a scientific perspective indicates you are willing to accept a historical myth merely to maintain your religious position.
This is disingenuous and when disseminated to others, especially children is blatently dishonest.
LikeLike
And again, yes, that’s the position you’ve repeated ad nauseam. It is one deeply rooted in your worldview framework. It’s comical to me that you take so much time to keep writing it all back out when you know it’s not moving the needle.
LikeLike
It was never intended to “move the needle”, merely to demonstrate the dishonesty of your position, which it does, more than adequately.
LikeLike
I hope you stretched before you started patting yourself on the back there. You could pull a muscle like that. 😉
LikeLike
Nah, I tend to leave that sort of self-congratulation to those who need the recognition of others in order to establish their sense of self-worth.
The only stretching involved was having to dumb down the language enough to ensure the message carried.
Based on your latest response- which is surprising devoid of the words ‘your worldview’- it seems this was a success.
Maybe this might resonate with you?
LikeLike
I am just filling in before the game starts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Go…Arsenal? Manchester? Richmond?
LikeLike
Leicester v West Ham.
No Ted Lasso in sight, I’m afraid
LikeLike
Too bad. That was such a good series.
LikeLike
It was indeed. We loved it.
LikeLike
I am pretty sure if I copied this and saved it I could paste it on every post you ever put up and it would be relevant
I am pretty sure that’s what you’ve been doing. Lol.
LikeLike