The Dumplin' Dumbash Page

On "Sneerin' at a Blind Man (or a Dumb One)"

Oops. Dumplin' Dumbash has found us. He has said he'll add this to his "list of blog fodder."

Oooooh. We're SO skeered now.

Let's get a few things clear. One will note the URL here is not "tektonics.org". It's "tektoonics.com". When I put answers to pissants like Dumbash here, there's a reason for it.

Look at the main tektoonics.com page, Dumbash, and you might get a clue. But since I know you only exercise your brain once a week, I'll spell it out for you:

You're so mouth-foamingly ignorant that I take you no more seriously than a cartoon character.

It took me all of five minutes each to answer your prior blarg entires. That's how bad your scholarship is, and how ridiculous your arguments are.

But anyway, let's talk about his latest wah wah:

What is it with Christians and this compulsion to commit the same "sins" they accuse me of, in the very act of accusing me of them? Cutie-pie comments indeed!

Uh uh, Dumbash. The problem is not the cutie-pie comments. The problem is that they're used with zero substance and scholarship accompanying them. In other words, "cutie-pie" is ALL YOU GOT, BOY. We wouldn't see a source reference to a peer-reviewed publication on your site if one tried to sneak in overnight. You'd step on it for fear it would give your brain some exercise.

What’s really funny is that he’s just dying to call me a Dumbass, but he can’t! Baby Jesus might cry or something, so the best he can do is call me "Dumbash." Why not just call me Dumb-diddly-um-dum, Ned?

Actually, "Ned," after 7 years of correctional work, all of that language is old and moldy. It's much harder to create a consonant synonym than it is to use what is commonly regarded as profanity by my readers. Not that you'd have the mental horsepower to get past a cat sat on a mat in the creative arts department. Other than that, I wouldn't wish to insult Dumb-diddly-um-dum by wasting it on a pissant like you.

It’s clear where he puts his faith anyway: in the credentials of men, and in human scholarship. Not that this is a bad thing; after all, since God doesn’t show up in real life, it’s not like he has any opportunity to put his faith in Him. It’s up to men to work up reasons for believing, in God’s absence.

As you read the thrashing I gave you, Dumplin', you'll discover two things related to this: 1) Your definition of "faith" is wrong, and came out of your life of diseased, ignorant fundamentalism; 2) Your idea of God "showing up in real life" is an artifact of the diseased, ignorant mutation that is modern feelgood Christianity, galaxies away from the reality of God as a distant covenant patron. Too bad your little crybaby self was disappointed because God wouldn't change the TV channel for you, but that's the way it goes.

Enjoy having your arse kicked, Dumplin'. It'll keep happening as long as you keep waving it around the way you do.

Also, some of his peanut gallery comments from the 6 people who read his blog every day after they get done with the one on the Sesame Street website.

A Useful Idiot called "GaySolomon" whined:

When one strips away the ad hominem attacks of Tektonics, and his presumption of omniscience, we are left with very little that is not an appeal to tradition or to authority.

He appears to believe that we must be scholars of scripture before we are qualified to point out that his "emperor" has no clothes.

What can I say, Gay? Your ignorance speaks for itself. Look up "Dunning's Syndrome" to get an idea what you need a cure for. By the way, if Dumbash or any of his friends has the nerve, they can come see me on theologyweb.com. We could use the laughs.

Useful Idiot "jim" says:

Wow! The Tekton ‘parody’ page of your site seems to have missed the most salient of points, by not recognizing that its brand of apologetics is a parody of orthodox exegesis. Most of the OT prophecies are meant to be read as simple analogies, and NOT as predictions?! Since when? Also, I see Vox Day’s brand of reason-replaced-by-snark is spreading throughout the Christian blogworld. Of course, when information is compared head to head, as in your criticisms here, what else do the theists have to offer but snark? Theirs is a child’s game, so what else can we expect but a child’s response? Fairly typical, I’m afraid.

Wow, that was specific. Since when, jim? Since reality. Try some Richard Longenecker to start; then some Malina and Rohrbaugh, once your nose has been sufficiently browned reading Randel Helms.

Also, the attempts at justifying the apparent absence of God demonstrably acting in this world are priceless, if stale. Follow the logic all the way to the end, and you wind up with something like ‘the less proof we have of God’s existence=the more proof that He exists’. Sigh....

Only if you're stupid, jim, which you are. The references to patronage have never been used by anyone else in this context and are not equal to "the less proof we have," etc. Let us know when you graduate to reading books on Jewish exegesis, probabilities, and Greco-Roman models of patronage. jim goes on:

Also, the real ’scholars of scripture’…meaning, of course, the professional historians of ancient texts such as those found in the bible, find the ideas about inspired writings and inerrant scriptures laughable. The only ’scholars’ *chuckle* representing the fundamentally ‘inspired’ view of the bible are pre-disposed believers with an eye towards squaring up any discrepancies in favor of ‘the faith’. Not exactly an honest approach, is it? The same can be said for ’scholars’ of the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc.

That's how it is, jim. You can't win the arguments, so like a little crybaby, run away to the old "waaah, they're biased" canard. Not that you'd hold a candle to any scholar in the field, whether they are believers or not. Answering an actual argument? Too hard!

I can’t believe we’re still arguing about this stuff, especially in the West. Christians, the verdict has been in for more than a century! You lost!!! (Although, it IS fun pointing it out, sometimes).

Then show up on theologyweb and show us, jim. We need some fresh meat. Next, a useful idiot named Chris showed up; he won honors as one of the latest to be too stupid to know I legally changed my name -- one year and 6 days later. Duh ah....and he plays the "he has no credentials" card which definitely answers the arguments I get from credentialed sources.

Useful Idiot AndyD adds:

So, if I paraphrase him properly…

If I contract a carpenter to replace my roof and when he’s finished I can see no difference whatsoever, inside or outside of the roof, then I must go and get my own carpentry trade papers before I can declare the contracted carpenter a fraud?

Or let me put that another way...if a plumber claims to have fixed my leaking taps without ever showing up at my house…

Of course, by extrapolation, if Tekton isn’t an aethiest, he is no position to dismiss your arguments.

You paraphrase me improperly, AndyD. For one thing, there is a vast degree of difference between being able to evaluate roof work or a leaky tap, and being able to evaluate Biblical scholarship. That you don't know this only indicates your ignorance. Plumbers do not go to school to learn that a tap is leaking. This is like saying you can just look at the Bible and know the difference between a collectivist and individualist society, or learn Koine Greek, just by looking at it.

With readers like that, Dumbash, I can see where you get your brains.