The Dumplin' Dumbash Page

On "Apologetics Toon Style"

Dumplin's latest mosh pit can be summed up like this: "If I'm stupid, it's your problem." Duh ah.

After spending a few lines honking his Bozo nose and saying nothing in particular, Dumbash admits that yes, he's "just not smart enough or patient enough to spend my life chasing after all the different things men say about the other things other men have said…" Yes, we knew that, Dumplin': You're too stupid to do depth research. We've already seen that. News flash in a can.

It shows. According to him, I "easily [gave] up on trying to explain why, exactly, a 'biblical model' of God would make it clear how 'idiotic' it would be to expect God to show up in real life!" No, Dumplin', that's just you being stupid again. The answer about a patronage model is the answer - no more explanation needed. If you're too ignorant to know what that is, that's your problem, no one else's. And no, we already whacked you for that whine about "going outside the Scriptures". Save your fundy presumption for someone else. Even as a fundy you went to English dictionaries to know what the Bible said, right? Does your Bible have an English dictionary? Uhhhh….looks like you just went and hanged yourself right next to Judas.

Despite his crybabying, that God did not show up in HIS little life does not mean God has never shown up anywhere at all. And yes, Dumplin' it does run down to you being "not clever enough to perceive the lofty and esoteric principles that undergird their arguments, and what's more, you are ignorant, having failed to read all the books that have been written about theology over the past twenty centuries." Not that this is anyone's fault but your own. The bar for "stupid" has been lowered so many times now that what it boils down to is that you're lazy and irresponsible with fact. This is as much as a white flag from Dumplin' admitting that he's out of his league with us here: The problem is, no matter how persuasive those clever theologians are, and no matter how "comfortable" Holding is with a remote God who does not show up in real life, theology, in God's absence, boils down to talking about talk. That's a "problem" all right, Dumplin', but its YOURS - not ours. Your blatter about theologians and "job security" is the whine of the intellectually deficient barking up at superiors. The persecution complex wears well on you.

In the end, it is clear that Dumplin' has no answers to any arguments. Thus it is that he toddles back to the old "God didn't show up" whine that relies wholly on modern emotionalism and sentimentalism and not a contextual picture of the Biblical model.

Dumplin' whines in close, "Holding tries hard to refute my central claim, but in the end all he can do is confirm that my Fact really is Undeniable." Not at all. Your "fact," Dumplin, is a straw man doused with red herring oil and set aflame. But we've seen that when it comes to arguments, that's really all you can handle.

In the Peanut Gallery section, we have the usual laugh riots. The bungler Ebon comes by to proclaim victory and shows his burnt backside as proof. Yet another case of the blind cheering on the blind. An ignoramus named "Paul C" says that I appear "to have more contempt for the vast majority of Christians in the world" -- wrong. Most of the Christians in the world (which means, those in eg, Thord World countries) are thankfully still not infected with modern, Western thought that leads to McLaren and Osteen. Paul C apparently thinks that having "been taught and firmly believe that they have a personal relationship with God" is somehow meaningful -- as if that's a refutation of the patronage model. "John Morales" thinks Dumplin' has "hit a nerve" -- yes, he has: The one in my "funny bone" that makes me laugh hilariously. Finally, dopy "Paul Murray" recommends "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark" which is a real stupid move. It's all old news, guys -- get with the program.