Arguably for while being a Creationist differing in detail, for having a wider use than they of Pagan stories (they are prepared to use pagan Flood legends, I use some more of them), for being a Roman Catholic ... or you ask them.
Anyway, I had commented under this video, and when I looked at it, comments both times sorted by most recent, this is how it looked like when I hadn't logged in:
This is how it looked like when I did log in:
I don't pretend to know their ultimate motive, but I do know, they are not the ones I am most hopefully looking to for getting my material printed.
If they have heard rumours I could be Antichrist, why are they themselves pretending to a position somewhat like it by fulfilling (in part, toward me) the part of neither buying nor selling without their image? Or mark?
If they have heard rumours I'm a pervert, well, that would be misdefining the criteria for perversion, I am not into deliberately infertile sex.
But whatever rumour they could be into, or whatever other motive they could have (simply misunderstanding my tables involving carbon dates as if I believed Göbekli Tepe was 10 000 years old, when I time after time specified I am explaining the dates from a perspective of Biblical chronology would be one option), they are bent on not letting me through. As witness the hiding of my comment.
They have claimed they do not link to blogs, but they did for Benno Zuiddam. They have claimed they don't bash Catholics, but they like hiding one (except ticked off priest), they have claimed that they don't do polemics within creationism, but they did with Sungenis and do with Flat Earth (which unlike Sungenis and me is, well, saying the Earth is not a globe, despite Magellan), they seem to have no clear consistent principle behind their policy, but they are applying it against showing my work. Even if it is relevant to theirs, as far as intellectual relevance goes.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Leo, bishop and martyr
14.III.2019
No comments:
Post a Comment