Monday, October 1, 2007

Priceless, Indeed

With special thanks to Green Baggins and Douglas Wilson, I appended the following post from the “Comments” section. And, for the record, Mr. DaFedSez is wittier than me. There’s no contest.

DaFedSez said. . .
I’d like to appreciate your blog but unfortunately I can’t as I’ve noticed it is lacking in some fundamental things (not that I like fundamentals or fundamentalism of course) that signal people it is an important and noteworthy blog they should read and pingback constantly.
  1. It doesn’t have a Latin Name. All important blogs have Latin names or are associated with Magazines with Latin Names. May I suggest something like “Add Marjerinium Morningum Gloriam.”

  2. You don’t appear to have published any new books revising historic Christianity this month or even have his own church-run printing press. All-important blog authors do.

  3. While occasionally sarcastic, your blog has a serious deficiency in snide and smug. The #2 and #3 qualities of all good blog posts.

  4. I don’t understand the theology of your posts. None of them appear to be founded on paradox or mystery, the source of all good theology.

  5. None of your posts appear to say A and Not A at the same time. How can I take you seriously when your positions are so easily nailed down? You also appear to believe that your opponents can understand what you are saying. A position we all know to be fatal to the blog conversation.

  6. You appear to be against the Federal Vision. This is the surest sign that you are not right and don’t deserve to be read or listened to.
September 28, 2007 1:24 PM

Mark T. said. . .
Dear Mr. DaFedSez,

With all due respect, you clearly do not understand the things I have written, and as long as you insist upon misrepresenting me so egregiously, you compel me to defend my good reputation by disrupting the peace and purity of the Church. Therefore, in order to prove that I am the bravest, most important man in Christendom, I challenge you to a debate so that we can resolve this matter once and for all. My word stands above all church courts forever and ever, amen. And if you refuse my challenge, then that proves you are coward who is disqualified from the ministry.

Thank you.
September 28, 2007 2:32 PM

DaFedSez said. . .
Well of course I don’t understand the things you have written, as I only read them. I failed to call you up and ask you what they currently mean at this present moment in time and without doing that, as is well known, it is totally impossible to truly understand what someone means. Also, I totally failed to understand you because I did not consider your comments in their proper context of everything you have ever written or said since birth. I see though that you are learning and may someday be respectable enough to drink with at one of our bi-weekly most-important-event-in-the-history-of-Christianity conferences.

Now I will only agree to the debate if we can agree on the following ground rules:
  1. I am wittier than you
  2. Whatever I say must be considered Reformed no matter how unreformed it sounds. If I say it, it is reformed, because I am reformed and vice versa (that’s Latin, I’ll be using that a lot so you’ll need a stack of Veritas homeschool materials to hand).
  3. The sole purpose of the debate shall be to impress the people who already agree with me and provide them with material to link to on their blogs.
  4. I get to randomly use the word “covenant” as a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, and if I wish an angry expletive.
  5. I shall be allowed to define the words I use however I wish, without being confined to their historic meaning. Additionally, if something I say is proven to be false or heretical (not that this is possible, see #2), I shall be allowed to explain the meaning of the words in such a way that it is no longer heretical. So that for instance, “Some people who have been truly united to Christ may indeed fall away” shall never be interpreted as contradicting the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.
  6. All theological arguments shall follow the ad hominem abusive style of reasoning. It shall be remembered that my ad hominem arguments are witty (see #1) while yours are unkind.
  7. We agree that I’ve won before the start.
  8. I get to wear my robe and wizard hat.
  9. We allow for frequent breaks so I can play Halo 3 in between.
September 28, 2007 3:29 PM

Mark T. said. . .
Dear Mr. DaFedSez,

Once again you have misunderstood and misconstrued my words completely, for when I challenged you to a debate, I did not mean it in a decretal sense. Rather, I offered my challenge non-decretally in order to magnify my great valor and my even greater intellect at the expense of your puny cowardice and your even punier IQ, which point you made with your decalogue save one of demands. Therefore, since the distance between the Equator and the North Pole does not affect what size Nikes I wear, it behooves you to part your hair on the opposite side of your head from its current location, so that you may position yourself to withstand global warming, the rising price of oil, and the cost of straw hats in winter.

BTW, I will talk to you anytime as long as you extend an invitation in a Haiku chiasm.

Thank you.
September 28, 2007 6:38 PM