Part of what makes a blog worth the effort is the dialogue it can open up between people of opposing views.  So I encourage people who disagree with me to express their disagreement in the comments section.  However, I have some basic expectations for commenters:

1. The comments should be related to the post.
2. The disagreement should address the specific arguments made in the post in a point and counter-point fashion.
3. All dialogue should be congenial. Let’s stick to critiquing ideas instead of each other.
4. Minimal profanity.

Any comments that do not meet these criteria will be deleted.  If I have to consistently delete your comments, you will be banned from the site.  I trust that you will find my request reasonable and do your due diligence to abide by these basic guidelines.  It will make everyone’s experience here much more enjoyable and productive.

Thank you!

19 Responses to “Commenting policy”

  1. Kerry Says:

    Jason, I have stumbled on your site recently and have enjoyed reading a different perspective presented in an intelligent and cogent manner. I was raised Fundamental Independent Bible Church kind of background, and my earlier creeds would not closely parallel much of what you espouse here on your blog, but even those old fighting fundamentalists are changing with the tides as it were.

    I myself devoted a three year period to trying to understand why I believed what I did, and have come to the conclusion that there was no basis for my beliefs. I was a PK, and devout follower of McDowell (probably too liberal for my crowd though), CS Lewis, Strobel and the like. Today I read Dawkins, Hitchens, Tyson, Ingersoll, Krauss, and others of that ilk. I would consider myself an atheist, but I am always open to clear empirical evidence.

    I just wanted you to know that I find your writings and musings provocative in a good way. I am forever a student, and will continue to research the questions that keep me up at night until I one day again turn to dust. I am satisfied and resolute in my new worldview, and find a peace that I only wish I had known when I was a believer in Scripture.

    All the best to you and I will keep reading.



  2. jasondulle Says:

    Hi Kerry. Thanks for reading, and I’m glad you enjoy the blog despite our ideological differences.

    If you are going to read atheists, I wouldn’t be reading some of those you mentioned. Even fellow atheists are embarrassed at Dawkins’ arguments against God. Hitchens? He’s full on rhetoric but short on actual arguments. He’s great at lashing out invectives but that’s about it. Krauss? I just finished Krauss’ book a Universe from Nothing. In fact, I read it twice. I wasn’t impressed with his arguments (neither was the “conservative Christian newspaper,” The New York Times:, but he presented a great history of cosmology. And when he did touch on some of the arguments related to theism, he made it clear that he does not understand the arguments, and is not familiar with the theists who articulate them.

    Why do you say “empirical” evidence? Why think it must be empirical to be valid? Or perhaps I should ask what you mean by “empirical.” You may find my post on Krauss and empiricism interesting:

    I find it curious that you described yourself as a believer in Scripture, rather than a believer in God/Jesus. Was your Christianity tied to the Bible? And did your faith wane when you were presented with evidence against the inerrancy or trustworthiness of Scripture?



  3. Kerry Says:

    Jason, Thanks for the reply. I guess by way of background I should share that most of my career was spent in government, where I was “stationed” all over the world with The State Department…primarily. I was a student of history, and first became concerned some years ago when I read a book by David Barton radically re-writing historical accounts to support his view that America was founded as a Christian nation. I knew that was not the case, at least in the way he twisted the information. That is another story for another time, but it began me thinking, what other things do I believe that are twisted and massaged to meet a specified theory or belief.

    I tackled the canonization of scripture, and the apparent error’s in scripture. Having attended a Christian University (full confession Bob Jones University), and with 4 years of Bible under my belt, much of the new research touched on things I really never knew and never questioned. This led to questions about the age of the earth. My whole extended family is still YEC, but as you can tell, I have moved on.

    As for Dawkins and Hitchens, while I like them, I do not depend on them. They are simply a part of the whole. I must confess that Hitchens was important because I was every bit the warrior for the other side as he was for atheism. I needed his assertive and combative style to yank me from my slumber and complacency. I enjoy Shermer and Faircloth, Babinski, Harris, Dennett, and Barker. I also spend much time reading some of the writings from antiquity. I always quoted from these sources, but I had never read any of them. No longer will I just accept what I am told, largely based on another’s opinions expressed as gospel.

    It should be understood, my journey did not begin with the express purpose to prove scripture wrong and become an atheist. I was not an angry doubtful christian, I was curious. And yes, I believed in the Jesus of the inerrant Word as the son of God. I now have no confidence in that inerrancy. I have studied the period between about 50 AD until about 500 AD. I love the Constantine period in particular, and have actually developed a book plot based during his reign. It may never get printed but I enjoy the research.

    I will enjoy our discussion. I am confident there is no prospect for conversion by either party, and with that as a starting point, it will be good to converse. I will read the links you provided as soon as I have the time.




  4. Kerry Says:

    Sorry I just had to add this name….I don’t know how I overlooked him in my list above….Robert M Price…the great theologian!!!!


  5. Kerry Says:

    I researched a few articles as well as the ones you offered. I am sure you have also seen Krauss’ rebuttal of the NYT article in The Atlantic.

    I rather agree with his interpretation of the science and the way in which it is presented. His answers are direct and spot-on in my opinion. He is clear that some things are not yet known, but that does not diminish his enthusiasm to the subject matter. I did rather like his line of Hitch in the article!

    And there is one more prominent name to add to my list above; Bart Ehrman. I did not read any of his books until I had already drawn my own conclusions on scripture, but his scholarly authorship and pedigree did confirm for me what I had already discovered. I think he has been incredibly thorough in his analysis. Before you send me to websites debunking Bart, I will save you time, because I have already digested what many in opposition to Bart have to say.

    As always, May your day be filled with surprise and wonder at all that we have been afforded to enjoy.



  6. Gordon Says:

    Jason, would you please start a review process on the book Darwin’s Doubt, By Dr. Stephen Meyer. I saw him speak at the S.E.S. Conference in Charlotte, NC about three weeks ago. The guy is awesome… You can see it at the book is making a real dent in Darwin’s natural selection and evolutionary ‘processes’. Please, let me know. and if you want I’ll even purchase the book for you and have amazon send it directly to the PO Box/address you provide me with (if that helps, you).



  7. jasondulle Says:

    Gordon, thanks for the offer, but I just got my copy in the mail earlier this week. I’ve heard great things about it, and I loved his previous book, Signature in the Cell. I probably won’t get a chance to read it and review it for at least another 6-8 weeks.



  8. Gordon Says:

    Good, I’ve had Sig in a Cell since its publication. I have 659 books (not counting my Bibles and commentaries) and many “The Great Courses” the Learning Company’s DVD’s (51 courses). Jason, is your library on “library thing”? if you want to see what I’ve got…

    go to that web, in the upper right search window put “get1949” then you will see “no results” on that web…then look to the left margin and click “members” then see the hyperlinked (blue) “get1949”. Click on it and enjoy.


  9. Art Says:

    Hi, Jason I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate being able to read many of your writings in IBS website, especially regarding the nature of Jesus/God. It is refreshing to see your insightful but humble way of communicating what you have picked up on and researched. I have been studying that for a while, also, and am always looking for good explanations of scriptures and concepts. I hope you keep writing; I know there are some who won’t appreciate it, but many others do. Have a blessed day
    In Him,


  10. paul thorp Says:

    With regards to your blog about beards; how would you respond to; if you grow a beard why not grow your hair long also? since nature allows men’s hair to grow long? just a comment, beards are fine since Jesus had one!


  11. jasondulle Says:

    If I was arguing that men cannot cut their facial hair, then the comparison would be valid. That’s not my argument. My argument is simply that facial hair is the only visible, God-given distinction between men and women, and as such, it promotes gender distinction (something God is interested in) and should not be prohibited. I would not argue that men must allow their facial hair to grow simply because they have it, anymore than I would argue that women must allow their armpit and leg hair to grow simply because they have it. That sort of “let nature be nature” argument has no place in my book.



  12. Beth Says:

    I really enjoyed your article, and agree with the logic of your argument. I am a woman who really like facial hair on men (my first husband had a Fu Manchu mustache, and #2 has a full, beautiful, bushy beard. Note that both men kept their hair neatly trimmed.) However – I do not believe that every man should do so. Baby-faced men just look ridiculous with furry faces, and some – like my poor brother-in-law – have such sparse and patchy hair that it makes others laugh at them. And I know one man whose beard makes his skin break out in huge, painful lumps. My attitude is – if the guy wants face fur, let him try it – if he truly hates it, then shave it off. Its all up to him.


  13. Arvin Canino Says:

    Jason, can I ask a question regarding the ultimate reward and the gift of a christian? Can anyone have a gift from God without having a reward? Knowing that the bible says that eternal life is a gift (Romans 6:23) and ruling a nations in the book of Revelation is a reward to those who continue to do God’s will (Revelation 2:26). My point is can anyone be saved by simply believing Jesus did at the cross (John 3:16) and cannot rule together with christ in this world? My other question related to the first one is that can anyone be saved without entering the kingdom of Heaven?


  14. Daniel Jo Trujillo Says:

    I enjoy your articles I belong to Apostolic assembly in the Faith of Christ Jesus we are Spanish group Keep up the good work. And may God bless you.


  15. Scalia Says:

    @Kerry. I know that this is rather late, but you did not answer Jason’s questions about your empiricism. Would you please elaborate?


  16. Greg Says:

    Dear sir, I read your post about Stephen Hawking and how God doesn’t exist. I think you’ve missed the point about the Big Bang. If time and motion start at the beginning then there is no need for a creator in the same way there is not needed a prior universe before this one in Vilenkins model. Imagine a ball leaning on an incline. Time and motion start when AS the gravity pulls the object and it acts like a complete whole. To posit a God is an even worse solution then positing a previous universe because nothing can come from nothing even with divine power. The universe looks like it’s self contained and all that there is. Best get used to this reality


  17. Scalia Says:


    Are you a cosmologist? Most of them affirm the Big Bang theory. Indeed, as Frank Tipler said, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.” Are you “used” to that reality?

    Granted, not every cosmologist subscribes to that, but the idea of creatio ex nihilo is no longer within the domain of Judeo/Christian theology. Moreover, since science depends upon observation, we are without the tools to investigate beyond our space-time dimension. The supernatural is beyond our powers of observation, it thus follows that it is also beyond the power of science to explain. We simply do not know what mechanism produced matter if it had a beginning. So, the bottom line is whether there are good philosophical reasons to identify a supernatural cause to the universe. If matter had a beginning, and if matter has a cause, then it follows that the cause would have to be immaterial.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. mizpeh1 Says:

    Jason, I would like to repost your current post on abortion to another forum. I would like to know if that is allowed or if I need your permission?


  19. That’s fine. Just attribute the source.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s