Ed "I'm Talking and I Can't Shut Up" Babinski, at last report, hadn't learned a thing; the latest news is that he remains intent on his ignorance. On an associate's blog, he left some of the usual "argument by outrage" tripe, as well as a mixed bag of stream of consciousness hoodoo which has become his trademark.
Initially, Edski whines about Ananias and Sapphira: "...two people are struck dead instantly for lying to Peter about how much money they gave the church." Yes, and? That's it. There's no argument, no analysis, no question asking why this might have been considered a just punishment. This is no different than saying, "One man was killed for giving away secrets" -- and not bothering to explain or understand whether it was a man who gossiped about his neighbor's lemon cream pie being stale, or a man selling nuclear bomb designs to Iran.
Of course, it wasn't merely "Peter" that was lied to; it was the Holy Spirit as well, so that the actions of these two were an effective denial of God's authority, and hence also, treasonous within the parameters of the Kingdom. It was, moreover, an exceptional and flagrant disregard for the whole of the fellowship of believers; it implied that one could engage the community on two levels, one in which one publicly gained honor and status for contributing to the common welfare (by professing to have given forth all one had promised) while also benefiting one's self secretly (thereby falsely accruing the prior referenced honor).
Of course, to an exegetical and emotional nincompoop like Edski, neither this nor the equally serious dishonoring of the Eucharist (1 Cor.) is anything worthy off any sort of response or punishment; God should just suck it up and mind His own business (except when it comes to Hitler, maybe) while we excellent specimens exercise our Constitutional rights. There is never any thought of how such acts would ripple and expend into greater acts that endanger the life and health of others, nor any sense that God deserves more respect than Sam the grocer. To round off his outrage, Edski wallows in the self-pity of fiery hell, a concept he knows very well I don't adhere to, at least; but don't expect him to do any more than gawk like a touristing chimpanzee at what he finds to be a bewildering variety of Christian opinions, none of which he is capable of refuting anyway.
Some remarks are then offered on my observations that 85% of humans will end up saved. He recalls seeing this on TWeb, but apparently doesn't recall how I arrived at that figure, though chances are I gave my explanation in the same space he saw the number in. How do I know this, he wants to know? Simple, Edski:
1) Hell is shame.
2) The unborn (yes, Edski, that includes zygotes), the infant, and the very young -- as well as eg, the mentally incompetent -- cannot experience shame.
3) Due to mortality figures over history (especially infant mortality), the end result is that we must suppose that, under this rubric, at least 85% of all who have ever lived got a "Get Into Heaven Free Card".
Of course, Edski is still stuck on Connecticut Avenue while the rest of us have advanced to Park Place, so rather than answer these points with something like a serious study of the agonistic tenor of the NT world, he starts with a dumb question that has no relevance or importance whatsoever ("What percentage of them will have memories of living on earth at all?"), followed by a reiteration of the opposing view in which he recites the litany of numbers of unsaved babies that must be roasting in flames by this time.
He then closes that section with bit of self-pitying rhetoric: "But woe to people who actually engage with J.P. and don't accept a majority of his answers. " Actually, Edski, the greater woe is on turkeys like you who actually don't engage with my answers, and news flash: Extended bouts of irrelevant verbal diarrhea is not "engaging" them.
Finally, moving as easily to another unrelated topic as a greased swine on roller skates, Edski rattles on about "Evangelical Christian professors [who] have been forced to leave the Christian college where they teach (or sometimes called up on heresy charges) for questioning a creationist interpretation of Genesis 1 and moving toward interpreting Genesis 1 in Mesopotamian terms." Unfortunately Edski doesn't name any of these alleged persons, which makes it rather difficult for me to direct my ire towards any of them, as he seems to think I should be doing. Of course, although he thinks this is inconsistent with my activism with Mike Licona, it doesn't occur to Edski that with Geisler vs Licona, my ire is well informed (eg, the subject of NT exegesis and interpretation), where it would not be on issues of science and origins related to Genesis 1. As is typical of Edski over the years, he has no sense of dimension or valid authority. If I knew as much about Genesis 1 issues as I do about NT exegesis, there's a good chance I'd find a dog in one of those hunts and let it loose to war. As it is, I'll be the first to say that as little as I know, any dog I tried to hunt with there would be beaten up by Cocoa.
As it is, I've learned the lesson Edski has still failed to achieve in the 15+ years I've been observing his ramblings -- when you're not well informed, keep your big mouth shut.