A Blogger Dies, A Blog Lives On

The late Ken Pulliam appears to have written some blog posts in advance and scheduled them to appear, and so those who read his blog have the eerie experience of reading new posts from a blogger who is no longer with us.

His latest asks “Did Adam and Eve have free will?” It mentions a post still to come, and so we will probably be treated to an ongoing series.

Unfortunately the first comment is from Rhology, known to most readers of this blog, who has decided to bring yet further shame on himself and his faith tradition by harassing someone who has recently died and has no opportunity to respond.

""Non-theistic" can cover a range of views. If what is meant is a view of ..."

Critical Christianity
"No, it was a guy named Mike McHargue, who I guess has a well-known podcast. ..."

Critical Christianity
"That's all I was hoping for when I jotted down this brief blog post back ..."

Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea ..."
"If I had to guess I'd say you're probably referring to John Shelby Spong, and ..."

Critical Christianity

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I just read Rhology's comment on Ken's blog and found it reprehensible. Thanks for condemning it here.

  • BTW, Triablogue, as we might well expect, is even more despicable in its reaction to Ken's death.

  • Hello,One can only wonder about what sort of motivations are present in you, that the announcement of the man's death quickly steers away from the man to discuss a third-rate blogger like me. Sometimes you could stand to think things through a little more thoroughly.But I would like to ask: What precisely is disgusting about my comment? The implication that the man might be spending eternity separated from the God he claimed not to believe in? Peace,Rhology

  • One can only wonder about what sort of motivations are present in you…..The fact that you even write such an ironic statement reveals much.

  • Stuart,It's probably asking too much to expect you to explain, but I'd like to ask anyway.

  • What's disgusting about is your apparent, barely hidden glee at what you imagine to be Pulliam's fate.Who cares about how his wife and family will have to read your comments, or follow the link back to your blog to read your uncharitable thoughts?What matters most is that Rhology gets more traffic to his blog.Even if you think Pulliam is justly condemned….you have no heart or compassion for those he left behind, who cared about him, or were friends with him. It's just an opportunity for you to gloat.The cup you use to measure will in turn be used for you.

  • terri,Please point out my "glee" and how my comments lack charity. You know, provide some evidence for your accusation. Thanks!

  • Rhology, I will do no such thing. And this will be my last comment because the last thing you and everyone else needs is to feed your sick obsession to be "proved" wrong before you could even comprehend how it could be possible.The very fact that you don't think those emotions seep through what you write and the metaphors you use just shows how completely and emotionally inept and unkind you are being.What hope is there for someone who can't understand how inappropriate it is to leave the kinds of comments you do less than a day after Pulliam died.Seriously, practice some self-control and find something better and more worthwhile and loving to do with yourself.

  • I second Terri's comments, he got there before I did.

  • Peter Pike: "But really, McGrath's comment is ridiculous. If Pulliam has ceased to exist, as he believed would be the case, then Pulliam cannot be offended by Rhology's comments. There is no Pulliam left to be offended. And if McGrath is being offended on behalf of a non-existent entity, then wouldn't that make him delusional?Yet if Pulliam still exists to be offended, then Pulliam's beliefs are wrong and ought to be exposed.Yeah, I know, pointing this out is "insensitive." Because as we know, atheists have no arguments so they can only pull the emotional strings and steamroll opposing views. But it really begs the question: Why is McGrath such a whiney sissy about this? Man up. Accept the atheist worldview for what it is or reject it completely."Steve Hays: "I'd add that McGrath makes a living by attacking dead Bible writers who can't respond to his attacks."From the comment thread: Coping with Death

  • Walter

    If becoming a Christian means that I will begin to act like Rhology or most of the Triabloggers, then I will happily remain an 'unregenerate' heathen.

  • Dr. Evangelicus

    Only in America, only in America . . .

  • Anonymous

    While Rhology is clearly a petty ass and his comment was intended to incite anger – lets remember he is insulting a dead man. And showing his own ignorance and stupidity by doing so. Let it go already.

  • James 2:13 "For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment."Rhology will have no mercy, but Pulliam will. My own conclusion after weighing my own feelings and reading the various reactions on several blogs (and getting riled up by Rhology's inhumanity) is that although it might seem strange at first to that you can be hit so hard by the passing of someone you don't know in any way other than from a blog and have never spoken to except through a comment box, wouldn't it be stranger if you were not touched at all? I mean, what would you be? Therefore, I pity Rhology more than Pulliam. In fact, the book of Sirach has a saying on this:"Weep for the dead, for he hath lost the light: and weep for the fool, for he wanteth understanding: make little weeping for the dead, for he is at rest: but the life of the fool is worse than death." (Sirach 22:11)