“On this rock I will build my church”—OK, but which “rock”?

07 May

English: Icon of Jesus Christ

English: Icon of Jesus Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the regulars on this blog posted a comment concerning Matthew 16:18.  That verse reads,


“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”


Matthew 16:18 is commonly believed to mean that the man, Peter, was thereby commissioned to be the “rock” or cornerstone on which the church of Christ is built.  That belief lies at the foundation for the Catholic Church.

Maybe so, but I think Matthew 16:18 is commonly misread and misunderstood.

I believe that the “rock” mentioned in Matthew 16:18 is not the man Peter, but instead the principle described just three verses earlier in Matthew 16:15 which reads,


“Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 


That’s the “rock” on which the church of Christ is built—the fundamental principle that the being we now (incorrectly) call “Jesus” is the Christ (chosen one) and Son of the living God.

The Christ’s status as “Son of the living God” is the essence of Christianity.  If the Christ is not the Son of the living God, Christianity is a useless myth. 

On the other hand, who gives a damn if Peter were the “rock” on which Christ’s church is built? Are we to believe that the Christian faith is based on Peter?  Peter died.  Did the church of Christ die with him?

If the church of Christ was built on the “rock” called “Peter,” why don’t we call our faith the Peterist Faith, or the Church of Peter?  Are we to believe that the true church of Christ is based on a mere mortal man?  If that church were based only on a mortal man, the resulting faith would have little or no spiritual foundation and would be merely a philosophy somewhat similar to the moral principles advanced by Gandhi.

If the Christ really meant in Matthew 16:18 to appoint Peter to be the “rock” on which His church would be built, what did the Christ mean just five verses later in Matthew 16:23 where,


 “Jesus turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.'” 


Does it make sense that the Christ would appoint Peter to be the “rock” on which the Christ’s church would be built—and then—just five verses later—compare Peter to Satan and declare that Peter is a “stumbling block to me” (the Christ, Himself)?  Would the Christ appoint a man who does “not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns” to be “rock” on which He would build His church?  Is it unreasonable to suppose that if the Christ wanted to build His church on the “rock” of some mere mortal, He would at least choose an appointee who did not resemble “Satan”?

In Matthew 16:23, the Christ didn’t say Peter was sometimes a “stumbling block” or sometimes without the “concerns of God”.  The Christ didn’t offer Peter any advice on how to escape his condition of “stumbling block” and lack of “concerns of God”.  The Christ at least implied that those characteristics were inherent in Peter and unlikely to change.   The Christ pretty much implied that Peter was incapable of fully adopting the “concerns of God” and fully abandoning his “human concerns”.  As such, the Christ seemed to view Peter as trouble and someone who was likely to remain trouble.

Why would the Christ build His church on the “rock” of a mortal man known to be “trouble”?

Does anyone believe that the Christ would both 1) base His church on Peter; and 2) compare Peter to Satan?  Does it make sense that the Christ would trust the construction of His church to a mortal man who was more devoted to the “concerns of humans” than to the “concerns of God”? 

No.  That makes no sense, whatsoever.

Instead, it’s apparent that the “rock” on which the Christ’s church must be built is the unshakable principle that the Christ is the “Son of the living God“.  Not the agent of God, not the prophet of God, not even a “person” of God.  The “rock” of the Christ’s church must be the principle that the Christ is the Son of the living God. 

In retrospect, it’s not impossible that the Christ was not simply talking about Peter, the man, in Matthew 16:23.  Instead, the Christ might’ve been giving prophecy about the church ultimately built on the mortal man Peter—rather than being built on the “rock” that the Christ is the “Son of the living God”. 

Is the Catholic Church a “stumbling block” for the Christ, Himself?  Is the Catholic Church more devoted to “human concerns” than to the “concerns of God”?  You tell me.

I look at Matthew 16:18 and wonder how anyone could so dumb as to believe that the church of Christ was built on the “rock” of a mortal man (who the Christ, Himself, compared to “Satan“) rather than on an eternal principle that the Christ is the Son of the living God.

What other “rock” can it be?  Is Peter more important than that principle?  Is anything in the Christian faith more important than that principle?  Without that principle, there is no valid Christian faith.  

If the Christ is not the Son of the Living God, what is the remaining foundational value of Christianity? 


No way.


What fools these mortals be, hmm? 


Posted by on May 7, 2013 in Bible


Tags: , , ,

51 responses to ““On this rock I will build my church”—OK, but which “rock”?

  1. Tony

    May 7, 2013 at 3:39 PM

    Hi Al,

    Corinthians says that Jesus is “the chief cornerstone” and I agree the rock Jesus refers to is Himself, who is the Son of the Living God. Peter, petras, is a stone.

    Furthermore, in context, what was the institutional level of the true church at the time Jesus said what He did? It was primarily a ragtag bunch of followers. Meanwhile, what of the church with an immense measure of institutionalism? That was the church that excommunicated followers of Christ and eventually had Him crucified.

    I expect the last days to play out similarly where the faithful are beneficiaries of immense light, the institutional levels of those that receive is practically nil, and the level of their enemies is immense.



    • Les Fuchs

      May 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM

      Re: > Peter, petras, is a stone.
      Or pebble or no more than a “small stone” at that if we use the word “stone” to describe Peter. Do you agree

    • Les Fuchs

      May 7, 2013 at 10:36 PM

      Re: > ragtag bunch of followers.
      I’m dense, so could you give me an example of what a ” bunch of ragtag followers are? ” Is it his/her appearance? I don’t know what “ragtag” means.Bunch, is usually associated with something derogatory Thanks for answering,if you do.

      • Tony

        May 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM


        I meant no offense. By ragtag, I was referring to its lack of hierarchy and level of institutionalism.

        I had no idea “bunch” is usually associated with something derogatory. “That is a bunch of apples!”


    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM

      Hey,Thanks Tony. I have only heard “bunch” mentioned as, “that’s a bunch of crap.” I’m a learnin, I hope. Thanks to good people like you who are more concerned about what is said than WHO is saying it. Big Al knows EXACTLY what I mean. Isn’t this a great picture he posted to illustrate what The Rock of Ages looks like. Scroll to the top of this thread tiny lips,feminine hair,dainty fingers,etc.

      • Tony

        May 8, 2013 at 6:36 PM

        And a thanks to you too Les! Appreciate the friendly spirit.

        Oh and on the pic – didn’t even notice it, but yeah, it’s pretty weird!


  2. kwg1947kwg1947

    May 7, 2013 at 4:17 PM

    Matthew 18:19-20 “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” This and the tone of all the epistles made no mention or suggestion of an “institutionalized” church. For those who set themselves up as teachers they would individually be held to a higher standard, but brick and mortar and an institutionalized multilayer organization was never commanded or implied. Great call Tony.

  3. Les Fuchs

    May 7, 2013 at 5:02 PM

    Alfred,per your comment, it’s gratifying that we understand some things the same way. In case there is any misunderstanding, what I said in pertinent part was & is,> The name Peter means “small stone or pebble,” and the word “rock” means “massive stone.”

    I also said,> What Jesus was saying is that He DID NOT build the Church upon Peter, He built it upon Himself !! He was the “stone” the builders rejected (Matt. 21:42).

    • Adask

      May 7, 2013 at 8:23 PM

      Yes, there are a lot of points on which we agree. Those points are both gratifying and sometimes also a little scary.

      • Les Fuchs

        May 7, 2013 at 10:26 PM

        Re: also a little scary.
        Please explain,what also a little scary means. I’m lost on this.

        Re: the being we now (incorrectly) call “Jesus”
        What is or will be considered correct ?

      • Adask

        May 8, 2013 at 1:48 AM

        Insofar as you and I seem to be thinking similarly, I don’t know if that means you’re getting better or I’m getting worse. So, there’s the “scary” part. (See, that’s a JOKE. You don’t have to start hyperventilating, swear you’ll never come back to this blog and then change your name.)

  4. kennywally

    May 7, 2013 at 5:41 PM

    My teachings, from 3 Bible scholars also agree that Yeshua, the Messiah, is the rock. Also, lest we forget, the serpent was not a talking snake either, but a description by which he [ or the opposition hidden from view ] operates, insidiously, stealthily, not easily detected without training on what to look out for. The Scriptures also say Satan was made the full pattern, a most beautiful thing to behold, and would get Eves attention in the garden quite easily, hence he tricked her, for she was wholly seduced. I had to mention that, cuz it, like the rock is rarely talked about. Other topics that interest me are, who holds the Sceptre of Judah and what goes along with that gift, and the whereabouts of the “lost tribes”.

  5. NDT

    May 7, 2013 at 6:27 PM

    Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek YHWH: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged.
    Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah [that] bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.
    Isaiah 51:1-2

  6. Kerry Reynolds

    May 7, 2013 at 7:00 PM

    I would say that the rock is Christ, himself. We can debate and debate about which rock he is referring to, but I suspect it is more spiritual than anything else. It is kind of like our “Freedom.” Freedom is spiritual and it was Christ that set us free and told us not to become enslaved again – Galations 5:1. Christ is also the cornerstone of the Church and this is why it continues today. I have received my own “calling” and I know of the Spirit.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 7, 2013 at 7:17 PM

      Kerry Reynolds,
      Re: > I would say that the rock is Christ, himself.

      I see Christ,in my mind’s eye,pointing to himself,AS he is telling Peter the “Rock” he is talking about

  7. James Hayman

    May 7, 2013 at 8:04 PM

    George Howard found the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew which makes me think the rock is revelation. Jim

  8. Christian

    May 7, 2013 at 8:45 PM

    Yeshua is the rock.

  9. Anon4fun

    May 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM

    >>That’s the “rock” on which the church of Christ is built—the fundamental principle that the being we now (incorrectly) call “Jesus” is the Christ (chosen one) and Son of the living God.<<

    "Jesus" is the English pronunciation of the Greek name "Iesous", which is what the authors of the New Testament, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, called the Christ.

    What do you find to be "incorrect" in this conversion from Greek to English for the sake of pronunciation?

    • Les Fuchs

      May 7, 2013 at 11:02 PM

      Hi A4f,
      I certainly hope you get an answer to your post by Alfred AND Christian. I honestly don’t know about the spelling,etc.,of the “name” & I have done a lot & I mean a lot of research from every “sacred name group” I can find & they all disagree & each group is convinced that only it has the correct knowledge. What you say, Anon4fun, is exactly how I feel or as Alfred would say, “My Feelings Exactly.” If Jesus is not going to allow me in the “Kingdom” because & only because I did not spell or pronounce his name right, Well fine. I don’t want to be in it then. I don’t think he is that hardhearted however. I love the song, What a friend we have in Jesus.

      • Anon4fun

        May 7, 2013 at 11:57 PM

        Hi, Les.

        If there was only one correct way to say the personal name of Christ, it would obviously have to be “Iesous”, since this is what his New Testament biographers, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, called him.

        However, I see no scriptural basis for concluding that there is only one correct way, or that this detail is even important. So I’m wondering on what basis converting the pronunciation from Greek to a more English-sounding “Jesus” could be considered a problem.

        I agree that hopefully an explanation of the “incorrectness” theory will be forthcoming.

        And I have always liked that song also.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 12:54 AM

      To: Anon4fun
      Thank you. You have it together as far as I’m concerned. You are sincere,logical,rational & as is evident, very well educated. You kinda remind me of the Apostle Paul. I lean somewhat towards Peter because I like the way he addresses the people as, my little children. Everyone has his/her favorite I guess.This does not mean, I am saying one is better than the other. I seem to understand Peter better. Anon4fun, thank you for answering me.

      • Les Fuchs

        May 8, 2013 at 1:05 AM

        P.S. I do not like the so called picture of Jesus. Look at the dainty little way he(<?) is holding his (?) two fingers to his(?) thumb. Can't you just see someone like this picture looks like turning over the STONE money changers tables & chasing them out with a whip? Why do 99% of these so called pictures of The Christ,The Messiah look so effeminate/feminine. Another Satan trick, to discourage any reasonable seeker of truth. I will not elaborate.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 10:33 AM

      Only Prayers prayed in Latin with a mixture of 5% French,3 & 3/4 % Espanol,15% Deutsche & 22 &1/4% Portuguese will be heard.You will get an answer,I promise.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM

      You might get a reply from “Big Al” IF you change your name. < (:

      WE, here at this CenturyLink IP address NOW know "Big AL" is not God otherwise he would know there are several of US,like in "LET US" meaning,himself,meaning & his-self only,Big Al would know who WE are, ALL of US. Yes,WE do put OUR thoughts together. Big Al wants to think more about WHO is commenting than WHAT the comment is about. Change your name Anon4fun

  10. bandit

    May 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM

    confessing openly to another the message without judgement that we are a sinners and that the lord gives redemption is the rock which Jesus built the church.

    • bandit

      May 8, 2013 at 3:36 AM

      One must look in which context Jesus was saying this to peter in order to understand it. It happened right after peter confessed and jesus gave a resolution in confirmation.

  11. Doug

    May 8, 2013 at 5:02 AM

    Never have witnessed so much agreement. I was raised Catholic, was an altar boy that performed the latin mass, which no one really understood, and eventually actuallt read the “Word of God.”

    Peter was named in jest – he was not a rock, never, until his martyrdom.

    The Roman Catholic Church is a fraud from beginning to end, IMHO … I also believe that ROME and the Catholic Church are another branch of the Babylonian Trinity of Evil. The other two locations are the “city” of London and “Jer USA lem” which is the head of the USA reptile.

    • Anthony Clifton

      May 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM

      one must stand in awe of the sense of humor the Almighty posesses…and although those words are insufficient to adequately describe the magnitude of His Glory we are virtually speechless observing the depths two legged creatures will endure to avoid the truth….

      as if Truth is a disease…

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 1:03 PM

      @ > Never have witnessed so much agreement.
      You must consider the source of the comment & not the comment. I’m sure “Big Al” agrees if nobody else does.

  12. KD

    May 8, 2013 at 5:12 AM

    The “rock” was definitely not Peter. Two different Greek words used. The rock is “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God…” Jesus makes that clear when He said, “flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you…thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will builMy church.”

  13. Vindex

    May 8, 2013 at 7:45 AM

    I found this link to be an excellent commentary on this subject.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM

      Re: >I found this link to be an excellent commentary on this subject.

      So did I & thanks for the link. There are other articles that make sense also, that say just the opposite of what Peter Ditzel says & this leaves me between a “ROCK” & a hard place aka between the devil & the deep blue sea. Have you,Vindex,been in a situation like this,e.g. 2 people debating & both make sense but each is rebutting the other? I am going to “read up” on Peter Dttzel. I certainly appreciate the way he presented his belief. Thanks again, Vindex.

  14. Christian Gains

    May 8, 2013 at 10:30 AM

    AL, ALL of your arguments are VALID…Peter was NEVER meant to be “THE ROCK”. And YES! The “ROCK” referred to in Matt. 16:18 is the same “ROCK” that is referred to in the Book of Duet. 32:4 & 15. And you are thoroughly correct to emphasize the PRINCIPLE that Yeshuah was the fulfillment of the Messianic prophcies…and WAS the “SON OF THE LIVING GOD”.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 10:52 AM

      Re: Yeshuah,
      Hi Christian Gains. From what language is the word/name,Yeshuah translated from? There are other Groups that say the correct spelling is,Yahuwah,another says,Yahushua,another says Yahweh,& I could go on with more. Maybe they are all right,I don’t know. What persuades you that you have the right spelling? Maybe you do, I don’t know.HELP

    • Les Fuchs

      May 8, 2013 at 12:17 PM

      He has good taste when it comes to posting a picture to emphasize his point too !! The picture is SOLID AS A ROCK,isn’t it? Don’t you just appreciate the strength it emanates. Justin Beiber is about to be outdone. I must admit,however,he, Big Al had most of US fooled. He knows who 2 of the us-es IS.

      • Tony

        May 8, 2013 at 10:02 PM


        Why do you sow seeds of discord that are so unnecessary?


  15. Ironhead

    May 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM

    A tongue can accuse and carry bad news.The seeds of distrust it can sew. But unless you have made no mistakes in your life, be careful of stones that you throw.

  16. Kerry

    May 11, 2013 at 4:53 PM

    If I remember correctly, the words were petros and petra. The difference being little rock or name, and the rock of the cornerstone. Why would “Jesus” build the chruch or truth that He came to die for on a mere man? Especially considering that He had to have Paul confront and correct that man. He built His church on the truth that He is the son of the Most High. Anything else is a fool’s argument. The words are important. The spellings are important. Study is important. However, the most important of all is that Yeshua (or otherwise) is the only begotten son of yhvh! There was no w in the earliest of the alphabets of the Hebrew people.

    • Ironhead

      May 11, 2013 at 8:34 PM

      > Anything else is a fool’s argument.
      Be careful Kerry. From what I have seen,saying something like this leads to being disassociated, booted off. Watch out.,Yeshua (or otherwise)<??? Also, I see we now have,yhvh v. YHWH. It will never end, apparently.

      • Adask

        May 11, 2013 at 9:52 PM

        Two people have been recently booted off this blog. One of them had been booted off three or four times previously but came back repeatedly with a new alias and a new IP address. The second one, after he was booted off a few days ago, tried to get back on this blog with about 4 new IP addresses. I blocked each new IP address, and finally his “moniker” and I haven’t heard anything more from him since.

        The reason they were booted off is because I wrote an article, they challenged one or more points in the article, I responded to their challenges with strong arguments, and they began to insult me rather than address my arguments. I don’t expect anyone to believe anything I publish on this blog. I sometimes expressly warn people to not believe something just because they’ve read it on this blog. I merely hope that people will consider whatever ideas I’ve proposed as possible.

        Unfortunately, most people are very poor readers. They often read what they want to read rather than what was written. They sometimes read a statement describing a possibility to be statement of absolute truth. Then, they get defensive because their perceived statement of “absolute truth” is contrary to some of their ideas. They feel attacked. They respond by attacking the attacker (that would be me since I’m the one who wrote of a possibility that’s been misconstrued to be my statement of absolute truth).

        And I won’t put up with it and there’s no reason why I should. If you disagree with any of my ideas, you’re free to say in your comments. For all I know, you may be right and if you are and I can understand that I was wrong, I’ll thank you for your correction.

        But if you feel free to treat me with contempt or disrespect, you’re oughta here. The last two guys banned from this blog thought they could treat me with disrespect. One of (who I’d already banned about 4 previous times) understood the rules, but couldn’t resist treating me with disrespect, and knew that both he and the other guy were about to be banned.

        This blog is my home. I make a considerable effect to maintain it and post new articles throughout each week. I make the ideas on this blog available to all and at no charge. I don’t advertise on this blog. I’m not paid a nickel for my efforts. And I’ve been reasonably successful. According to Alexa, this blog gets more traffic than 99% of all the blogs in the world. You’ve got to get into the top 0.1% to be really “big times”. I have a long ways to go and I may not be good enough to ever make to the “big time”. Still, this blog is in the top 1% which indicates that I’m considerable effort.

        The only thing I ask in return for posting this blog is that readers treat each other–and me, in particular–with civility and respect. I don’t expect anyone to kiss my ass, but I will put up with some disrespect, but not for long.

        The two who were recently banned were “regulars”. I’ll bet that between them, they posted an average of 10 comments per day. They were intelligent and insightful and they were here every day. From their persistent appearances on this blog, I have to presume that they liked most of whatever I’d written. And yet, they both felt entitle to treat me with disrespect. So they’re gone.

        I provide the equivalent to a “free lunch” almost every day on this blog. If people want to “eat” at my blog, that’s fine with me. If they don’t like my “food,” that’s also cool. But anyone who thinks that after “eating” here for free for several they are entitled to treat the “cook” with contempt is going to be ejected from this “diner”. It’s that simple.

        You don’t have to agree with anything I write. If you want to criticize my ideas, that’s fine with me. However, if you want to treat me with disrespect, you can expect to be ejected.

        Again, it’s that simple.

  17. Ironhead

    May 11, 2013 at 11:25 PM

    May 11, 2013 at 9:52 PM
    I desire to respond to many things you have said in tour message but from what I have seen a couple of others say, plus & including the two ejected ones, I fear that only parts of my comments will “go through” & where does that leave me? I tried to post a reply earlier to Garrison & when I clicked on the “post comment” button, I thought my reply was in the process of being posted, as the thread went to the very top, which usually happens, & then moves to the comment itself. This did not happen. The page just stayed at the top. I waited,but nothing changed. I started scrolling back down,but my “reply” was not anywhere. If any part of a comment doesn’t go through, this can cause serious misunderstandings, etc. but what else do you have to go on except what does go through? What you see is what you get? Yet, what we get & see & have to go on,is only part of what was sent.Somebody is having a good laugh,I think.

    • Adask

      May 11, 2013 at 11:41 PM

      If your comment disappeared in whole or in part when your hit the “post” button, that indicates the deletion was caused by a computer. No living man or woman is constantly monitoring every comment to delete it as soon as someone posts it. I doubt that any conscious force is deleting any of your comments. I’m certainly not sitting at my computer, watching for every comment as it’s being written. If I had to guess, WordPress only informs of 20% to 30% of all comments. I probably don’t even see 70% of the comments that are posted. I don’t know why WordPress does what it does, but I don’t mind. I already have more to do than I can get to, so if WordPress spares me from reading most of the comments, I appreciate the relief.

      It’s interesting that you complain that some of your comment was deleted. The only other person I can recall who complained about losing some of his comments was “Les Fuchs”–one of the two people recently banned. More, according to IP Location Lookup, both you (Ironhead) and “Les Fuchs” are located at or near Santa Fe, New Mexico. Perhaps you know him?

      He’s a fairly intelligent guy, but he’s mentally ill and probably obsessive-compulsive. He never knows when to quit. He spent some time in prison (perhaps for stalking?) where he claims to have been beaten up several times–probably because he just can’t shut his mouth. If there’s one way to get you ass beaten or even killed in the slammer, it’s by means of a refusal and/or inability to shut your mouth. “Les Fuchs,” aka Sparky, Sparks, Sparky the Dullard, Don Bailey and at least two or three other names that I don’t currently recall.

      In any case, being obsessive-compulsive, he’s fairly easy to spot. He generally has nothing new to say–just complaints (you’d be amazed how many times he bitched about the blog “eating his homework” (deleting part of his comments)), criticisms, phony humility. He can’t help it. He’s obsessive-compulsive. He’s kinda amusing at times. But also kinda sad.

      He is so isolated that there’s nothing left for him to do but hang around a blog where he’s not wanted and hide in the shadows under a series of alias and IP addresses.

      Of course, I only assume he’s obsessive-compulsive. Maybe he’s a government agent. Whatever he, he’s so consistent in his arrogance and negative attitudes, that he’s pretty easy to identify. He acts as if he’s some sort of super-spy, but he should probably change his “moniker” to “PinkPanther” or “PeterSellers2” or some such.

      Anyway, keep your eyes peeled. If you see him, let me know so I can bounce him off this blog for the 5th? 6th? time.

      • Art Forster

        May 12, 2013 at 1:09 AM

        Adask said, “I probably don’t even see 70% of the comments that are posted.”

        This is shabby and unacceptable for so distinguished a blog. To scrutinize each and every comment, I recommend using the dedicated RSS feed that WordPress provides. Comments show up as they are posted, so you can separate the naughty and nice in real time! And it rarely if ever misses any.

        Real pros use a dedicated RRS reader, but it also works in a web browser for the internet primitive.

        Here’s the URL:

        Hope this helps.

      • Adask

        May 12, 2013 at 1:44 AM

        What would help is a time machine or perhaps a couple of clones (of me).

        I’ve published about 200 posts since the beginning of this year. Over the five year life of this blog, I’ve averaged 14 comments per post. Today, I’m guessing I average at least 20 comments (possibly, 30) per post. Thus, since the beginning of the year, I’ve probably had at least 4,000 comments–about 30 comments per day. If I spent 3 minutes reading and responding to every comment, it would cost me about 1.5 hours per day. If I tangled up in 5 dialogues (like this one), I could wind up spending 3 or 4 hours a day (at least 20 hours/week) just dealing with comments.

        Then I have about 200 email each day. If I spend just 3 minutes reading and answering each, that’ll cost me another 10 hours per day (70 hours a week). So, if I respond to every blog comment and every email, I’ll only need to spend about 90 hours a week doing so. Then, I can do some research, or take a bath, cook a meal, host my radio shows, write an article or two for the blog and even get some sleep once in a while.

        If I could work 150 hours a week, I might be able to keep with the comments, emails, articles, etc.–but I can’t work that many hours.

        Therefore it is not “shabby and unacceptable” that I can’t read all the comments. It’s necessary so that I can avoid having enough stress to possibly finish me off. It’s the way it has to be. I’m a one-man band, but I can’t play every instrument.

      • Art Forster

        May 12, 2013 at 1:55 AM

        What’s “shabby and unacceptable” is the job WordPress is doing. They should be able to send you a consistent record of your comments. Or at least do a lot better than 30 percent.

        You’d be surprised how quick it is to scan over dozens of comments using the RSS feed. They show up on a single page. It’s not like you have to open each one separately. It’s sort of a “whoosh” movement in which the eye moves faster than the hand.

  18. Ironhead

    May 12, 2013 at 2:09 AM

    Is Art Forster,now banned too? Seems that anyone who REALLY contributes will be, sooner or later.

    • Adask

      May 12, 2013 at 2:37 AM

      Well, sure–it probably does seem like anyone who makes a contribution will be banned sooner or later–at least to you, “Sparky,” “Les,” “Don,” etc. since you’ve been banned, what? Six times? (including this time.) I mean, after you’ve been banned now, six times(?), banning probably does seem pretty common. But actually, I’ve only banned about 4 people other than you in the past five years. I don’t think that’s excessive.

      Why do you keep coming back? You know I don’t want you. You know I’ll spot you. You know I’ll ban you again and again and again. Are you in love with me? Do you want to have my baby?

      There are millions of other blogs. Why don’t you go haunt some other one where the blog’s operator doesn’t care what you say? You can say dirty words, stay up late, thumb your nose at authority and everything! Or, as I’ve previously suggested, why don’t you start your own blog? Then you could “really contribute” to your heart’s content and quickly generate millions of followers who are sure to be every bit as beguiled by your brilliance as I am.

      Unfortunately, I’m not beguiled by your disrespect and persistent lies. You’re going to complain that you don’t lie, but the lie is implicit in your previous comment about everyone who “really contributes” is banned. What do you “really contribute” besides endless criticisms and attempts to deceive other readers?

      Whatever it is, take your “real contributions” elsewhere. If you truly believe you have something to contribute, why don’t you start your own blog? If you won’t start your own blog, isn’t that a confession that, deep down in your heart (or maybe not so deep), that you know you don’t really have much to contribute? If you’re really so smart, why don’t you start your own blog?

      In any case, you be banned again. You will remain banned. I will dump you every time I spot you. Previously, I gave you chance after chance to cut the crap. But, being obsessive-compulsive, you just can’t let it drop, can you? I think you have a problem with authority. Daddy issues? How many times were you beaten up in the slammer by inmates? How many times by guards?

      In any case, Les, Sparky, Ironhead, Don–I’ve had enough. Bye-bye.

      • Art Forster

        May 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM

        Adask said, “Are you in love with me? Do you want to have my baby?”


        Since you presumably don’t know this poster outside of your blog, I would guess the reason he keeps returning has more to do with the subject matter you discuss than you personally.

        I’d say almost everyone who reads this blog is here for its unusual cross-section of subject matter. There isn’t much in the way of alternatives for those with an interest in such things.

  19. pup

    May 26, 2013 at 8:12 PM

    On which Rock ??
    The Rock of Ages. Anyone who studies the Holy Bible as you say you do should know at least this,


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s