Kind of tired of the atheists, apostates, liberals and heretics whining and complaining and moaning about how they don't like this or that character trait in us, use of sarcasm by us, or use of mockery from T-blog posters.
Steve and I were mentioned as the culprits.
if you don't like it, you're welcome to not read or comment here. No one is forcing you to be here.
if you care only about substance, then respond to our posts (which are all usually at least 95% substance, 5% sarcasm) substantively.
There's no point in telling us how mean we are. That we're insensitive. That you can't take it.
Look, if you want a place to talk about your feelings, then go post here.
Basically, it's not about us and how mean we are.
It's about the modern American idea of tolerance.
Kids are taught in the atheistic, state-enforced public school system that "every one's ideas are equally valid."
Recently, I say a trophy ceremony for Pop Warner Football players. EVERY SINGE TEAM got a trophy. You're all winners! No matter if you're last.
Since we take things so personally, because we're all solipsists, if you refute our arguments or ideas we take that as you refuting US, personally.
Don't give us this tripe about how we're so mean. Even if we were as nice, professional, and as calm as could be, guess what? YOU'D STILL GET OFFENDED.
Why?
'cause you're wrong.
You're wrong. We're right.
That upsets you.
"How dare they say I'm wrong, I'm the center of the universe."
Or,
"How dare they say I'm wrong, no one can be certain about anything. No one can be sure, and we're sure about that!"
Today girls open car doors for guys, pay for dinner, and wear the pants.
Today, men are not men.
Gnosticism rules.
Do away with distinctions!
No one is right, no one is wrong.
We're all equal. No one can be wrong. No one is stupid.
Look, it's pretty simple. If you don't want to get mocked, then don't brag about how you can refute Christianity and how it's "clearly false."
Don't shove your former profession of faith into the spotlight to be used as an argument. Don't tell everyone how much you studied the Bible and how educated at Seminary you were.
Why?
Because we'll call your bluff.
You didn't study the Bible. You studied you OPINION of FEELING about the Bible.
You had Bible studies where the leader asked, "What does this passage say to you."
The you rejected you ignorant and impotent version of Christianity.
Well don't get upset with us that we weren't as gullible as you.
If you use your "knowledge" of Christianity as an argument, then we'll point out how stupid and ignorant you are about the Bible.
I'd also add that you get laughed at because you call us un-Christian for doing the same things that the "war-monger God of the Old testament did." The same thing Jesus did. The same thing the apostle Paul did.
We rightly scoff at you because on the one-hand you criticize the Bible for how mean God and Jesus were, but on the other hand when we don't blow sunshine up your skirts you criticize US for NOT acting like the God you say is so mean and hateful.
When you act like an inconsistent, emotion-driven hack, you get treated like one.
Really, drop it.
Men like Loftus et al. have lost the intellectual battle. All that's left is to attack our character.
It allows you to sleep at night to focus on US rather than the arguments.
Anyway, man up. Quite your whining about how mean we are. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you're not going to pick on substance, don't comment.
If you've never learned the phrase: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," learn it.
If you can't handle it, post here.
We hear our Lord being mocked, our faith being mocked, and our brothers and sisters being mocked.
We come back with better mockery, and better arguments.
Don't be jealous.
The biblical worldview understand the role of men:
Job 40
1 Moreover Jehovah answered Job, and said,
2 Shall he that cavilleth contend with the Almighty? He that argueth with God, let him answer it.
3 Then Job answered Jehovah, and said,
4 Behold, I am of small account; What shall I answer thee? I lay my hand upon my mouth.
5 Once have I spoken, and I will not answer; Yea, twice, but I will proceed no further.
6 Then Jehovah answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteYou're thinking everyone's offended. I don't see that as the case. I'm not offended. Instead, I think your tone and style says "unregenerated" even as you paste bible passages and other people's quotes in with your commentary.
It isn't that we can't handle it. It just looks bad for Christian apologists to come off that way. I don't agree with William Lane Craig on a lot of things, but I think he has a good sense of his obligations as a representative of Jesus Christ in how he acquits himself. He's clear and firm, but generous, and projects an authentic air of good will in the works I've read from him . In his debate with Ehrman he even went so far as to do a little treatment of "Bart's Blunder" if I recall. It was actually a well made point, but very much done in a charitable, if pointed way.
I know you'd like to cast this problem as a problem of being beset by sissies on all sides, it hews to comfortably views of your prowess and fortitude. But you're simply not doing the damage you think with your '5%' indulgence. I'd be surprised if people were offended. Instead they just can't see how a mind that can see it's way to such indulgence of the flesh is going to produce quality thinking on the other matters. I'm sure it can and does happen, but you have to make those points work in *spite* of yourself.
-Touchstone
But your problem is the reductio.
ReplyDeleteYour argument would admit that Jesus, Paul, et al were unregenerate.
Elijah MOCKED the prophets of Baal.
If I had told exapologist that he wasn't responding too good because he was spending his time going to the bathroom rather than studying my position, you'd say I was "unregenerate."
But when Elijah does the *same* kind of thing, he's not.
You say I'm unregenerate because I told exapologist to stick to critiquing Plantinga, but Craig can say "Bart's Blunder?"
You seem very subjective in your dismissals.
I ask for evidence and all you can give is shaky, subjective opinion, or point out uses of sarcasm.
The rest is what you've developed in your head.
I have a sense of humor. Sometimes people don't find it funny. But you read that as me doing something else.
Without evidence, how can you judge?
Is the world supposed to bow down to touchstone's subjective preference of what he thinks a Christian is?
We've already seen that the Bible doesn't agree with you.
That is a stellar post, Paul.
ReplyDeleteToo bad you don't *know* that your God isn't simply an advanced alien race, Or an idea conjured up by dirt-munching nomads.
You don't *know* the things you claim, so your words and rhetoric are emtpy.
Plus...you can't account for what you think you know.
QED
anonymous,
ReplyDeletewere'nt you already refuted with your drivle previously?
I asked you to define "know" and you never took me up on it.
Secondly, given your radical skepticism you can't know that I can't know aht you say I can't know.
So, go play in a sandbox, son.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI said your style says "unregenerate", which is why that's a problem. If I thought *you* were unregenerate, I'd have a whole different class of assessments to make. The reason I'm pointing that out is because you are working *against* your regenerate nature when you indulge the flesh like that. At least that's how it works when I indulge myself that way.
There's no reason to appeal to you this way if I think you're unregenerate. It's only because I *do* that I think the appeal makes sense.
-Touchstone
Who's offended? In fact, this is good diversionary free entertainment. If we were really offended by your and Steve's blatant assholery, we would go somewhere else. As it stands, Were else can you find such arrogant buffoons making fools of themselves over and over? Now you have resorted to calling
ReplyDeletecontinue on Paul! Carry on Steve! We patiently await the next guffaw.
Stop pissing in your own sandbox, Son.
ReplyDeleteTouchstone,
ReplyDeleteSame comeback, different post.
Then Elijah's Paul's, and Jesus' "style" says unregenerate.
Again, *why?*
Oh, because touchstone *says-so.*
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteYou're missing the point about the relationship bewteen civility and inquiry. It's not to prevent from hurting others' feelings, but rather to prevent obstacles to finding the truth. People who care about gaining/sustaining true beliefs and avoiding/discarding false ones realize that a free and open exchange of ideas contributes greatly to that end. It's a way for ideas to be scrutinized and refined through careful peer review. When this sort of exhange is at its best, it's a thing of immense value. It's a process that drastically increases the probability of acquiring truth and avoiding error.
Unfortunately, this invaluable process -- which isn't even allowed in many places -- is extremely fragile: it's very easy to stifle. For example, if someone enters into this process and starts attacking others, then people start to shut down, or they start a shouting match, or... Thereby drastically reducing the probability of getting truth from the process -- or shutting down the process entirely.
So you see, the reason why people don't like it when you start attacking them is not primarily because it's unpleasant (although it is, but most grown-ups can handle that), but rather because you're stifling the free and honest exchange of ideas, which in turn stifles their inquiry into the truth.
Now there are places that you can go that are against the free and democratic exchange of ideas, and would prefer the unquestioned adherence to the dogmas of a particular religion, silencing all dissent with violence -- e.g., societies in which the Taliban is in control (or Calvin's Vienna). But the people you attack aren't into that, for some strange reason.
Also, if you yourself are interested in increasing the probability of gaining true beliefs and avoiding false beliefs, then (in addition to taking some courses in critical thinking and logic) you need to acquire certain intellectual virtues, such as the following:
-intellectual humility: "you know what? I don't know everything, and in fact some of my beliefs might actually be false or otherwise unjustified."
A closely related virtue is:
intellectual charity: "perhaps I should listen to and internalize the views of others, and not unfairly characterize them to myself or others -- even those whose views are diametrically opposed to mine. I should be able to explain and defend their views before I evaluate them. After all, that way I can be relatively confident that I'm not rejecting a view that turns out to be true."
Also:
intellectual honesty and tentativeness: "I *think* that my views about x are true and reasonable, but sometimes I have my doubts about it. For example, there's this one argument Y that's pretty decent, and I don't know what to say about it. What do you think?"
As you put these into practice and develop them, the probability of your believing true propositions goes up dramatically.
Best,
exapologist
Steve, Paul,
ReplyDeleteBoth of you have intimated (numerously) in your extended thread w/ Touchstone that he’s an apostate, or at least on the highroad thereto. Will either/both of you go on record affirming such?
Steve, you’ve attempted to keep your arguments in the arena of “metascience” but you’ve clearly back peddled from your earlier statement that (something along the lines of) “modern man would NOT have had the ability to fend off predatory attacks in antiquity “, a statement which is clearly in the purview of “plain science”, as opposed to any conception of meta-science. This claim requires supporting arguments before it can be taken seriously. Why do you resist providing such arguments?
Steve, how, precisely, does the possibility of a non-uniform time metric impugn any evolutionary hypothesis? So far as I know, you’ve not yet given a thorough explanation of how your conception of time should compel anyone to rethink what they’ve (any evolutionist, for example), thus far, taken for granted.
What, in your view, is the right way to think about the relationship between time and space?
Steve, what is time? What is more, why should anyone believe it?
Thanks in advance,
Andrew
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteEx-apologist,
ReplyDeleteYou called my preterist argument "absurd" and you said your (rather weak) argument showed that Christianity was "clearly false." Talk about stifling a conversation.
Unbeleivers are so funny. You have no problem mocking Christians. You have no problem calling our arguments absurd. But when the same happens to you, you throw a hissy fit.
Those who live in glass houses ...
Interlocuter,
My post was highly generalized. Mostly a rant. It was how I felt about something.
I don't mock everyone. There's a time and place for everything. I have no problem mocking the proper people, indeed I think it's called for sometimes.
Andrew,
I actually haven't been following the discussions with touchstone other than his comments regarding my specific posts.
I know thwt b.B. Warfield believed in a theistic sort of evolution.
I know that we're saved by the life and death of Jesus Christ, nothing more.
I lumped everyone together. I think of touchstone, as I know of him, to fit into the label "liberal." That was one of my pigeonholes. And yes, I'll go on the record saying as much.
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteI actually agree with you: I think those were pretty childish and obnoxious things for me to say. I apologize, Paul. I promise that in the future, if we continue to have discussions, I'll do my best to be civil. In fact, I plan to tone down the over-the-top language to the title of my post.
But with respect to the discussion we've had, I don't think you've fairly characterized my position. My basic position argument was this: there are at least fourteen pieces of evidence that, taken together, provide a strong abductive argument for the position that Jesus was fundamentally an apocalyptic prophet, i.e., a prophet proclaiming the immanent eschaton, which includes the general resurrection and the final judgement.
When the issue of the partial preterist response came up, I argued that this wasn't the best explanation of all the data. For the fourteen pieces of evidence, taken together (but especially the points about the successive watering down of the message of an immanent eschaton, and Paul's exhortations for people to remain in their present state (for example, married and single people), since the time is short) abductively point to a continuity of sequence among all of the events listed in the "little apocalypse" of Mark, and the parallels of Matt. and Luke. Now within this evidential context, I think that the most plausible, natural interpretation of 1 Thess 4: 13-18 is that Paul is referring to the same events as those discussed in Mk. 13 and parallels.
Notice that this last argument is different from the one you attribute to me, viz.,
1) The sequence of events described in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 are similar to that of Mk. 13 and pars
----
2) Therefore, the sequence of events in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 and Mk. 13 are identical.
Construed as a deductive argument, it's obviously invalid. But of course it's not *my* argument.
My argument is an abductive inference: the interpretation is a hypothesis which, if true, would make the best sense of the data I've mentioned. Thus, there is a prima facie, defeasible case for taking it as such. Therefore, to undercut the argument, we need a hypothesis -- in this case, an interpretation -- that's a *better*, more plausible explanation of the data.
Now as I understand your reply, you do two main things:
(i) argue that the similarities aren't strong enough, and that the differences outweigh them. But if so, then that provides evidence that they don't refer to the same event.
(ii) lay out a case for showing that the meaning of the "coming in the clouds" language is common OT language for God's judgement -- it need imply nothing more. If not, then we can't infer a literal, bodily coming of the Son of Man (or the Lord, if they're the same person) just from that language alone; so there isn't sufficient reason to infer the latter from such language in Mk. 13 and pars.
(iii) lay out a case that the language referring to cosmic signs has strong precedence in the OT to refer to a shift in or destruction of authority, and suggest that just such a shift occurs with God's judgement via the destruction of Jerusalem.
My reply was then that I thought that my previous statements didn't require further defense to overcome your case. The reason was that I thought your case didn't overcome the prima facie plausibility of my hypothesis:
- your case for (i) -- your list of dissimilarities -- didn't seem to undercut the relevant similarities. They seemed rather trivial. I don't know, if others disagree I'll be glad to hear it.
-your case for (ii) and (iii) doesn't seem to get the conclusion you want. These points only show that the language about the coming in the clouds and the cosmic signs don't show *by themselves* that Mk. 13 and pars. attribute to Jesus an immenent eschaton that involves the final judgement and the end of the age. But the worry is that this language, *plus* the rest of Mk. 13 and pars., *do* seem to lump in the general resurrection and the end of the age.
For these reasons, I think the prima facie justification for my account hasn't been undercut by your last main post.
Best,
exapologist
p.s., again, I really am sorry Paul for the tone in some of my previous remarks. I really would like to have a civil discussion with you. I especially need your help in finding the best sources I can read that discuss your account of partial preterism. Would you recommend the book from Sproul that you mentioned on another blog?
What a storm that's kicked up here!
ReplyDeleteJohn Loftus, I think the respect given to you all on Debunking Christianity is because those who go by over there are trying to act Christ-like...
I think everyone can agree that sometimes T-blog is a magnent for crazy, off the wall people...
Paul,
ReplyDeleteWhat? No interaction with all of the questions raised about your sexism, and immature and stone-age beliefs about women?
Exapologist,
Its nice to see somebody "man up," Paul would do this, except he's too busy "puffing up" instead.
Scarlet
EA,
ReplyDeleteNo problem.
Just so you know, I didn't have a problem with your title, I only had a problem when people seemed to have a problem with me but that wasn't transferred across the board.
Anyway, I accept your apology.
I'll try to respond to your comments later (it's the Lord's day -n- all :-)) and hopefully we'll be able to move along at a better pace.
BTW, I'll remove what I assume was an offensive part in one of my nposts as well.
I don't believe women are "inferrior."
ReplyDeleteI believe there are no ontological subordinates, just economical ones.
Women do tend to care more about feelings, more emotional, etc.
That was the purpose in sending people to female discussion boards. So they could "talk about their feelings."
Anyway, yeah, I'm not a gnostic, I believe in distinctions. I believe there are roles. I love that my wife cries at the end of Titanic. She loves that I watch the UFC or Football with the boys.
Paint me as a sexist, then. Whatever floats your boat.
There is grace for people to express themsevles passionately about what they love. It is okay to run hot or cold.
ReplyDeletejimmy li said: "I think the respect given to you all on Debunking Christianity is because those who go by over there are trying to act Christ-like..."
ReplyDeleteSo, giving respect to "infidels," "backsliders," "unregenerates" and other types of opponents to Christianity is "Christ-like"? But we keep getting all kinds of reasons from the Paul Manata crowd to excuse their excesses in disrespect for the same. How can all this be squared up?
Just a thought.
Bomo
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeletePlease, don't feel rushed on my part -- I'm aleady behind on several work and school deadlines, and so a nice, leisurely pace would work best for me.
Regards,
exapologist
I'll post at my pace and you can post at yours.
ReplyDeleteI won't hoild you accotable to post at my paste and you don't hold me accountable to post at yours?
Deal?
i don't know why i said "paste," i meant "pace."
ReplyDeleteManata - "i don't know why i said "paste," i meant "pace.""
ReplyDeleteThis was clearly Freudian. When Paul puts together a new post, it's like a cut-and-paste job using the same sneering comments he's posted in other blogs. He just goes in, copies the preferred text, and pastes it into a new blog. That's why he repeats many of his own spelling mistakes.