Thursday, May 31, 2007

He Done Got Punk'd!

I could quote John Loftus: “I did it…It was me!” But in this case, it’s not accurate. No, our good buddy T-Stone managed to get punk’d by himself using my latest post…which in reality I didn’t even write!

That’s right, T-Stone managed to ignore the constant references to the Debunkers and (despite the fact that T-Stone posts comments on that blog too) he completely forgot the wondrous writing style employed by a specific Debunker. Frankly, I don’t see how it’s possible for someone who’s read the Debunkers (as T-Stone has) to be incapable of reading phrases like “mouthpieces of madness”, “two of the scummiest men on our planet”, or “every dimwitted idealist is right in his own thinking” and not immediately think, That sounds exactly like Joe Holman!

That’s right. My previous post was nothing more than Joe Holman’s post with the subjects, adverbs, and adjectives changed. You see, I entertained a notion of refuting Holman’s post for about 12.8 seconds before I realized that simply turning it back on itself did the job for me. Holman is his own self-parody…he just doesn’t realize it.

That was really my only intention, to put this silliness back on Holman. Little did I know that T-Stone would so willing run into the scene, arms flailing madly about, as he engaged his typical care and consideration in responding, as all Buddhistic-Christians do, to perceived attacks on atheists. Naturally, T-Stone unwittingly was attacking Holman, thinking he was attacking me. It could be that maybe T-Stone didn’t read Holman’s post (indeed, most people who see that the by-line is “Joe E. Holman” immediately ignore the post completely), but even those on the Christian side who hadn’t read Holman’s original post immediately saw it was satirical and a parody. T-Stone was the only one who seemingly missed this.

Naturally, T-Stone might be upset by this, thinking it rather petty that he be punk’d. I agree that it is petty. I think T-Stone should be ashamed of himself for punking himself the way he did. It made him, and (by association) Buddhistic-Christianity, look bad.

26 comments:

  1. Apparently Touchstone believes the case for atheism is so strong that it necessitates his rushing in to rescue it every time it comes under attack.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mathetes,

    No, it's something different. Rather, the case for Christianity isn't so weak that we have to do violence to reason, discuss in bad faith, and "lie for the Lord" to protect and defend our faith. If a Christian does value honesty, being earnest and fair, then a lot of the "presuppositions", tactics and styles used by the "pugilistically-inclined" here at Triablogue and elsewhere should be criticized as unworthy of the ideals and faith they hope to defend.

    It matters not whether we are talking to an atheist, a Buddhist, a Catholic or a Zoroastrian. There are simply some basic standards of honesty and integrity that we ought to uphold as a witness for what we preach and believe. To see criticism of commitments to forego those ideals on the part of Christian apologists as a "rescue of atheism" is to misunderstand what I've been saying from the start. It matters not how alien or foul we may think an opponents beliefs are, we are bound to the example of Christ in our dealings with others.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter,

    You nailed me; I took your words at face value. I mistakenly assumed that your name on the post meant those words were yours.

    Having now read Holman's post, I do identify the "I know you are but what am I" kind of schoolyard polemics you are using here, but as best I can tell, that means your basic message here is: what if we said that about *you* atheists?

    That's a fine point to consider, and it may be the case the case that the atheists carry the preponderance of bigotry and hatred around. But it may also be the reverse, or somewhere in between. Which has me wondering what the point is, beyond just sticking your tongue out and showing those atheist that you can say the same thing right back?

    If that's all there is too it, then I have indeed been punk'd by your post, something which I took as your words at face value, but which were really just schoolyard ennui. The joke is on me at that case. What a waste of time bothering to comment on something like that.

    It's interesting to look at this, now that your "trap" is spring, and we are aware of your cunning ploy to substitute the needed words to create an "I know you are but what am I" post. In a strange way, you're *validating* what Holman is saying in his post. Behold the wit, the gravitas of the schoolyard Christian Apologist.

    I don't know what Holman's reaction would be to this post, but I suppose he'd conclude you really just punk'd yourself here Peter, by validating the "screedy" parts of his original post.

    But, congrats all the same.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  4. Touchstone, to what extent do you agree/disagree with these words of Alvin Plantinga?

    "Creation scientists are wrong (so I think), but some of them are nonetheless
    admirable. Their aim is to be faithful to the Christian faith and to the
    Lord; they do their best to do so, often at considerable personal cost. (They
    don’t, after all, enjoy being called fundamentalist ignoramuses; nor do they
    take delight in the rest of the ridicule and disapprobation heaped upon
    them by the scientific establishment.) I happen to think they are mistaken;
    but their errors, to my mind, are enormously less important than the errors
    of many of those—the Dawkins and Provines and Sagans of this world, for
    example—who load abuse upon them. It is vastly more important to be
    clear that the Lord created the heavens, the earth, and all that they contain,
    than to know that he didn’t do it 10,000 years ago. I disagree with the creation
    scientists, and, like most other academics, I don’t relish the scorn and
    obloquy that goes with being associated with them; but at a deep level I
    feel much closer to them, both spiritually and intellectually, than to their
    cultured despisers. Christians who disagree with them should treat them as
    Christian brothers and sisters who, perhaps through an excess of zeal, err
    on a point of some importance; but Christians should not treat them as
    intellectual pariahs, or join in the cultural chorus expressing scorn, contempt,
    and disdain for them."

    ReplyDelete
  5. T-Stone,

    Why don't you just admit the truth. You hate the T-Bloggers and all that we stand for, and thus you are incapable of reading anything that any of us write with even the bare basics of understanding.

    You said:
    ---
    You nailed me; I took your words at face value. I mistakenly assumed that your name on the post meant those words were yours.
    ---

    A) You nailed yourself.

    B) You were the only person who responded that was confused. Even though it doesn't look like Gene realized I was doing a parody of Holman (since he thought it was a parody of you--consider THAT for a minute too), he still knew it was a parody nonetheless. Even "SLIMJIM" (who posted this link recognized the satire, saying: "Peter Pike (Calvindude) over at Triablogue put it in perspective, and he’s hit it right on the nail on Atheistic hate which was written as part satire but also discusses the issue itself on Secularist bigoted hatred."

    You're the only one who took it seriously, and that's the biggest laugh of all. But don't worry. Just because you were the only one who was wrong doesn't mean you're not right....

    You said:
    ---
    Having now read Holman's post, I do identify the "I know you are but what am I" kind of schoolyard polemics you are using here, but as best I can tell, that means your basic message here is: what if we said that about *you* atheists?
    ---

    Which again demonstrates your complete lack of reading comprehension. My post doesn't say, "What if we said that about you" at all. It says, "That's one of the most henious arguments ever devised and here's proof. No matter who the subject is, the argument is retarded. End of story."

    That's what it says, T-Stone. It's ridiculing the ridiculous. It's answering a fool according to his folly.

    T-Stone said:
    ---
    That's a fine point to consider, and it may be the case the case that the atheists carry the preponderance of bigotry and hatred around.
    ---

    Which entirely misses the point! The point isn't whether someone carries around "the preponderance of bigotry and hatred." The point is that it's a stupid arugment and I've demonstrated it perfectly for all to see (except you, since you've gouged out your eyes to save face).

    You said:
    ---
    In a strange way, you're *validating* what Holman is saying in his post.
    ---

    In the strange "unicorn" sense. Someday, you'll wake up from your dreamland, T-Stone. I'll be waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Anonymous,

    I certainly agree that its far more important to get the ultimate questions right (does God exist? are we His creatures? what is our purpose here?) than to be right on the age of the earth. Eternally, it does no good to say that you really did have the timeframes for cosmology essentially right, but missed the theological imperatives - God as Sovereign Creator.

    So I'm with Plantinga so far as that goes. But YEC teachings argue *against* the validity of those same ultimate, important questions. So they end up believing in ultimate propositions I agree with and recognize as of utmost importance, but making arguments at the same time that reasonable observers can only conclude argues for the falsehood of those very ideas.

    There's a strong, flowing stream of bad faith argument and deceit that comes from the YEC community. Willful ignorance, dishonesty, pride in their own understanding. I don't suppose

    My grandpa had some strongly racist views, which he based on the Bible in good part. Was he a Christian? Yes. Did I love him? Yes, I did. Did I reject and criticize his racism-in-the-name-of-God ideas? Yes, I did, strongly, and at great personal cost.

    So too with YEC apologists. I don't deny their status as Christians, saved by the blood of Jesus. But I don't honor God or His church by standing silent when YECs provide a as convincing case for the falsehood of the Gospel as is to be had. As Ken Ham, says, if YEC understandings are not true, then Christianity is false.

    From here, for example:

    It was therefore clear to me that if what I was taught in school was correct, then the whole Bible could not be trusted and Christianity was a false religion.

    That idea heaps more scorn and stink and doubt on Christianity than any ploy Dawkins or Harris or Sapient has come up with.

    So yeah, I think argmuments like that which work to discredit and falsify the Gospel need a good, thorough rebuke. It's not a rejection of their faith, but a rebuke of their false and corrupting arguments on top of that faith.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  7. hostus twinkius5/31/2007 4:32 PM

    Soooo, taking the Bible literally when it speaks about creation (even though we may not understand how it all fits together) is somehow dishonoring to the gospel? Since God made Adam as a man and not a baby, am I to suppose He could not create the universe at a further stage of development as well? Hmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Peter Pike,
    I like the part where you said,

    "I agree that it is petty. I think T-Stone should be ashamed of himself for punking himself the way he did. It made him, and (by association) Buddhistic-Christianity, look bad."

    That was funny...since he say something to this extent all the time

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter, in my opinion you misled Touchstone, and other potential readers. Knowing his ability to understand what someone writes, his was almost certainly an honest mistake. I personally have not read through what you wrote, but I have a strong hunch Touchstone was misled because you didn't provide the proper clues to understand what your intent was. I guess we all do that from time to time. But you share the blame.

    ReplyDelete
  10. John Loftus,

    "But you share the blame."

    Let me get this straight,
    you took advantage of someone sexually and then you blame the victim,

    Then you turn around and blame Touchstone when he misread Peter Pike's entry as a satire of of the Debunkers at your blog???

    ReplyDelete
  11. John,

    I thought for sure that had to be written by John W. Lostus...but it has your cowboy hat and clicking the link took me to your profile.

    You said:
    ---
    Peter, in my opinion you misled Touchstone, and other potential readers.
    ---

    And:
    ---
    I personally have not read through what you wrote, but I have a strong hunch Touchstone was misled because you didn't provide the proper clues to understand what your intent was.
    ---

    Is there even any need to actually respond to this???

    You didn't read what I wrote, yet you know all about it. You didn't read it, yet you can condemn me.

    Lemme know when you graduate 6th grade, Lofty.

    ReplyDelete
  12. By the way, I should point out there was no deception at all involved in anything I wrote. First, the blog post I parodied was a grand total of one (1) day older than my response. I referenced the Debunkers (including Holman specifically) in the parody itself. All anyone would have had to do is look at the Debunking website and see Holman's article right in plain sight.

    Furthermore, when T-Stone began to comment, I specifically told him that he had fallen into a trap and that he had been punk'd. And I also told him flat out: "By the way, this does have a little added irony in the fact that T-Stone so loves his 'trivial Google searches' too."

    Is it my fault if T-Stone is too dull to simply Google some of the phrases in my post and see Holman's name pop up everywhere? I did last night. I Googled "I’m willing to bet an airline ticket to the Bahamas" and guess who's post popped up? That's right: Holman's!

    And not only that, but when SLIMJIM posted a link to the site (which shows up at the bottom of the comments page), I included a link on that very page back to Holman's original article. This was maybe six whole hours after I posted my parody in the first place.

    T-Stone's failure to grasp the obvious doesn't make me deceptive; it makes him an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Peter, I didn't accuse you of willful deception. But I based what I said on Touchstone's reputation for understanding and responding intelligently to what we all write.

    ReplyDelete
  14. rhology, I was not lecturing about that. But when there is a misunderstanding of this sort, then usually both people share some blame, depending on who they are and what was said.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Touchstone said:

    My grandpa had some strongly racist views, which he based on the Bible in good part. Was he a Christian? Yes. Did I love him? Yes, I did. Did I reject and criticize his racism-in-the-name-of-God ideas? Yes, I did, strongly, and at great personal cost.

    So too with YEC apologists. I don't deny their status as Christians, saved by the blood of Jesus. But I don't honor God or His church by standing silent when YECs provide a as convincing case for the falsehood of the Gospel as is to be had.


    1. On what grounds does Touchstone associate YEC with racism? I don't mean the people, but rather the worldview.

    2. On what grounds does Touchstone associate YEC with the gospel?

    3. Touchstone is flat-out comparing belief in YEC to racism. Yet, he assures us he believes it's possible to hold to YEC and still be a Christian -- just like his grandpa held to racist ideas and was nevertheless a Christian in his view.

    However, Touchstone then goes on to imply that Christians who hold to YEC are preaching a false gospel.

    So, I ask, which is it? Is the YEC merely a (severely) misguided Christian or is he a false Christian preaching a false gospel? Is he deceived or is he a deceiver? Is he a lost sheep or is he a wolf in sheep's clothing?

    But I suppose like many of the things he says, this tells us more about Touchstone than it does about YEC Christians or others.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Patrick

    1. On what grounds does Touchstone associate YEC with racism? I don't mean the people, but rather the worldview.

    The comparison I was making was that they are both gross distortions. They don't directly contravene the Gospel, but they do make the whole "Christianity" thing look to be fraudulent to reasonable investigators.


    2. On what grounds does Touchstone associate YEC with the gospel?


    I don't suppose YEC ideas are directly implicated by the Gospel. Rather, YECs, like my racist grandpa simply discredit the good Gospel with their errors, by association. In the case of YECs, if this is how Christian ideas and doctrines perform when there is some evidence to evaluate their interpretations by, then there's good reason to suspect the whole thing might be as violent against the facts as their cosmogony is.



    3. Touchstone is flat-out comparing belief in YEC to racism. Yet, he assures us he believes it's possible to hold to YEC and still be a Christian -- just like his grandpa held to racist ideas and was nevertheless a Christian in his view.


    I don't suppose they are the same error, or the same *kind* of error, even. But they are both gross errors that discredit the Gospel message when they are associated with it.


    However, Touchstone then goes on to imply that Christians who hold to YEC are preaching a false gospel.


    That's not correct. I don't suppose the Gospel a YEC proclaims, or my grandfather proclaimed was false: Jesus is God-become-man, suffered and died for our sins, was buried, rose on the third day, and ascended to heaven.

    In both cases, that formulation remains intact, in my experience. Both errors work against the credibility of that Gospel, however. So even though a YEC can firmly and correctly offer a synopsis of the Gospel, their difficulties in reconciling their reading of Genesis with the natural evidence makes a good case for doubting whether the YEC, and by extension Christianity itself, has a "truth detection capability" that is worth taking seriously.

    So, I ask, which is it? Is the YEC merely a (severely) misguided Christian or is he a false Christian preaching a false gospel? Is he deceived or is he a deceiver? Is he a lost sheep or is he a wolf in sheep's clothing?

    I don't think either of those labels are good ones. I was raised a YEC, and most of my family remains YECs. They are neither lost sheep, or predators. They are stuck in ignorance and error, some of their own choosing, but much as a result of the abuse of their trust by YEC "leaders". There are wolves , to be sure, but it's not the YEC in the pew doing his best to be faithful, but the YEC apologists who know the facts, and hide them, distort them, leading their trusting fellow believers into error.

    You, for example, should know better, and have little excuse that I can see for promoting YEC teachings, if you do indeed promote them.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  17. John, welcome to the "liars" club.

    I'm so glad you came around to my way of looking at things.

    But, I take it then that you were being "deceptive" when you picked on me, The Big D, for "deceiving" people?

    Now, the only thing that remains is: were you being deceptive when you said that you didn't think the Cosmonautical argument and the argument from Bird-man and Gill-boy accurately portrayed Loftusian reasoning?

    Now for the latest deception: I'm John Loftus!

    That's right, time to come clean. There's a reason John's arguments were so bad. It's because I was trying to make atheism look ridiculous. Thanks to all you suckers who bought it.

    And, my cowboy hat was a nice touch, no?

    In Reason

    D

    ReplyDelete
  18. T-Stone said:
    ---
    They don't directly contravene the Gospel, but they do make the whole "Christianity" thing look to be fraudulent to reasonable investigators.
    ---

    Oh, so NOW T-Stone is concerned about what is "reasonable"....

    Unlike the times he tried to deny the Law of Non-Contradiction by claiming quantum mechanics MIGHT make it possible for something to both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship (source), or the time he said he couldn't know "for certain" that Abraham Lincoln wouldn't rise from the dead and knock on his door in the middle of the night (source).

    Frankly, T-Stone, why concern yourself with looking reasonable now?

    ReplyDelete
  19. TOUCHSTONE SAID:

    “There's a strong, flowing stream of bad faith argument and deceit that comes from the YEC community.”

    And let’s remember tht this is coming from the TE community. But theistic evolution is a classic makeshift position. For folks like T-stone who lack the moral and intellectual courage to go all the way with Dawkins and Provine, they cobble together the ad hoc, makeshift version of evolution known as theistic evolution, in which they graft an overlay of theism onto a foundation of naturalistic evolution. If you want to see a deceitful, bad faith argument at full tilt, go no further than T-stone’s stopgap theory of theistic evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Peter,

    You lied. Stop dancin' around it. I know lies, and you lied.

    Discomfiter,

    You lied too. I did like some of your arguments though.

    And y'all stop making fun of my cowboy hat...

    ReplyDelete
  21. That's not correct. I don't suppose the Gospel a YEC proclaims, or my grandfather proclaimed was false: Jesus is God-become-man, suffered and died for our sins, was buried, rose on the third day, and ascended to heaven.

    In both cases, that formulation remains intact, in my experience. Both errors work against the credibility of that Gospel, however. So even though a YEC can firmly and correctly offer a synopsis of the Gospel, their difficulties in reconciling their reading of Genesis with the natural evidence makes a good case for doubting whether the YEC, and by extension Christianity itself, has a "truth detection capability" that is worth taking seriously.


    So, let's get this straight. On the one hand, you are without any literary warrant from the text itself, willing to call the opening section of Genesis as allegory/allegorical and yet you also wish to hold to the gospel. So, where did sin come from if Adam was not a real person? Where is the need for the Incarnation? And, on the off chance you think Adam was a real person, then, pray tell, how can you deduce that from a text you call allegory/allegorical? Please reconcile Romans 5 on imputation with Genesis 1.

    Steve is correct, your position is a deceitful, dishonest argument at full tilt.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hey Gene,

    I took time to answer a list of your questions, and asked but one of you in return.

    How about, man?

    I'll continue answering your questions, you go on proving you can only "talk" when you are the one asking the questions -- when you have to answer, your wheels fall off.

    As for Adam and allegory, I went over this with Patrick a ways back; I'm sure you can find it in the archives, although I don't recall that Patrick grokked this either.

    But the example I gave then, which I will give now, is Napolean from Animal Farm. That book is an allegory, and in that work Napolean symbolizes Josef Stalin.

    So, I ask you. Was Napolean *real*? How about Stalin? Was Stalin *real*? If you have a basic grasp of how Animal Farm managed to connect these two -- Napolean, a fictitious character as a way to convey a message about Stalin, a real, historical figure, then you will have your answer. In short, *allegory* does not mean that the referent, the thing which is symbolized does not exist. This is not a hard thing to grasp - the Animal Farm example of allegorization of a historical character through a story is routinely walked through in high school English classes.

    *Public* school classes, mind you.

    That means, if you aren't following this, that in my view Adam was perfectly real and historical, as was his sin and transgression. No less 'flesh and blood' than old Joe Stalin. Which means then, that Romans 5 means to me what it does to you -- Adam (the real, flesh and blood Adam) was the cause of the Fall.

    For an extended discussion on this -- I am willing to stick my neck out with answers to pointed questions, unlike you -- Patrick can help you locate our previous hashing out on this issue, including the clues about allegory (quick hint: there's a talking snake in the story!).

    You're a tough hambre when you get to ask the questions Gene. You're nowhere to be found when you questions are aimed at you. That c ircumstance provides answers all the same.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  23. I take it this is the discussion on allegory Touchstone references above.

    As for Touchstone's little tirade against Gene and I for misunderstanding him on this point (which, by the way, given Touchstone's "radical skepticism," it's not as if he has any ground to stand on here), the following is a juicy excerpt from the discussion Touchstone references:

    *** BEGIN QUOTE ***

    [Touchstone] said: So now you have a problem: either a) Paul is wrong in identifying a story allegory cannot be simultaneously literally true and also allegorical, or b) Paul is trying to tell us that the Sarah/Isaac-Hagar/Ishmael story in Genesis isn't literally true.

    So Patrick, which is it?

    [I respond:]

    a. I've never denied the Bible could be allegorical or symbolic in certain parts.

    b. When you talk about allegory and symbolism, you're equivocating. You're treating symbolism as allegory and allegory as symbolism. But the two are not the same. As I've noted in my above post and comment.

    c. What's more, you've not merely been arguing for understanding certain elements of Scripture as allegory (or symbols), but you're taking it one step further and arguing for understanding the entire text itself (e.g. Gen. 1-3) as allegory.

    d. For the sake of elucidation, let me contrast the term "allegoroumena" (often translated "allegory") in Gal. 4:24 with another Greek word in the NT: "pornia." Literally, "pornia" might be translated "porn" or "pornography." When we think of pornography today, however, we mean something very specific. But the actual meaning of the Greek word itself is not so restricted as our modern definition. The Greek word "Pornia" could refer to any illicit sexual intercourse (e.g. adultery, homosexuality, bestiality). Or it could be a metaphor for idolatry. Similarly with the term "allegoroumena." As we would understand it today, the term "allegoroumena" could mean to speak allegorically or symbolically (figuratively, typologically; cf. the NIV translation).

    e. Finally, here is scholar Moises Silva on the topic:

    Much discussion has surrounded the meaning of v 24, "These things may be taken figuratively." Paul uses the Greek term "allegoroumena," and so a more literal translation might be, "These things are written allegorically," or "These things may be interpreted allegorically." Paul certainly is not making use of the allegorical method made famous by Philo of Alexandria, which strongly downplayed (or even denied) the historical character of the OT narrative and which served as the vehicle for formulating complex philosophical systems. In view of the somewhat specialized meaning that the term allegory has today in the minds of many (the corresponding Greek term could be used in several, more general, ways), it is probably misleading to use it in describing what Paul is doing in the passage. ... Some scholars prefer to use the term typology (rather than allegory) to describe Paul's method here.

    *** END QUOTE ***

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As for Adam and allegory, I went over this with Patrick a ways back; I'm sure you can find it in the archives, although I don't recall that Patrick grokked this either.

    But the example I gave then, which I will give now, is Napolean from Animal Farm. That book is an allegory, and in that work Napolean symbolizes Josef Stalin.(snip)


    I won't repeat the rest, because all you're doing is repeating the same mistakes you made then.

    For starters, Touchstone, Animal Farm and ancient Hebrew writings are ages apart, and culturally dissimilar. What are the literary characteristics of a Hebrew allegory, and how does Genesis fit? You see, all you have done is consistently repeat that you take that portion of Genesis as allegorical, yet you have never given us a basis for that except to whitter on about "magical trees" and "talking serpents." (Ironically, these are the elements that atheists often use to dismiss the text altogether.) What is the textual warrant that allows you to do this? You have consistently confused symbolism and allegory. How do you know what Adam symbolizes or even that he symbolizes/represents something, and if he does, what is it? Where is the warrant from the text that tells you this? Is it your argument that the form of Genesis 1 - 3 is an allegory? That has, as I've read the archives, been your argument. If so, where' s the supporting argument? If you allegorize Adam, then why not allegorize his sin? Why not allegorize Romans 5 as well?

    Animal Farm is, in form, an allegory. You are correct. How do you know this? Because it contains symbolism? No, for symbolic language alone does not select for a story being an allegory. How many times do we need to go over that information with you? We know what the figures mean, who they represent, etc. and the form is an allegory, and allegories are fictional, and we know this because, in English language literature, allegory is a specific literary form, but that is an English language work from the 20th century, NOT ancient Hebrew literature. Where can you get that from Genesis 1 - 3? How do you know what is allegorical and what is historical or, put another way, that Gen. 1 - 3 is an allegory?

    You're also allegorizing the text, at a minimum. So, why an allegorical hermeneutic and not a grammatical-historical herm? Is it your argument that the GHM yields an allegorical result? If so, where's the argument?

    In another thread, you said you held to the (ecumenical) creeds as your standard for orthodoxy and did not include Sola Fide because the text of Scripture was not perspicuous on that issue. So, why is Genesis perspicuous as an allegory? Further, you then pointed as "proof" the non-Protestant majority of church history (as you alleged it to speak) on Sola Fide. Well, if majority rules is a determinant for your rule of faith, why are you allegorizing Genesis when Jews and Christians through time have understood the Genesis account to be historical?

    In the past, when you were asked for that warrant, you referred us to Galatians, but unless you are claiming to be inspired like Paul, you are in no position to allegorize the text. Paul was not saying the text about Sarah and Hagar is an allegory or is meant to be taken as allegorical. Rather, he was allegorizing the text under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at that, to make a typological point relative to justification by faith alone.

    Also, am I alone in finding it odd and rather amusing that you apparently think that Galatians is perspicuous enough to teach what that section you cited in the past teaches but not perspicuous enough to say that Scripture teaches justification by faith alone?

    Then, when pressed again for that warrant you said:

    I deny that a deterministic method exists,

    That, of course, serves to undermine your claims about Genesis 1 - 3.

    You have a nasty habit of repeating the same arguments over when they've been answered, and you have an even nastier habit of trying to foist the burden of proof to us, but we're not here to do your work for you.


    That means, if you aren't following this, that in my view Adam was perfectly real and historical, as was his sin and transgression. No less 'flesh and blood' than old Joe Stalin. Which means then, that Romans 5 means to me what it does to you -- Adam (the real, flesh and blood Adam) was the cause of the Fall.

    No, for you, Adam was one of many proto-men that God endowed with a human soul and then transgressed God's law, assuming you can't allegorize that part out too. For you, the text is saying, ""the Lord God formed proto-human of dust from the ground, and after several million years, took proto-human, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and proto-human became what we would today know as man." So, what you do is fill in the text with ad hocery that isn't in it, and thereby add to Scripture.

    But that's not what the text says. Is it your view that this one proto-human whom God endowed with a human soul and transgressed the covenant that God made with him the father of the entire human race as we know it or not? Your parallel breaks down at the critical point of comparison if not, since Christ is the head of all the justified in Romans 5 and Adam is the head of all men without exception. For you, Christ is a real, historical person, and Adam is just a literary device to describe, at best, some sort of proto-human that God endowed with a soul and maybe transgressed the covenant.

    To quote Steve, "you don’t affirm the historicity of Adam or the Fall. This is a semantic shell-game of yours.

    What you affirm, rather, is that *something* happened involving *someone* or another, but we can’t know what *really* happened, to whom, or by whom, since our only record of this event is an allegorical myth or mythical allegory. What you affirm, then, is a blank to be penciled in by evolution.

    You affirm *that* something happened, but you can’t affirm *what* happened.

    You affirm a real event involving real agents, but you deny that we have a realistic account of the event, so we’re completely in the dark regarding the actual identity of the participants or the actual nature of the event.

    So your affirmation rings completely hollow once we strip away the equivocations."

    And I might add that you have no business of discussing the alleged damage YEC does to the gospel when you hold to this sort of shoddy argumentation yourself and borrow from argumentation atheists use to justify it. Don't say that YEC views "discredit" the gospel, when all you do is resort to ad hocery.

    It's refreshing to know, Touchstone, that you still can't answer the questions when put to you, and you have to resort to the same arguments. Were I asked the questions I was asking you, I might crack a book on Hebrew literature or a few commentaries on Genesis and at least find some sort of argumentation that stated that the text of Genesis 1 is an allegory and notes the correspondences and gives the textual warrant. I might find some information about ancient Hebrew literature that compared Genesis to known ancient Hebrew allegorical forms and made the connection. But you don't do this, you run to Animal Farm, as if an English language literary form from the 20th century is determinative of a literary form from Hebrew that is several millenia of age, and repeat the same arguments that you offered months ago and which we answered.

    I'll continue answering your questions, you go on proving you can only "talk" when you are the one asking the questions -- when you have to answer, your wheels fall off.For the record, unknown to you, I was quite involved in some of the responses that came back at you in the past when you have answered me but others have replied and not me. There are reasons I can't be here all the time at present related to my health; so, while you responded to others, you were, unknown to you, responding to me as well. I also don't feel the need to respond to you directly at times, Touchstone, because others beat me to the punch rather frequently anyway. I see no need to reinvent the wheel, and I don't spend time waiting with baited breath for your next response, because I know that all you will do is repeat what you've said already. Your last response as well as your interactions with Patrick in the past have been stellar examples.

    ReplyDelete