So he’s no embarrassment to Protestants. Rather, he’s just a mini-Pope.
The Protestant movement was also concerned with restoring responsible hermeneutics. Protestant theological method eschews rampant allegory and the fourfold sense of Scripture (i.e. the Quadriga). We eschew esoteric interpretations. Camping argues from Scripture the way Catholic epologists spooftext Marian dogma from the ark of the covenant.
excellent points and reminders !
ReplyDeleteCamping is a "mini-pope" - yes.
Camping's method is like the RC "spooftexting" (I love that name for that1) of Mary and the arc of the covenant. - excellent.
Touche
Sorry, but fail.
ReplyDeleteCamping will be reported by the media as a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian loony. When the news reports his end times prophecy failure on May 22nd your image will be tarnished by association.
And rightfully so. You want people to believe in virgin births, resurrections, talking animals, global floods, and an earth that is 6K years old, but when someone comes along and attaches a date to the 'end of times' - well that's just crazy! Ha!
Nope. It's all crazy.
"Camping will be reported by the media as a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian loony."
ReplyDeleteHighly, highly probable.
"When the news reports his end times prophecy failure on May 22nd your image will be tarnished by association."
Highly, highly probable.
And being a faithful, biblical Christian I need to be vitally concerned with the image of Christians and the image of the Church that non-Christians have.
In fact, maybe I need to be so concerned about the judgments of non-Christians towards Christians, and of Christianity in toto that I should consider abandoning the faith-conviction that Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord.
Because what other people think and say matters more than what He purportedly did on a Cross 2,000 years ago.
Thanks David for your encouraging comment to intelligently think about things.
If anyone is interested, I wrote a short story on this subject last year and reposted it here with a few minor changes:
ReplyDeletehttp://the-porters-lodge.blogspot.com/2011/05/answer.html
TF's assessment of David's comment is correct, I believe, and I fully expect all the backlash from this mess.
Praise God He holds His elect in His hands forever. That's all I really care about; well, that and seeing David and others like him brought into the family of faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
I would just add to David's point that Camping discredits religion by showing that:
ReplyDelete1- religious people tend to slide into irrationality when it comes to religion, providing more empirical evidence that we should distrust the founders of religion (such as early Christians) even if we do not have the details on them the way we do with Joseph Smith and Camping.
2- religion even if it were true is as good as false, because it has no empirical feedback (like Uzzah and the Ark) that can prevent it from inevitably sliding into falsehood and there is no way to stop it, similar to a deaf man whose speech slowly deteriorates. If a doctor slid into voodoo, his patients would start to die, but on his long slide from the debate with Walvoord, in which he did pretty well, to his present nuttiness, there was NOTHING solid to halt Camping.
David and Thnuh Thnuh,
ReplyDeleteBoth of you ignore the evidence for Christianity that we discuss on this blog, yet you make vague assertions about an alleged lack of evidence. Other non-Christians who post here have often done the same, as I've mentioned before. Your profession of rationality would be more credible if you didn't ignore so much while proving so little. You talk big, but you don't back it up, even when you're presented with many opportunities to do it. Clean up your own house before you try to hold us so responsible for Camping's mess.
1- religious people tend to slide into irrationality when it comes to religion...
ReplyDeleteThis is a nonsense argument. It's bigoted rather than generalising to say that any whole group of a certain type of person tends to do this or that. I could just as easily assert that atheists tend to slide into genocide when it comes to governing by citing Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, and on and on.
You fellows have to come up with rational arguments if you're going get our attention at all.
We should be sad for Harold, not embarrassed by him. His mind is more callous today, than in 1994.
ReplyDeleteI argued with a devout Catholic the other day. I told her, "I'm no longer a Catholic, but a Protestant." "Do you know that Protestant means to protest against the Church?", she said.
"Amen", I said.
We went on to have quite a deep discussion. John 10 was where I felt lead by the Spirit, to share with her, that Jesus loves His sheep, and He laid down His life, so we can have life. He also holds His sheep in His tender and powerful grip, even as our Father in heaven grasps us with His hand as well. What unbelievable love and security and solace God's truth is for all His sheep.
I pray this time Camping will repent. Last time in 1994 he became even more stubborn.
DAVID SAID:
ReplyDelete“Sorry, but fail. Camping will be reported by the media as a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian loony. When the news reports his end times prophecy failure on May 22nd your image will be tarnished by association.”
Sorry, but fail. Your observation is irrelevant. My post was not about how the media will report on the nonevent. Rather, my post was dealing with illicit guilt by association.
The fact that the media will probably do what you says merely illustrates the further fact that the media is just as idiotic as Camping.
“And rightfully so. You want people to believe in virgin births, resurrections, talking animals, global floods, and an earth that is 6K years old, but when someone comes along and attaches a date to the 'end of times' - well that's just crazy! Ha”
i) Actually, I don’t want people virgin births (plural), resurrections (plural), &c. One virgin birth of Christ is quite sufficient. One Resurrection of Christ is quite sufficient.
ii) You dismiss miracles out of hand without offering any historical or philosophical justification for your knee-jerk prejudice. Sneering is no substitute for reason.
iii) I realize you’re not bright enough to appreciate the distinction, but the question at issue is not whether the Biblical eschatology is true, but whether Camping has correctly interpreted the Bible. For instance, you don’t believe that Dante’s Commedia is true, yet there are right and wrong ways to interpret Dante’s Commedia.
Thnuh Thnuh said...
ReplyDelete“I would just add to David's point that Camping discredits religion by showing that: 1- religious people tend to slide into irrationality when it comes to religion…”
No, what it shows is that irrational people slide into irrationality, whether religious or irreligious.
You presumably think ufology is irrational, yet that generally appeals to secular types.
“…providing more empirical evidence that we should distrust the founders of religion (such as early Christians) even if we do not have the details on them the way we do with Joseph Smith and Camping.”
Actually, if Camping or Joseph Smith wrote like St. Luke, St. Paul, or St. John (to take a few examples), I’d have a very different impression of Camping or Joseph Smith.
“Religion even if it were true is as good as false, because it has no empirical feedback (like Uzzah and the Ark) that can prevent it from inevitably sliding into falsehood and there is no way to stop it, similar to a deaf man whose speech slowly deteriorates. If a doctor slid into voodoo.”
Well, to play along with your own illustration, you’re assuming that voodoo has no “empirical feedback.” However, I don’t share your assumptions about witchcraft. Your comparison presumes what you need to prove.
I expect most Aze/Azetos are flamboyant charlatans who put on a good show for tourists with digital cameras, but that doesn’t mean voodoo can’t tap into something real and malefic.
David said "You want people to believe in virgin births, resurrections, talking animals, global floods, and an earth that is 6K years old, but when someone comes along and attaches a date to the 'end of times' - well that's just crazy! Ha!
ReplyDeleteYes, it's crazy because when you attach an end date, you are suddenly accountable. Asserting that a virgin gave birth 2000 years ago requires no epistemological accountability. That's the basis of theology.
1. David and Thnuh Thnuh assume atheism is true. From there, they assume Christians are irrational and so forth.
ReplyDeleteHowever, from our perspective, we assume Christianity is true. So on Christian grounds, atheism is foolish.
Of course, their comments are irrelevant to Steve's post in the first place. Not that we should but even if we consent to go this route, it's at best a push.
2. Also, their point is reversible. We could take, say, celebrity atheists who hold silly beliefs and use them to tar atheism in general, just like they're trying to do with Camping here. For example, James Cameron.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"I realize you’re not bright enough to appreciate the distinction,..."
When it comes to sneering Steve - no one can beat you!! You put those fundamentalist Christian values on display like almost no other (tho Rhology might be able to give you a run for your money)
Sneer away - I'm the one laughing!!
RYAN ANDERSON SAID:
ReplyDelete“Yes, it's crazy because when you attach an end date, you are suddenly accountable. Asserting that a virgin gave birth 2000 years ago requires no epistemological accountability. That's the basis of theology.”
If atheism is true, then there are no objective moral norms, in which case there are no epistemic duties, in which case there’s no epistemological accountability. That’s the basis of atheism.
Steve; so moral truths require epistemology, but epistemology does not require moral truths. Nice try though.
ReplyDeleteI see you can't keep up with a simple argument, so let's take you by the hand and walk you through it. You cast the issue in terms of "epistemological accountability," remember?
ReplyDeleteBut absent epistemic duties, there's no duty to be epistemically accountable. And many atheists candidly admit that atheism entails moral relativism.
Am I moving too fast for you?
Oh, and I didn't say if moral truths require epistemology. Rather, moral truths require objective moral norms. Get it? Or should I slow down again to let you catch up?
Am I moving too fast for you?
ReplyDeleteYes, so fast I almost didn't catch the sleight of hand where you conflated moral duties and epistemological duties.
"Conflate"? No. I pointed out that one presupposes the other. Sorry you have such difficulty keeping up with a simple argument.
ReplyDelete"Yes, it's crazy because when you attach an end date, you are suddenly accountable. Asserting that a virgin gave birth 2000 years ago requires no epistemological accountability. That's the basis of theology."
ReplyDeleteThe claims made by this statement are very questionable.
Knowledge of this subject is found in certain claims that move the whole discussion well beyond the subject of the virgin birth which is perfectly defensible if the foundation for the knowledge of all of this is found in a Creator.
Reject that notion, then there is not much to discuss. AND WE ARE left with the sniping and attempts to score points which I find so boring most of the time. Entertaining at times but often boring in the end.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteYou can get at Steve's point another way. Epistemic accountability assumes norms, just how do you make sense of normative claims? The same objections that are given to moral realism can be given to epistemic realism, since both are included in the normative web.