Sunday, May 22, 2011

Rapture blues

I must say I’m pretty bummed out that the rapture didn’t happen on Saturday, as scheduled. Here I was hoping to be left behind. I figured the rapture would free up some high-end real estate. All those instantaneously deserted seaside villas. I was packed and ready to move into the Breakers. Not to mention vintage muscle cars collecting dust in abandoned garages. All free for the taking. Sigh! 


  1. I sympathize with you, brother. ;)

  2. Not to mention vintage muscle cars collecting dust in abandoned garages. All free for the taking. Sigh!

    Heh! But would the gas prices be lower, hmm.

    Those muscle cars can guzzle, you know!

  3. Steve, there is only one thing more pathetic than Harold Camping trying to pin a date on the rapture: other Christian sects believing just as fervently that it will come without pinning a date on it.

  4. The Atheist Missionary said:

    Steve, there is only one thing more pathetic than Harold Camping trying to pin a date on the rapture: other Christian sects believing just as fervently that it will come without pinning a date on it.

    Don't get your panties in a bunch, TAM! I know you resent the fact that you'll be left behind as an atheist. But perhaps we could arrange for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to swing low and carry you home to nether-nether land where you can join the other atheist boys and girls in the deep, dark abyss of doom.

  5. Atheist Missionary, there is one thing we can guarantee: you will die. I'm not going to put a date on it, but I will guarantee it. Right now you're a person that's just eaten a full meal and is mocking hunger. When you die, if you die as you are now, a shallow poser 'intelligent' rebel against your Creator, you will find out that you lack much more than a full meal. You will be alienated from every good thing you receive now from God via common grace and the advantage you have of being a parasite on Christian culture and civilization.

  6. And the 'rapture doctrine' is not classical Protestant doctrine.

    And the second coming will likely involve aspects of time that challenge our limited perception of time. I.e. when eternity breaks into a perceived linearity of time it most likely is not something that can even be known while still in the flesh.

    Sort of like a sucker punch in the ghetto. In a micro second your flesh is out.

    Human beings imagine having more power than they will have when the end comes.
    Sort of like a man who is about to serve a prison sentence. He thinks he's still in control. The prison guards just grin.

  7. I love the C. S. Lewis quote about atheists, how the world is a big trap for atheists. Atheists have to be constantly on guard not to engage any influence that develops them and gives them discernment that there is transcendent truth and reality beyond what can be grasped by their five senses. Atheists in other words have to be constantly on guard to remain shallow.

  8. For those who aren't familiar with Atheist Missionary and his irrationality, see here.

  9. Maybe this the quote c.t. is referring.

    "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere -- 'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous." – Surprised by Joy

  10. The Atheist Missionary said...

    "In any event, whenever someone starts preaching a flavour of Christianity to me, I ask them to go listen to Bart Ehrman debate William Lane Craig or Mike Licona. These exchanges are far more devastating critiques of the underpinnings of Christianity than all the writings of the four Horsemen put together."

    You mean, the debates he lost with Craig and Licona? Both Jason and I reviewed his debate with Craig, while Jason also reviewed his debate with Licona. I've also reviewed several of Erhman's books, as well as posting reviews of others. Try again.

    "See Dan Barker..."

    The fact that you turn to a hack like Barker for intellectual ammo shows the vacuity of your intellectual pretension.

  11. For those waiting for Christ to come we should I hope be trying to make our days count and not trying to count the days.

  12. Oh, and WLC trounced Ehrman. Licona did OK.

  13. Dan Barker refusing to allow James White to quote his (Barker's) recent book in a debate(!!!).

  14. William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman (part 1 of 6)

    part 2

    part 3

    part 4

    part 5

    part 6

  15. Craig's statement is intellectually vacuous and why I would not so much as let him clean my basement.

    Thanks, but you're a fool. Maybe think about some substantive critiques.

  16. >Maybe this the quote c.t. is referring.

    Yes, thanks for that, A.N.

    I could be wrong, but I also thought I saw a similar quote from one of his letters. Maybe he mined the letter for the more polished quote found in the book.


    "All you need to know about W.L. Craig is this quote..."

    i) No, that's not all we need to know. That's your bait-n-switch. You initially refer us to his debate with Ehrman. But Ehrman lost that debate because, as Craig demonstrated at the outset, Ehrman is using contradictory rules of evidence.

    ii) You then shift gears to a totally different objection. BTW, I see you don't have a copy of his latest edition. That's lazy on your part.

    iii) Even if (arguendo) Craig's appeal to the witness of the Spirit were misguided, Craig's personal reasons for being a Christian are irrelevant to his debate with Ehrman. Irrelevant to the evidence he used to argue Ehrman down.

    The psychological underpinnings of Craig's faith have no bearing on the quality of his arguments.

    iv) Moreover, you attack his position without offering a counterargument. But Craig has dealt with objections to his position on the witness of the Spirit. You're making no effort to engage the argument.

    This is why I'll delete your comments. You have absolutely no sense of intellectual responsibility. You think it's okay for you to say any dumb thing that occurs to you, to content yourself with tendentious assertions, and play hopscotch as you leap from one failed objection to another.

    You're welcome to fritter away your life, but don't make us waste time on you.

  18. The Atheist Missionary said:

    All you need to know about W.L. Craig is this quote: "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." [Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 36.] This is a staggering statement – a true show stopper. It is literally no different than me saying: “I know there are fairies in my garden and nothing you can say or show me will ever change my mind”. Craig's statement is intellectually vacuous and why I would not so much as let him clean my basement.

    1. This is inept. TAM is treating this as an all or nothing issue. But no one has to accept all of Craig's arguments for some of his arguments to be reasonable arguments. We could reject Craig's argument here without necessarily rejecting his other arguments including his arguments against Ehrman.

    2. Also, TAM doesn't provide the context for Craig's statement. This isn't simply a stand-alone statement. Craig isn't arguing in a vacuum. For one thing, this statement has reference primarily (though not solely) to warrant for a believer's Christian faith. For the believer, Craig points out that natural theology, Christian evidences, and the witness of the Holy Spirit provide warrant for a Christian's belief in Christianity.

    3. Moreover "take precedence over" is not the same as outright denying reason and evidence. Craig isn't using the argument for religious experience as the sole means by which to argue for Christianity. Indeed, the rest of his book offers many other arguments for Christianity (some better than others).

    4. BTW, there's an updated third edition published in 2008. This statement is cited on page 48 in the third edition. People who have the book can read Craig in context.