tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post114083002372629925..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The twice-deadRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16982662911901220612008-01-30T16:27:00.000-05:002008-01-30T16:27:00.000-05:00Im an evangelical protestant medical missionary/ac...Im an evangelical protestant medical missionary/academic, and may not technically have a dog in this narrow fight, but what the hey.."why would they automatically lose?" Why would jurists who have a basic core judeo-christian underpinning behind their analysis, necessarily "lose" any more so than jurists who had an atheistic Mao-ist communist, or atheistic Stalinist, or very liberal leftist juristic secular humanistic ideological underpinning? atheists conveniently like to forget their abysmal history of political and juridical rule!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140879959817128752006-02-25T10:05:00.000-05:002006-02-25T10:05:00.000-05:00Question for the Triabloguers: do you think any of...Question for the Triabloguers: do you think any of the Catholic Supreme Court Justices are serious about Christian doctrine? If so, that would make an interesting debate... (They'd lose, but, you know, at least it would be interesting, most likely...)UK67https://www.blogger.com/profile/15095910610517995965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140878989530734712006-02-25T09:49:00.000-05:002006-02-25T09:49:00.000-05:00John and exbeliever, you're coming across as hyste...John and exbeliever, you're coming across as hysterical atheist neophytes. Like the crowd at "The Raving Atheist" or Atrio's site at about three in the morning. (One of the Atrios crowd explained to me that Christianity didn't begin in America until the 19th century. Before that people believed in God, not Christ.) I tend to take a simple approach with atheists, just stating my faith, my experience and how it all works; but Hays and Manata and Bridges and the others here will play with you on your own territory using your own language. To make the debate more interesting just approach them as if everybody's been vetted already as a real fighter with a history of victories, and take it from there. When you freak out and dismiss them as you've been doing you come across around these parts as the most intellectually weak Roman Catholic apologists come across...UK67https://www.blogger.com/profile/15095910610517995965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140850754672403362006-02-25T01:59:00.000-05:002006-02-25T01:59:00.000-05:00Okay, this is definitely the LAST time I am dealin...Okay, this is definitely the LAST time I am dealing with you guys.<BR/><BR/>So, I'm supposed to trust your exegesis of passages, when you miss the biggest freakin' red letters on the planet that say, "The following is added by John..." [That's John Loftus, not exbeliever] and then go on to attribute the whole thing to me? You address all of your comments to me when I didn't write anything that you quoted.<BR/><BR/>It's called reading, my friends. I'm afraid that this is typical of your intellectual abilities.<BR/><BR/>So, am I going to get an admission of a mistake?! Are you going to admit that you can't read for crap and that you missed those huge red letters that I saw at 3:00 pm this afternoon that explicitly state that I wrote NOTHING that you quoted.<BR/><BR/>I won't hold my breath.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140844584897323722006-02-25T00:16:00.000-05:002006-02-25T00:16:00.000-05:00The funny thing here is the Ex-believer has gone o...The funny thing here is the Ex-believer has gone out of his way to say he is acting in a detached fashion, yet he keeps writing these jeremiads. He also says he's going to stop responding...but he keeps responding. He would want us to believe he has no agenda, but to "refute" Evan, he picks up on a passage of Scripture dealing with 1st century Christians who were also being persecuted by the pagans around them and suffering for their faith. One wonders, is Ex-believer now admitting he does have an agenda and that it includes causing sufffering for the faith on the part of Christians? If we assume his use of v. 9, for example, is correct, then it would also mean that he has himself abused and done evil and believes that we at Tblogue are repaying him in kind. <BR/><BR/>No, Ex-believer. You are an admitted apostate. Under the Old Covenant, we would be stoning you. In the New Covenant, we simply put you out of the church and treat you as an unbeliever. More than that, we have every license to treat you in the manner in which you are being treated, because you are a traitor to the covenant who seeks to directly undermine the faith you once claimed. You are no mere ignorant pagan. Don't flatter yourself. You said you were Reformed. You should, then, understand that we affirm continuity, not radical discontinuity between the covenants.<BR/><BR/><I>There are so many omissions and equivocations, not to mention a few lies, in that video, it's hard to know where to start. But I figure I'll start with a philosophical objection: it assumes the historical unreliability of the Gospel of Mark in order to prove its historical unreliability, i.e., it claims that Mark had to have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem since it contains prophecy thereof. Not very convincing unless you have already presupposed a naturalistic framework. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and in dating Mark in such a fashion and assuming the standard liberal scheme does the skeptic no favors.<BR/><BR/>The typical scheme starts with Mark and ends with John. Okay, so far, so good, this is a scheme some conservatives use too. However, the scheme the skeptic assumes to maintain a thesis to contradict the veracity of the text also asserts that "mythological elements" accrete over time and stories grow in content.<BR/><BR/>If the skeptic would apply some critical thinking here, he would realize the problem...but then given that most of them don't take the text seriously anyway, what can we expect. Of all the gospels, Mark, which is supposedly first, contains the most "mythological elements." John, the last one, contains the least such elements, which runs exactly contrary to the theory. Mark also contains small details the supposedly later gospels do not include, which is also contrary to the theory of accretion. One would expect, if this scheme was valid to see the opposite. I believe Guthrie has stated that most if not all the problems associated with the synoptic problem are solved by positing Matthean priority. Of course, this is fairly typical critics don't interact with conservative scholarship very much. Take a look at any liberal commentary; they quote each other. Compare the index to a conservative commentary. They interact at length with the contrary position frequently.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140842172590266402006-02-24T23:36:00.000-05:002006-02-24T23:36:00.000-05:00Willis,There are so many omissions and equivocatio...Willis,<BR/><BR/>There are so many omissions and equivocations, not to mention a few lies, in that video, it's hard to know where to start. But I figure I'll start with a philosophical objection: it assumes the historical unreliability of the Gospel of Mark in order to prove its historical unreliability, i.e., it claims that Mark had to have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem since it contains prophecy thereof. Not very convincing unless you have already presupposed a naturalistic framework.Kyjohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02576699017770933239noreply@blogger.com