tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post114932601357186072..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Dawson's Doltish DiatribeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1149375359035268402006-06-03T18:55:00.000-04:002006-06-03T18:55:00.000-04:00I saw you picking on Paul for his grammer.You wrot...I saw you picking on Paul for his grammer.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "I simply remarked at how similiar your style is to Robbin's." <BR/><BR/>It should be "Robbins'"<BR/><BR/>I'll close with your words, " just ease up on criticizing someone else when they do they same."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1149375216109845162006-06-03T18:53:00.000-04:002006-06-03T18:53:00.000-04:00I was pretty much joking about the Clark suporter ...I was pretty much joking about the Clark suporter thing, hence the ;-)<BR/><BR/>you'll notice that my posts on Robbins has been removed.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the unintended offense.<BR/><BR/>I assume, though, that you don't like things like Matt 23 either?<BR/><BR/>.... chill, that was another joke! :-)Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1149358734355335772006-06-03T14:18:00.000-04:002006-06-03T14:18:00.000-04:00Am I a Clark supporter simply because I have no pr...Am I a Clark supporter simply because I have no problem with Robbins? I only mentioned Robbins because you rant about him (and Clark) on the internet forums. (I still don't know how you concluded that I'm a Clark supporter.) I simply remarked at how similiar your style is to Robbin's. And I've seen your style is used on fellow Christians. Continue writing in your style, just ease up on criticizing someone else when they do they same.<BR/><BR/>And to Kletios' comment, Paul is on a lot of other public sites besides this blog. You're right. I'm not forced to read his stuff, but I would need to in order to see how I might not have wanted to read it in the first place. So I really wonder what worth your comment even had. No one forced you to read my comment but you. So please, don't comment any further.<BR/><BR/>Just to remind you, I appreciate PM's work. I listen to him on audio whenever it's posted and I like some of what he's written. It's just a little too much.<BR/><BR/>To let this blog serve its purpose, I'll stop commenting on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1149353131562995802006-06-03T12:45:00.000-04:002006-06-03T12:45:00.000-04:00EKN,What you quoted from me was me quoting Dawson,...EKN,<BR/><BR/>What you quoted from me was me quoting Dawson, and then changing a couple of words.<BR/><BR/>Also, different classes of pagans are to be treated differently.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, when you wrestle a pig, sometimes you get dirty. I don't talk to the wide-eyed innocent college student the way I talk to a Bethrick, or a Loftus. There are biblically waranted uses of sarcasm.<BR/><BR/>I write like that mainly for commedy, a lot of people find it funny. Just like Dawson's rhetorical flourishes are intended to be funny, so are mine.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I can understand why Clark supporters would want me off the internet ;-)Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1149347992802090242006-06-03T11:19:00.000-04:002006-06-03T11:19:00.000-04:00Paul makes a good point regarding how Bethrick doe...Paul makes a good point regarding how Bethrick doesn't want us to interpret his own words in the manner in which he's interpreting the words of Jesus. Bethrick doesn't want us to isolate his words from their larger context in the way in which he isolates Jesus' words. As Bethrick would know if he would study the issue sufficiently, the comment Jesus makes in Matthew 19:26 isn't unique to Jesus. Other ancient Jews said the same thing. Yet, the Old Testament and other ancient Jewish sources repeatedly refer to things that would be impossible for God in some sense (that He cease to exist, etc.). Bethrick should document that not only Jesus, but also ancient Jews in general, defined the concept that nothing is impossible with God in the way that Bethrick defines it. If he thinks that we should ignore that sort of context, and assume his isolated reading of Jesus' words, then on what basis would he object to our interpreting <I>his</I> words in a similar way, as Paul Manata suggested?<BR/><BR/>Similarly, taking the Jewish context of the New Testament into account makes Bethrick's objection to the empty tomb unreasonable. An empty tomb would have been assumed in a Jewish context, even where it wasn't mentioned. The apostle Paul apparently considered Luke's gospel scripture (1 Timothy 5:18), so it's questionable, in that sense, whether Paul was entirely silent on the subject of the empty tomb. (And it would be ridiculous to suggest that companions of Paul like Mark and Luke were familiar with the empty tomb account, but Paul wasn't, or that Paul was rejecting the account while these other people were accepting it. We know, from Paul's letters and other evidence, that the early churches were highly networked and that the earliest church leaders had a high degree of doctrinal unity.) Think of how often Paul mentions something in one of his letters, but doesn't mention it in another letter. For example, he'll go into detail about his sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11, yet only mention those sufferings in general terms elsewhere. Do we assume that he must have been unaware of those details at the times when he doesn't discuss them? Do we assume that contemporaries of Paul like Mark and John must not have known of Paul's existence, since they don't mention Paul by name in their writings? We know that the resurrection appearance to James was common knowledge in the early church, as we see reflected in 1 Corinthians 15. Yet, none of the gospels mention it. Do we assume, then, that the gospel writers must not have believed that Jesus appeared to James? Why, then, did the same church that accepted the gospels also accept 1 Corinthians? Bethrick's line of reasoning doesn't carry much weight in these contexts, nor does it in the context of the empty tomb. You can't dismiss the large amount of hard evidence we have for the empty tomb by countering it with the soft evidence that the empty tomb isn't mentioned in documents like 1 Corinthians and Philemon. Bethrick's argument has all the force of a feather thunderously crashing into a bowl of Jell-O.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1149347292151322342006-06-03T11:08:00.000-04:002006-06-03T11:08:00.000-04:00Ekn, dude, no one makes you read this blog but you...Ekn, dude, no one makes you read this blog but yourself.kletoishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04937744112201328478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1149346692486407202006-06-03T10:58:00.000-04:002006-06-03T10:58:00.000-04:00I can almost imagine the feedback I will get for t...I can almost imagine the feedback I will get for the above comment from any of the contributors to this site or from other people. But I would like Paul to stick this one out and let him read about himself for once. If not, have fun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1149346362560053282006-06-03T10:52:00.000-04:002006-06-03T10:52:00.000-04:00If people thought John Robbins was arrogant and un...If people thought John Robbins was arrogant and unnecessarily belligerent, you are more so (though I do not think of Robbins this way). But you are less intelligible with many spelling mistakes. As a Reformed Christian, I appreciate you defending the faith. But some of us Christians on the internet are tired of your tirade. I doubt Bahnsen would be proud.<BR/><BR/>You should take your advice and also spend less time on the internet: <BR/><BR/>"PM: If Dawson were half as concerned with understanding his opponent's position as he is with winning debates, he might actually learn something. However, he shows not only that he does not have any actual arguments against the position he cites, but also that he's not very original, either."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com