I'm sure Wallace is very bright, but my respect for him went down when he blocked me on Twitter for asking questions. He seems to be an example of the partisanship which is all too common among both theists and atheists today.
I am not sure what you are asking. Wallace thesis seems to be that Christianity is left for dead but there's really a great case there if people look. Well absolutely that is the case. The problem is it's not as cut and dried as Josh McDowell and I think this Wallace guy and William Lane Craig and other apologetocal types would have it. Nor does it need to be.
We have allowed the fundamentalists to set the stage ad and define what Christianity is about. Everyone in America thinks in terms of literal bible historical document, tells the happenings of Jesus life and sayings, has to be literal, has to be told by apostles, and so on. The problem is you have non historians doing history, None historians defining history and tell what that has to entail,.
At Perkins I saw some of they best old style church historians such as Jaroslav Pelikan or his student my prof, William S. Babcock. Some of the profs I had in grad school place the Jesus myths o a par with Bigfoot, but they are not that much les critical McDowell. The irony is that while they are making good points that work in favor of belief most people would not get that because to them belief is something that proves the truth of a literalistic reading.
Joe -- I think you're wasting your time. I still don't understand what I ever did to Ilion to warrant his insults, but this has been a recurring pattern with him. Perhaps he interprets 1 Peter 3:15 in a way which requires him to witness to non-Christians by gratuitously insulting them and making false accusations?
Joe -- I think you're wasting your time. I still don't understand what I ever did to Ilion to warrant his insults, but this has been a recurring pattern with him. Perhaps he interprets 1 Peter 3:15 in a way which requires him to witness to non-Christians by gratuitously insulting them and making false accusations?
It's obvious man, you are not a right winger. huge sin.
I'm the guy who tells you to your face (considering the context) when you're engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
you said I was lying because I quoted central American refugees who told me about their own wetness of massacres by the contras and other Reagan backed forces. you are such a paragon of truth you can't take the truth when it works against your ideology, is that what you mean by objective?.
"(2) I think you need to go to the thread about objectivity and self interest."
I see -- because objectivity is impossible for you, it must also be impossible for me.
the person is honest who knows he can't be objective,. the person who thinks he's alwayis objuective is self deluded.
The whiny hypocrite spent weeks trying to talk VR into banning (*) me from his blog.
"Spent weeks" is an exaggeration. I can't remember if I asked Victor to ban you, but I do remember complaining about your repeated insults. So the insults preceded my complaint to Victor. At first, I thought it was just for being an atheist, but no longer. The fact that you can't even get along with a fellow Christian like Joe Hinman tells me that this is about you, not the targets of your insults.
And notice Ilion never actually showed any hypocrisy. What I wrote is still true:
I'm sure Wallace is very bright, but my respect for him went down when he blocked me on Twitter for asking questions. He seems to be an example of the partisanship which is all too common among both theists and atheists today.
I would be a hypocrite if I blocked people on Twitter for asking questions, but I haven't done that. Blocking someone for bad behavior is different. Blocking someone who is repeatedly disruptive or rude is NOT partisanship. Only blocking people of a certain viewpoint, who are repeatedly disruptive or rude, would be partisanship. But I haven't done that and Ilion knows I haven't done that.
^ Oh, you pathetic lying whiny hypocrite; we all know what you (and your ilk) mean by "civil" and by "rude". It's "rude" to call attention to your intellectual dishonesty, but it's not "rude" for you to lie to everyone's faces about, among other things, the inescapable logical entailments of God-denial.
If you are so worried about my "insults", then stop being intellectually dishonest.
"At first, I thought it was just for being an atheist, but no longer. The fact that you can't even get along with a fellow Christian like Joe Hinman tells me that this is about you, not the targets of your insults."
Look at this fool! He's *faulting* me for being non-partisan in who I "insult".
I "insult" fools and liars, no matter what they claim to be. In Hinman's case, he's not a Christian, he's a leftist; his god is The State.
I agree with almost nothing that Joe Hinman writes (and will not take him seriously until he learns how to type without at least one typo in every line), but I must disagree with you as well when you say a "leftist" (whatever that means) cannot be a Christian.
At the risk of wearying my audience, everyone please (before continuing) re-read Luke 12:13-14 and see that God does not takes sides in our political squabbles - they are irrelevant to Him.
And what say you about the following indisputably Christian people?
- Daniel Berrigan - Jerzy Popiełuszko (martyred by the Communists) - Dorothy Day - Peter Maurin - Roger LaPorte - Archbishop Oscar Romero (martyred by Salvadoran death squads) - Alfred Delp (martyred by the Nazis) - Stanisław Adamski - Desmond Tutu
"Leftists" all, and every one of them a deeply committed Christian.
(And I could just as easily come up with a list of "rightist" Christians, but there's no need since neither you nor I dispute their genuineness.)
"At the risk of wearying my audience, everyone please (before continuing) re-read Luke 12:13-14 and see that God does not takes sides in our political squabbles - they are irrelevant to Him."
1) bullshit 2) you are, as you so frequently do, misrepresenting Scripture
Hey, what's wrong with squabble? It's a great word! In fact, I might even invent a new board game (something I've done more than once already), just to trademark "Squabble!" as its name.
Seriously. For example, there have been new employees here (in a small company of @40) who came and went and I never learned of either event until quite after the fact.
That's not as bad as when I returned from a 6-week trip to Korea back in 1994, and one of my closest co-workers (when I announced I was back) said, "Oh, were you gone somewhere?"
Or even worse: When I had landed at JFK in New York several days late from a trip to Kuwait (I think in 1997), I called home to let my family know that I'd soon be home. My daughter answered the phone, and when I told her where where I was I could hear my wife say in the background, "Tell him I don't give a rat's ass where he is!" (She was upset that I had been incommunicado for about two weeks.)
25 comments:
I'm sure Wallace is very bright, but my respect for him went down when he blocked me on Twitter for asking questions. He seems to be an example of the partisanship which is all too common among both theists and atheists today.
You mewling hypocrite.
I am not sure what you are asking. Wallace thesis seems to be that Christianity is left for dead but there's really a great case there if people look. Well absolutely that is the case. The problem is it's not as cut and dried as Josh McDowell and I think this Wallace guy and William Lane Craig and other apologetocal types would have it. Nor does it need to be.
We have allowed the fundamentalists to set the stage ad and define what Christianity is about. Everyone in America thinks in terms of literal bible historical document, tells the happenings of Jesus life and sayings, has to be literal, has to be told by apostles, and so on. The problem is you have non historians doing history, None historians defining history and tell what that has to entail,.
At Perkins I saw some of they best old style church historians such as Jaroslav Pelikan or his student my prof, William S. Babcock. Some of the profs I had in grad school place the Jesus myths o a par with Bigfoot, but they are not that much les critical McDowell. The irony is that while they are making good points that work in favor of belief most people would not get that because to them belief is something that proves the truth of a literalistic reading.
tell us why he's a hypocrite
JJL blocks people who just ask questions?
Nick: No, I don't do that. Wallace did that to me.
Joe -- I think you're wasting your time. I still don't understand what I ever did to Ilion to warrant his insults, but this has been a recurring pattern with him. Perhaps he interprets 1 Peter 3:15 in a way which requires him to witness to non-Christians by gratuitously insulting them and making false accusations?
"JJL blocks people who just ask questions?"
The whiny hypocrite spent weeks trying to talk VR into banning (*) me from his blog.
(*) Blogger doesn't really give you the option to ban someone. All you can do is ask them to go away ... and chose to delete any posts they make.
Joe -- I think you're wasting your time. I still don't understand what I ever did to Ilion to warrant his insults, but this has been a recurring pattern with him. Perhaps he interprets 1 Peter 3:15 in a way which requires him to witness to non-Christians by gratuitously insulting them and making false accusations?
It's obvious man, you are not a right winger. huge sin.
The whiny hypocrite spent weeks trying to talk VR into banning (*) me from his blog
ahahahahahahaja AHAHAHAJHAJHAAJJA man have I got an answer for you!
(1) you tried to tell me I was posting too much. that's not that different. someone else trying to control the blog in place of VR.
(2) I think you need to go to the thread about objectivity and self interest.
Blogger doesn't really give you the option to ban someone. All you can do is ask them to go away ... and chose to delete any posts they make.
you can go on moderation and screen. I had a problem once with being flamed and had to do that.
"(1) you tried to tell me I was posting too much."
You seem to have me confused with someone else.
I'm the guy who tells you to your face (considering the context) when you're engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
"(2) I think you need to go to the thread about objectivity and self interest."
I see -- because objectivity is impossible for you, it must also be impossible for me.
I'm the guy who tells you to your face (considering the context) when you're engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
you said I was lying because I quoted central American refugees who told me about their own wetness of massacres by the contras and other Reagan backed forces. you are such a paragon of truth you can't take the truth when it works against your ideology, is that what you mean by objective?.
"(2) I think you need to go to the thread about objectivity and self interest."
I see -- because objectivity is impossible for you, it must also be impossible for me.
the person is honest who knows he can't be objective,. the person who thinks he's alwayis objuective is self deluded.
The whiny hypocrite spent weeks trying to talk VR into banning (*) me from his blog.
"Spent weeks" is an exaggeration. I can't remember if I asked Victor to ban you, but I do remember complaining about your repeated insults. So the insults preceded my complaint to Victor. At first, I thought it was just for being an atheist, but no longer. The fact that you can't even get along with a fellow Christian like Joe Hinman tells me that this is about you, not the targets of your insults.
And notice Ilion never actually showed any hypocrisy. What I wrote is still true:
I'm sure Wallace is very bright, but my respect for him went down when he blocked me on Twitter for asking questions. He seems to be an example of the partisanship which is all too common among both theists and atheists today.
I would be a hypocrite if I blocked people on Twitter for asking questions, but I haven't done that. Blocking someone for bad behavior is different. Blocking someone who is repeatedly disruptive or rude is NOT partisanship. Only blocking people of a certain viewpoint, who are repeatedly disruptive or rude, would be partisanship. But I haven't done that and Ilion knows I haven't done that.
^ Oh, you pathetic lying whiny hypocrite; we all know what you (and your ilk) mean by "civil" and by "rude". It's "rude" to call attention to your intellectual dishonesty, but it's not "rude" for you to lie to everyone's faces about, among other things, the inescapable logical entailments of God-denial.
If you are so worried about my "insults", then stop being intellectually dishonest.
"At first, I thought it was just for being an atheist, but no longer. The fact that you can't even get along with a fellow Christian like Joe Hinman tells me that this is about you, not the targets of your insults."
Look at this fool! He's *faulting* me for being non-partisan in who I "insult".
I "insult" fools and liars, no matter what they claim to be. In Hinman's case, he's not a Christian, he's a leftist; his god is The State.
Ilion,
I agree with almost nothing that Joe Hinman writes (and will not take him seriously until he learns how to type without at least one typo in every line), but I must disagree with you as well when you say a "leftist" (whatever that means) cannot be a Christian.
At the risk of wearying my audience, everyone please (before continuing) re-read Luke 12:13-14 and see that God does not takes sides in our political squabbles - they are irrelevant to Him.
And what say you about the following indisputably Christian people?
- Daniel Berrigan
- Jerzy Popiełuszko (martyred by the Communists)
- Dorothy Day
- Peter Maurin
- Roger LaPorte
- Archbishop Oscar Romero (martyred by Salvadoran death squads)
- Alfred Delp (martyred by the Nazis)
- Stanisław Adamski
- Desmond Tutu
"Leftists" all, and every one of them a deeply committed Christian.
(And I could just as easily come up with a list of "rightist" Christians, but there's no need since neither you nor I dispute their genuineness.)
Jezu ufam tobie!
"And what say you about the following indisputably [sic] Christian [sic] people?
- Daniel Berrigan"
I say -- in all gravity -- God-damned.
"At the risk of wearying my audience, everyone please (before continuing) re-read Luke 12:13-14 and see that God does not takes sides in our political squabbles - they are irrelevant to Him."
1) bullshit
2) you are, as you so frequently do, misrepresenting Scripture
3) and you are lying -- of course you are, you're still trying to defend leftism -- in your use of the word "squabble"
Hey, what's wrong with squabble? It's a great word! In fact, I might even invent a new board game (something I've done more than once already), just to trademark "Squabble!" as its name.
Oh, come on! You're not stupid, so stop playing stupid. 'Squabble' is a wonderful word (*), and the way you used it is a lie.
(*) for example, most of what people refer to as 'arguments' are not at all arguments, but are merely squabbles.
Oh, now why are we squabbling like this? Keep it up, and John Mitchell will get the idea we're not friends!
???
No one ever tells me anything!
Seriously. For example, there have been new employees here (in a small company of @40) who came and went and I never learned of either event until quite after the fact.
That's not as bad as when I returned from a 6-week trip to Korea back in 1994, and one of my closest co-workers (when I announced I was back) said, "Oh, were you gone somewhere?"
Or even worse: When I had landed at JFK in New York several days late from a trip to Kuwait (I think in 1997), I called home to let my family know that I'd soon be home. My daughter answered the phone, and when I told her where where I was I could hear my wife say in the background, "Tell him I don't give a rat's ass where he is!" (She was upset that I had been incommunicado for about two weeks.)
Post a Comment