tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2848778269347936665..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Reply to Loftus on my historical evidence projectVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4285062727554780482011-10-20T00:15:30.381-07:002011-10-20T00:15:30.381-07:00This is nice post which I was awaiting for such an...This is nice post which I was awaiting for such an article and I have gained some useful information from this site. Thanks for sharing this information.<br /><br /><a href="http://prophecynewswatch.net/" rel="nofollow">School of prophets</a>Laws of prosperityhttp://prophecynewswatch.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77826542673132450102010-08-27T05:15:12.782-07:002010-08-27T05:15:12.782-07:00What, then, do you make of the rise of Islam centu...<i>What, then, do you make of the rise of Islam centuries later? Was Mohammad the prophet of God because he was successful?</i><br /><br />Islam was spectacularly successful because Mohammad offered his male followers things that have always proved highly attractive to the lowest elements of human nature here on earth: conquest, plunder, and indulgence of sexual appetite. <br /><br />Islam and Christianity both flourished in their early years at the point of a sword. But the sword was pointing in opposite directions.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19338343784133927692010-08-26T22:57:03.749-07:002010-08-26T22:57:03.749-07:00My claim is that the founding of Christianity invo...My claim is that the founding of Christianity involves a set of events that are strange and difficult to explain unless Christ rose from the dead. What you do with that conclusion once I get you to draw it is up to you. <br /><br />What, then, do you make of the rise of Islam centuries later? Was Mohammad the prophet of God because he was successful?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70540263525807582352010-08-22T17:20:52.921-07:002010-08-22T17:20:52.921-07:00Vic, I am not here to make friends with people who...Vic, I am not here to make friends with people whose beliefs are on an equal footing with Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, Orthodox Judaism and Haitian Voodoo. But I emphatically deny knowingly calling Tim a non-credentialed hack. So I also emphatically deny any ignorant accusation that I treated him badly. <br /><br />Vic, you have been taking pot shots at me for a long time out of sheer ignorance about me. You have not read my books and you will probably not read the three others I have planned (<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/theendofchristianity/" rel="nofollow">one already accepted for publication</a>). <br /><br />I have found your site to be hostile to me because of this. No wonder BDK thinks I'm stupid, for he shares this same ignorance of yours and has not read my books either (he couldn't have and said what he did). <br /><br />One thing though. I feed off hostility. I've warned Christians about this for years. I am one unusual bird in that respect. It makes me more passionate about what I do.<br /><br />As far as comments on my blog goes you keep in mind that I only speak for myself, and I'll keep in mind that you only speak for yourself. That's only reasonable, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21189257190435054582010-08-22T16:40:39.251-07:002010-08-22T16:40:39.251-07:00You called someone, Dr. Timothy McGrew, a non-cred...You called someone, Dr. Timothy McGrew, a non-credentialed anonymous hack, apparently because you didn't know who he was. But anybody who isn't blinded by ideology should be able to see that Tim's responses here have been careful, courteous, and well-informed. (Unless of course you question-beggingly assume that anything from an "evangelical" perspective is uninformed, which, I guess, is your position.) <br /><br />I went over to your site to respond to the "emotional appeal" posts, and got blasted with vitriolic, off-topic personal attacks by someone named "Russ." I checked to make sure, and found that Russ is completely anonymous, exactly as anonymous as Tim from the standpoint of the Blogger profile (and I know Tim sometimes has his blogger profile up, and sometimes he doesn't). Except that Russ has a blog called "Complete Materialist" on which he posted a couple of times. I was told I was a sick man and it was a good thing that people like me weren't more influential. You moderated his comments, but just posted them without comment yourself. Now, I could have called Russ a non-credentialed anonymous hack if I had wanted to (and would you have deleted my comment if I had), but I have long recognized that the credentials card doesn't have much value in the blogosphere. So I just gently tried to explain what my real point was and that I considered his comments to be off-topic. You, on the other hand, blow up, and play the Credentials Card on someone who has been writing careful, informed, and reasoned comments, not realizing that his credentials were superior to your own.<br /><br />This doesn't make you look good, John. People are not just judging our beliefs, they are judging our attitudes, the way we treat one another if we become atheists or if we become Christians. I'm never going to give an argument for Psalm 14:1 (The fool has said in his heart......). But if atheists want to make the case for me, they can be my guest. <br /><br />As an fellow atheist, (with an MA in philosophy and a Ph.D in neuroscience, by the way), BDK found your treatment of Tim to be embarrassing. Do you blame him?Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28236746332817685612010-08-22T14:57:33.796-07:002010-08-22T14:57:33.796-07:00Vic,
BDK said something completely and utterly s...Vic, <br /><br />BDK said something completely and utterly stupid earlier:<br /><br /><i><b>John seems unable to engage in cogent arguments.</b> Some people are better at just writing their personal revelations I guess, not as good at defending them.</i><br /><br />If BDK actually thinks this then being banned from my blog shouldn't trouble him. I mean really, who would want to bother with someone like that? Not me. <br /><br />Now let's have an update. In my most recent post about not being a dick BDK comments:<br /><br />BDK <i>I think telling someone they aren't qualified to discuss something because they don't have the right credentials, especially when that topic is some namby-pamby humanities type theme, and especially if said skeptic didn't have impressive credentials himself...I think that would be a good example of a skeptic being a total dick.<br /><br />So for instance, if Person X were to enter a conversation about religion, and say (to a PhD in philosophy, chair of a philosophy department at a "real" university):<br />"[I]t's really difficult to respond to a non-credentialed anonymous hack like you. Anonymous people like you are a dime a dozen throwing around claims without any support to them."<br /><br />I think people would be justified in calling person X a dick, maybe even an ignorant dick.<br /><br />Such vitriolic rhetoric will help those against Mr X entrenched, and those on the same side of the fence as Mr X will be embarrassed to be associated with him and consider if they made the right decision. So it might prompt believers to change, but not the believers you think.<br /><br />So, I don't know who Phil was referring to specifically, but I have no doubt Mr X would be one of them.</i><br /><br />I am Mr. X you see. It is completely and utterly ignorant for BDK to say I called a PH.D. a non-credentialed hack. I did no such thing. Do I even need to spell out why such an accusation is unfounded?<br /><br />BDK is too stupid to comment on my Blog, you see. And a false accusation is merit enough to be banned.<br /><br />Keep BDK Vic. You deserve him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61912883489705093422010-08-22T14:40:41.601-07:002010-08-22T14:40:41.601-07:00Congratulations, BDK. Now, if you can get yourself...Congratulations, BDK. Now, if you can get yourself banned at Triablogue, that would make your accomplishment complete.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75764210640592098942010-08-22T11:00:22.800-07:002010-08-22T11:00:22.800-07:00Note to BDK, you are banned from my blog. Anyone l...Note to BDK, you are banned from my blog. Anyone like you who shows so little sign of being able to grasp why I stopped responding to you and then who comes to my blog misrepresenting the facts doesn't deserve any more of my time.<br /><br />Hi Steve! Still want the last word?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39772254645207818642010-08-19T08:47:10.561-07:002010-08-19T08:47:10.561-07:00Thanks Gregory that's a useful perspective.Thanks Gregory that's a useful perspective.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88982313266337064952010-08-19T01:27:38.555-07:002010-08-19T01:27:38.555-07:00It should not be surprising that what Christ had s...It should not be surprising that what Christ had spoken of concerning the "Temple" had come to pass (i.e. Matt. 24)....if Christ is, indeed, the Son of God. Nor should it be surprising that the Church had both outlasted <i>and</i> conquered "Israel" and "Rome", as demonstrated by the conversion of the Roman Emperor, St. Constantine, to Christianity.....if Christianity is <i>true</i>.<br /><br />That is why I had mentioned the promises God had made to Abraham, and the Church's fulfillment of those promises.<br /><br />I would say that this is a great example of Divine apologetics. It's sort of like God saying:<br /><br />"Ok...so you don't believe in My Son from the fact that I raised Him from the dead? That's alright, though. I can understand your doubts. Therefore, I'm going to spend three centuries of chaos to show you that I really am King of kings and Lord of lords by placing one of My chosen on the Imperial throne. And if that isn't enough, I'm going to provide Martyrs and Saints who will hold fast to My words and protect the integrity of the Faith. They will give you "reasons" and "answers". They will explain to you My Son and My Spirit. And when times seem dark and despair is certain....I will raise more up for you, if that's what it takes. Because My name is "I AM", and you are not."Gregorynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50542306310121671392010-08-19T00:47:11.045-07:002010-08-19T00:47:11.045-07:00I'm not sure what the phrase "smooth tran...I'm not sure what the phrase "smooth transition between the OT and NT" is supposed to mean. In terms of Intertestamental Judaism, there was no "smooth" transition to "Hellenist" culture; but there was definitely a shift. Hence, the Maccabean hoopla.<br /><br />The first "Christians", if you will, were all Jews. But they did not forsake gathering for worship in the Temple. And even after the inevitable split from classic "Judaism", the Christian Church retained much of the Liturgical formalities of Temple worship. Where Jews remembered "Passover", the Church remembered the "Paschal Lamb", Jesus Christ, as the "telos" of the O.T. sacrificial system. What's more, the Christian Church <i>never</i> observed the O.T. sacrificial system; observing, instead, that Christ, Himself, is the "lamb of God slain....once for all". In fact, St. Paul warns of this folly in Hebrews 10.<br /><br />Also, much of the "priestly" attire and ceremonial duties were retained....yet they were given new signification in light of the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.<br /><br />But, just to complicate matters, the Church began baptizing and initiating many "Gentile" converts. And many Jewish Christians were not sure about what aspects of the Mosaic Law the Gentiles must abide by. So a Council convened and determined this:<br /><br />"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."<br /><br />--Acts 15:28,29<br /><br />That was the "rule" for the Gentiles. <br /><br />But I'd like to point out that this shows the "historical" nature of Acts and it's implicit recognition of the O.T., as well as the Inter-Testamental cultural conundrum. And we see this played out through entire Book of Acts. But the Church thought of itself as the <i>true</i> heir of the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacab, since "Israel" had rejected their "faith" when they crucified "the Lord of Glory" (i.e. the "Messiah"). <br /><br />The "rough" transition, if you will, came for the "Jews" and not the Christians. God had rejected "Judaism" by sending their most despised enemies, the Gentiles (i.e. Rome), to destroy their "most holy" place of worship: the Temple<br /><br />Meanwhile, the <i>true</i> "Temple" (i.e. the Church), preserved the Abrahamic faith, and were shown to have received the same "promises" that were given to Abraham:<br /><br />"I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those that bless you and I will curse him who curses you. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."<br /><br />--Genesis 12:2,3<br /><br />And, like O.T. Israel, the Church faces the same responsibilities that they did:<br /><br />"Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and <i>loves</i> the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore, <i>love</i> the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall fear the Lord your God; and shall serve Him, and to Him you shall hold fast, and take oaths in His name....therefore, you shall <i>love</i> the Lord your God"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"A new commandment I give to you, that you <i>love</i> one another; as I have <i>loved</i> you, that you also <i>love</i> one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, <i>if</i> you have <i>love</i> for one another".<br /><br />--Deut. 10:16-20, 11:1 and Gospel of John 13:34,35Gregorynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41996121118684250392010-08-18T13:22:58.131-07:002010-08-18T13:22:58.131-07:00BDK,
Tim, what could I read, for the layperson, t...BDK,<br /><br /><i>Tim, what could I read, for the layperson, that would bear on this claim from Loftus:</i><br /><br />I'm not sure, because it's hard to know what he means by saying that "the ideas in the OT were seeds that blossomed in the NT." I don't know anyone who thinks that nothing happened in Judaism for over four centuries. But I also don't know anyone who thinks that we could understand either the intertestamental literature or the NT without the backdrop of the OT, whatever one's views on the authorship and dating of this or that particular book. <br /><br />Clearly, many of the authors of the NT viewed <i>themselves</i> as reaching back directly into the OT literature and tracing the fulfilment of prophecy in their own time. One need go no further than Matthew to see this stamped out in bold characters. Traces of the intertestamental literature, though present in the NT (e.g. in Jude), are nowhere nearly so prominent.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-92171371315489487782010-08-18T11:56:27.244-07:002010-08-18T11:56:27.244-07:00John W. Loftus said...
“Steve, what I've lear...John W. Loftus said...<br /><br />“Steve, what I've learned from you these past few years is that you are too ignorant to know when a discussion or a debate is over because we've run aground. The difference between us is that I'm smart enough to know when it's over, and it was over.”<br /><br />You know when you lost the argument, but you’re trying to salvage your reputation by staging a dignified retreat in which you declare victory and leave. <br /><br />“You never said anything relevant to what I had argued for.”<br /><br />To the contrary, you said Judges 19-21 is barbaric. Well, by whose standard?<br /><br />i) On the one hand, it’s clear that you personally think the incident is barbaric. That isn’t just for the sake of argument. You constantly inveigh against the morality of Scripture. <br /><br />ii) Yet, as self-confessed moral relativist, you have no objective moral standards. So even if the incident were barbaric, that doesn’t amount to a normative value-judgment.<br /><br />iii) And although the incident is barbaric by my own standards, it is hardly barbaric for the Bible to record a barbaric event. A historian is not barbaric because he reports an atrocity. And in the larger context of the narrative viewpoint, the incident is reported to indict the Israelites for their the moral degradation. <br /><br />"The fact that evangelical scholars have looked at passages like this and not blinked means nothing to me so long as they teach where they must sign a doctrinal statement to teach every year."<br /><br />That’s another lie that you try very hard to popularize. But numerous Christian scholars who take the historicity of Scripture quite seriously have taught at institutions that don’t require them to swear by the inerrancy of Scripture, viz. F. F. Bruce, Kenneth Kitchen, Paul Maier, Timothy McGrew, Alan Millard, Noel Weeks, Donald Wiseman, Edwin Yamauchi, and so on and so forth.<br /><br />“You never properly responded to what I said. I even predicted the responses would be irrelevancies and ad hominems, didn't I?”<br /><br />Because I don’t need to reinvent the wheel or do your homework for you. This has already been dealt with in the commentaries by Daniel Block and Lawson Younger. Read their introductions to grasp the purpose and narrative strategy of Judges. Read their exegesis of 19-21, along with their concluding comments. It’s all there.<br /><br />But, of course, you don’t want to know the truth since that would spoil your zippy prooftext.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12833732997112519112010-08-18T11:40:40.755-07:002010-08-18T11:40:40.755-07:00Tim, what could I read, for the layperson, that wo...Tim, what could I read, for the layperson, that would bear on this claim from Loftus:<br />"Do you think there is a smooth transition between the OT and NT such that the ideas in the OT were seeds that blossomed in the NT. Read the intertestamental literature. Do you really want to know what the earliest Christians thought about their Christianity? Read the early Christian literature."Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58688560986754494412010-08-18T11:00:14.913-07:002010-08-18T11:00:14.913-07:00Steve, what I've learned from you these past f...Steve, what I've learned from you these past few years is that you are too ignorant to know when a discussion or a debate is over because we've run aground. The difference between us is that I'm smart enough to know when it's over, and it was over. You never said anything relevant to what I had argued for. Then here you come again beating your chest as if you won something. What are you talking about? Such idiocy. If you are that stupid about why I didn't respond (even if you disagreed with my responses) then how can you possibly turn around and be smart when it comes to properly assessing the truth of your faith? The needed thinking skills are the same, you see.<br /><br />So why is it that precisely because I am smart enough to see we ran aground (like we always do) that you pontificate I ran with my tail between my legs (like you always do)?<br /><br />you never properly responded to what I said. I even predicted the responses would be irrelevancies and ad hominems, didn't I? <br /><br />Is this what it takes to believe? Then I'm glad I left it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41871409201364382572010-08-18T08:39:12.515-07:002010-08-18T08:39:12.515-07:00BDK,
There is a sizeable body of Jewish literatur...BDK,<br /><br />There is a sizeable body of Jewish literature from roughly the last four centuries BC -- the intertestamental period. It gives us a clearer view of the variations within Judaism than we would glean from the New Testament and Josephus. It is also useful for clarifying some of the interpretive practices common in second temple Judaism, which in turn sheds some light on some of the odder interpretations seen in the New Testament (e.g. Galatians 4:24-25). The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in the mid-20th century has given us a great deal of new material of this sort.<br /><br />Earlier works dealing with Judaism, such Alfred Edersheim, <i>The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah</i>, tended to focus on the Talmud and Midrash rather than on the intertestamental literature. Though Edersheim's book contains much valuable information, his focus on the literature of Judaism from a later period limits its value for a scholar who wants to come to understand the historical backdrop to the New Testament.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49533948898230449012010-08-18T07:56:10.678-07:002010-08-18T07:56:10.678-07:00I'm wondering if anyone else has references to...I'm wondering if anyone else has references to discussions of these intertestamental texts, and how they might help Loftus make his point. I'm familiar with the Documentary Hypothesis and such from the Hebrew Bible, but am not familiar with the scholarship on the intertestamental texts.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66153038793697330682010-08-18T05:05:51.546-07:002010-08-18T05:05:51.546-07:00From my experience, Loftus takes brash, swaggering...From my experience, Loftus takes brash, swaggering, tuff-guy swings at Christian and Christianity, then stomps off in a big pout when he gets his tail kicked in a fair fight.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20971975429567111992010-08-18T04:11:39.620-07:002010-08-18T04:11:39.620-07:00As I said when I introduced Judges 19-21, most of ...As I said when I introduced Judges 19-21, most of what I'd get in response are irrelevancies and ad hominems. If anyone thinks Steve Hays has answered me I have a piece of property I want to sell him on the moon.<br /><br />From experience Steve will always have the last word, always. I'll just have to call it quits until or unless he actually says something that addresses my points head on.<br /><br />Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32172233449174386812010-08-17T20:27:26.867-07:002010-08-17T20:27:26.867-07:00"they must sign a doctrinal statement to teac..."they must sign a doctrinal statement to teach every year"<br /><br />I agree that is just F-ed up.<br /><br />Still waiting on refs to the intertestamental readings that will blow our minds...Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11522808519574919172010-08-17T20:08:54.972-07:002010-08-17T20:08:54.972-07:00Cont. "And as far as my so-called "eleme...Cont. "And as far as my so-called "elementary blunder" goes, I KNOW IT'S A NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS Steve. You'd have to claim I'm stupid not to see this..."<br /><br />Well, if you insist...<br /><br />"My questions revolve around this narrative (again as but one among many). If these events took place among the very tribes who were God's people and not the Canaanites or Amorites, then why did God allow them to do this without any intervention of command forbidding it or editorializing against it when the very survivors of such barbarisms would read this narrative and not find anything in that narrative showing that what they did was wrong? You simply refuse to get this point. The people who committed these atrocities did so because they thought what they were doing was right and that in doing so they were keeping a vow to their God. Why on earth would they think this narrative describes them doing something wrong when it's clear they thought otherwise? Yes it's narrative, but then if the people involved saw nothing wrong with what they did then additionally why on earth would you conclude the narrator thought any differently than the people involved?"<br /><br />Because you need to know how to read narrative theology. You need to pick up on the literary clues. On the narrative presuppositions. Judges takes for granted the the Mosaic law–and defection from the Mosaic law. You need to interpret a particular incident in the larger context of the overall design of the book.<br /><br />That's what real scholars like Block and Younger do. But you don't want to understand Judges, since that would spoil your zippy prooftext.<br /><br />"All I'm saying here is that if you believe the Bible then take it seriously like I do and reject any ethical advice the authors give you (unless confirmed by human history)..."<br /><br />History doesn't confirm ethical advice. History is descriptive, not normative. <br /><br />"...reject any history they write (since it's obvious the victors told this story)..."<br /><br />That's a tiresome Marxist cliche. And it's self-defeating. John Collins represents the culture elite. He teaches at an Ivy League university. When he writes about Bible history, he writes from the viewpoint of the winners. *His* viewpoint. <br /><br />"Steve about DC Bloggers I will not throw any pearls before a swine like you."<br /><br />So you don't have a decent explanation.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16998394721427903632010-08-17T20:07:59.239-07:002010-08-17T20:07:59.239-07:00John W. Loftus said...
"Steve, your 'you...John W. Loftus said...<br /><br />"Steve, your 'you too' argument(?) simply does not work against me. For I was a believer when I concluded these kinds of passages could not be reconciled with the moral attributes of a perfectly good God which I believed in. I had YOUR standard as a believer and according to that standard these types of passages ended my faith. I saw too many of them and felt I had to be intellectually honest with what I saw like what Levenson said about critical scholarship."<br /><br />i) But you said the tu quoque is a fallacy. Now you're having to walk back from your initial claim.<br /><br />ii) But let's suppose you're trying to mount an internal version of the argument from evil. That doesn't extricate you from your dilemma.<br /><br />Why would a moral relativist even care about the argument from evil? Suppose Christians are wrong. So what? You don't think it's intrinsically wrong to entertain false beliefs. So why, as a moral relativist, are you trying to disprove Christianity? Why are you trying so hard to convince us to agree with you?<br /><br />Since you deny that anything is intrinsically right or wrong, you deny that we have any intrinsic epistemic duties to believe what is true and disbelieve what is false. <br /><br />"The fact that evangelical scholars have looked at passages like this and not blinked means nothing to me so long as they teach where they must sign a doctrinal statement to teach every year. My charge is that evangelical scholars are not critical scholars who follow what Levenson wrote about."<br /><br />i) Umm, no. That's your bait-and-switch tactic. You originally talked about "Biblical scholars who looked deeply at this passage (among others)..."<br /><br />Well, that includes evangelical scholars like Block and Younger. <br /><br />But when I call your bluff, you change the rules. You then resort to the circular ruse that the only witnesses who count are witnesses who see things your way. That's such a transparent charade. <br /><br />ii) Then you bolster that play with the dumb little argument that these scholars don't count because they sign a doctrinal oath.<br /><br />Of course, no one is putting a gun to their head. They work at confessional institutions because they are Christians. That's what they believe. <br /><br />Don't you just suppose that science profs. who teach biology at Harvard or Cambridge or MIT are expected to believe in evolutionary biology? Are those institutions going to hire Kurt Wise or Jonathan Sarfati? Are they even going to hire Michael Behe?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81899120858952585132010-08-17T18:40:12.903-07:002010-08-17T18:40:12.903-07:00Steve about DC Bloggers I will not throw any pearl...Steve about DC Bloggers I will not throw any pearls before a swine like you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53284236820628665462010-08-17T18:39:05.632-07:002010-08-17T18:39:05.632-07:00Steve, your "you too" argument(?) simply...Steve, your "you too" argument(?) simply does not work against me. For I was a believer when I concluded these kinds of passages could not be reconciled with the moral attributes of a perfectly good God which I believed in. I had YOUR standard as a believer and according to that standard these types of passages ended my faith. I saw too many of them and felt I had to be intellectually honest with what I saw like what Levenson said about critical scholarship.<br /><br />The fact that evangelical scholars have looked at passages like this and not blinked means nothing to me so long as they teach where they must sign a doctrinal statement to teach every year. My charge is that evangelical scholars are not critical scholars who follow what Levenson wrote about.<br /><br />And as far as my so-called "elementary blunder" goes, I KNOW IT'S A NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS Steve. You'd have to claim I'm stupid not to see this and that I didn't write what I did about it earlier. <br /><br />My questions revolve around this narrative (again as but one among many). If these events took place among the very tribes who were God's people and not the Canaanites or Amorites, then why did God allow them to do this without any intervention of command forbidding it or editorializing against it when the very survivors of such barbarisms would read this narrative and not find anything in that narrative showing that what they did was wrong? You simply refuse to get this point. The people who committed these atrocities did so because they thought what they were doing was right and that in doing so they were keeping a vow to their God. Why on earth would they think this narrative describes them doing something wrong when it's clear they thought otherwise? Yes it's narrative, but then if the people involved saw nothing wrong with what they did then additionally why on earth would you conclude the narrator thought any differently than the people involved?<br /><br />All I'm saying here is that if you believe the Bible then take it seriously like I do and reject any ethical advice the authors give you (unless confirmed by human history), reject any history they write (since it's obvious the victors told this story), and reject the religion they had (just like you reject the Aztecs, Hindu's, and so forth).<br /><br />Vic, Steve is suppressing the truth here, not me, and so are you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75217254205944196112010-08-17T18:23:15.268-07:002010-08-17T18:23:15.268-07:00John W. Loftus said...
"If all you can do is...John W. Loftus said...<br /><br />"If all you can do is dishonestly deflect the question then stand in front of the mirror Steve and see for yourself."<br /><br />Since you've imprudently chosen to introduce the issue of personal character into the discussion, now seems like as good a time as any to ask what happened to all your cobloggers at DC. It looks like you're a social climber who treats people like rungs on a ladder to move up in the world, then cast them aside once they've outlived their usefulness to you.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com