Note to John Loftus if He's Watching: Why I may quite this stuff
ON Atheist Watch I have taken on Loftus' thing about "Faith is not an Acceptable Answer." it's called "don't' let Atheists steal Your faith." This is a special appeal to John as a friend, not an attack, not intended to humiliate him.
I feel that Loftus is wasting his talents. This is related to the same reason why I am considering quitting Internet blogging or any kind of posting.
The same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over. Knock down their silly childish arguments based largely upon arguing with the weakest representatives of Christianity, and they just keep saying the same stuff over and over and over. These are all argumetns John knows better than to make. He know there aer theologians who will knock you off your you know what with sharp analysis about the atonement, and there he is doing the same ol same ol atheist game "it's the atonement silly, how can we understand it."
Its' not as though he's debating Ogden's Point of Christology. It's not as though he's trying to debunk Jurgen Moltmann or Hung Kung in their understandings of the atonement. He knows these guys are out there but he's working on the level of what in literature would be the Theodore Tugboat of theology. It's the height of dishonesty really, to pretend that the only answers to the atonement that anyone has are on the par with Jerry Fallwell or someone of that ilk, and not even bother to inform his readers that there are some very profound answers out there. He only attacks the financial transactions of public execution concepts instead of even mentioning the participatory view of of atonement. see the pice on atheist watch.
He presents several simplistic problems with temporal paradox and the incarnation. I'm just sick of dealing with people who think or pretend that these are really tough one's for christian theologians. To me a tough theological question would be "is experience of God mediated or pure?" The questions John presents as some form of ultimate destruction of Christianity because no one can answer them are basically nothing more than just matters of reading. find a good theology that's through in dealing with these problems and that's really all there is to it. They are actually pretty plentiful.
I don't mean to brag but I think my approach solves everyone one of them in its sleep.
Why are we wasting our time just spinning our wheals and repeating the same stuff? I wish I could hear something new from the atheists. i would love to have a challenge some time. I don't mean be arrogant, but almost nothing I see atheists saying on the net is at all challenging. That doesn't mean there are no challenging atheists. I think Proudfoot is pretty challenging. I've spend 60 pages on him in the book I'm writing. Most of these internet atheists don't even know he exists.
I am sure i'm going to get a lot of nasty comments in saying this. But I don't mean to be insulting. I'm not trying to put down John or anyone. But I am just sick of the same stuff all the time and the atheist pretenses that no one every answers it.
I feel that Loftus is wasting his talents. This is related to the same reason why I am considering quitting Internet blogging or any kind of posting.
The same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over. Knock down their silly childish arguments based largely upon arguing with the weakest representatives of Christianity, and they just keep saying the same stuff over and over and over. These are all argumetns John knows better than to make. He know there aer theologians who will knock you off your you know what with sharp analysis about the atonement, and there he is doing the same ol same ol atheist game "it's the atonement silly, how can we understand it."
Its' not as though he's debating Ogden's Point of Christology. It's not as though he's trying to debunk Jurgen Moltmann or Hung Kung in their understandings of the atonement. He knows these guys are out there but he's working on the level of what in literature would be the Theodore Tugboat of theology. It's the height of dishonesty really, to pretend that the only answers to the atonement that anyone has are on the par with Jerry Fallwell or someone of that ilk, and not even bother to inform his readers that there are some very profound answers out there. He only attacks the financial transactions of public execution concepts instead of even mentioning the participatory view of of atonement. see the pice on atheist watch.
He presents several simplistic problems with temporal paradox and the incarnation. I'm just sick of dealing with people who think or pretend that these are really tough one's for christian theologians. To me a tough theological question would be "is experience of God mediated or pure?" The questions John presents as some form of ultimate destruction of Christianity because no one can answer them are basically nothing more than just matters of reading. find a good theology that's through in dealing with these problems and that's really all there is to it. They are actually pretty plentiful.
I don't mean to brag but I think my approach solves everyone one of them in its sleep.
Why are we wasting our time just spinning our wheals and repeating the same stuff? I wish I could hear something new from the atheists. i would love to have a challenge some time. I don't mean be arrogant, but almost nothing I see atheists saying on the net is at all challenging. That doesn't mean there are no challenging atheists. I think Proudfoot is pretty challenging. I've spend 60 pages on him in the book I'm writing. Most of these internet atheists don't even know he exists.
I am sure i'm going to get a lot of nasty comments in saying this. But I don't mean to be insulting. I'm not trying to put down John or anyone. But I am just sick of the same stuff all the time and the atheist pretenses that no one every answers it.
Comments
Cheers.
you should come on my message board. We have achieved a community of atheists and believers who actually like and just talk. We really do just discuss without trying to "win" or "beat each other" and we actually enjoy it a lot.
I actually use these very arguments to attack conservative Christianity because they have the best arguments against it.
True, but when all is said and done God is real. Rejecting God and urging others do so is a bad thing. you are specifically fighting fundamentalism you are include any belief in God until someone calls you on theology then you get specific.
That being said, I also think conservative Christian scholars have the best arguments against liberal views of Christianity.
Yes,I can see that. That's not saying much for atheism ;-)
Liberal Christianity can seem more rational in some ways, but conservative arguments agianst th liberals are better than atheist arguments because they at least put themselves in the same world, liberals and conservatives both in a world where God matters.
So if you want to debate your liberal views of the Bible, the atonement and Christianity itself then you're asking the wrong people to debate you. Ask your fellow Bloggers to debate you on these issues. THEY are the ones you should be challenging.
What the CADRE guys? They are not fundies. They agree with my basic assumptions, well most of them.
Why you can't see this almost stuns me. Most all atheists don't know enough theology to attack your views. While I do, I'm not interested.
but if you were it would be fun.
That's too bad, but them's the facts. You need to go to so-called Bible-believing boards and challenge the idiots on your side of the fence. That's what I honestly think, and I think you'd win that debate.
I've had enough arguements with indiots. I've spent so much time arguing with atheists. I really want to argue with intelligent people. But the CADRE blog is about discussion of theology. In fact its' againt the CADRE rules. For unity sake we have a rule we don't argue against each other's theology except or unless we have to discuss a difference to answer an atheist argument.
I would not mind if CADRE people came to my boards or my blog and argued with my theology. We could dsicuss and we have. We have discuss theology among ourselves int he past and done pretty at it.
there is a basic kin ship that comes from knowing and loving Jesus. You have theological differences but if the conservative and the liberal are motivated by love and they both have relationships with Jesus (which si snot guaronteed just becasue one is a conservative) then one can discuss these things ni love.
that is also a reason why I'm not willing to attack the views of the CADRE. I understand them even when I disagree with them. But i don't see the CADRE people as extreme fudnies like you do.
A lot of atheists don't know the difference. On CARM those real obnoxious kind of Dawkamentalists were calling me a "fundie" even though I made posts about not believing in hell. they still called me a fundie because they wouldn't know a fundie from a liberal if the difference bit them.
I don't go on CARM anymore.
Not all evangelicals are idiots, in my opinion. But I deal with evangelicals in order to push them off dead center. I want them to be forced to think rather than continue proof-texting with easy answers from a verse here and there.
NO I don't think so. I'm contributing an article to his next book on the Res but I don't agree with him about inerrancy. I don't like his tone or his sarcasm but I'm guilty of that myself so I don't judge him on it either. I'm also going to speak to him about the Loftus blog he has.
you can find my credo and prologomina (a run down my theology)
here
CADRE has some diversity, Catholics, Prots, Calvinists, Methodists (like me) universaists (JRP) and others. Some are inerrentists some are not.
what we agree upon is the Nicene creed. With loose reading of it I'm in. Besides I starred the group.
Not all evangelicals are idiots, in my opinion. But I deal with evangelicals in order to push them off dead center. I want them to be forced to think rather than continue proof-texting with easy answers from a verse here and there.
You know what? I can by that as a valid approach. That's one reason why I accept you as a pretty good guy.
If I were you I wouldn't associate myself with JP Holding for a few good obvious reasons. But that's your choice.
Which we know because the imperfect Bible told us so. :-P
If I were you I wouldn't associate myself with JP Holding for a few good obvious reasons. But that's your choice.
do you think Jesus let stuff like that worry him? He doesn't strike me as the kind worries about his image associating with people.
Which we know because the imperfect Bible told us so.
ahahaha, it tells as a historical artifact and so does history itself.
But the CADRE blog is about discussion of theology. In fact its' againt the CADRE rules. For unity sake we have a rule we don't argue against each other's theology except or unless we have to discuss a difference to answer an atheist argument.
Its funny how christian blogs and forums so frequently have these sorts of rules against discussing internal disagreements within the faith in front of nonbelievers.
As if the rest of the world weren't abundantly aware of the massive internal disagreements within the christian faith.
The Cadre folk need to be aware that the cats out of the bag on that issue. Has been for centuries.
As if the rest of the world weren't abundantly aware of the massive internal disagreements within the christian faith.
The Cadre folk need to be aware that the cats out of the bag on that issue. Has been for centuries.
I know how atheists like to think they are fooling everyone into believing that they don't try to organize.
why are you so petty? that is such a petty criticism. We don't' want to disrupt what we are doing and we are too smart let you pay divide and conquer and somehow you think that's ripe for criticism. I think that's abundantly foolish.
why should we shoot ourselves in the foot to help you argue? aren't you guys confident enough in your logic to think you can win without game playing?
Well, we have to if we are going to sneak up on the theists and destroy them which is the goal of all atheists. :-P
Now, in all seriousness, there are atheist groups that meet from time to time, and there are groups that contain atheists. The groups in the US, that I'm aware of, gather to find ways to stop fundamentalists from putting religion in our public schools and in various governmental areas.
There are two things that unite all atheists, one: the fact that we don't believe in a god, but even that varies greatly from atheist to atheist, and two: we are all, each and every one of us, out to get you, Joe. Boo! ;-)
I already figured that one out. ;-)