You might be a Christian if...
Aaron Kinney Permalink
76 comments
22) You think you defend your worldview successfully, but your two main arguments are based on circular reasoning (The Bible is true because the Bible says...) and ad hominem attacks (Everyone already knows God is real, and those who deny it are lying to themselves).
21) You always try to observe the ten commandments like Exodus 20:7, but you never try to observe the punishments like Leviticus 24:16.
20) You trust a book written by sheepherders in a time when humans thought the world was flat and that women determined the gender of offspring, but you don't trust a book written in modern times by a scientist.
19) You believe that fear of God and love of God are compatible and even complimentary.
18) You believe that a material universe created ex nihilo by an eternal, immaterial God makes more sense than an eternal, material universe itself.
17) You believe that a being that creates flawed, imperfect, and evil entities can be all loving and all wise.
16) You think that a story involving a God who sacrifices himself to himself in order to circumvent a law he created himself that would have forced him to send his own flawed creations to a Hell he created himself makes perfect sense.
15) You think two wrongs make a right in that everyone is born guilty, and that spilling innocent blood provides redemption for this inherent guilt.
14) You deny the first law of thermodynamics, and champion the second law of thermodynamics.
13) You claim that faith (belief in things unevidenced) is required for salvation, but you attempt to prove Christianity with material evidence every chance you get.
12) You insist that God is responsible for everything in the universe, and then insist that original sin is Adam's fault and that Satan was responsible for his own rebellion.
11) You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
10) You feel that the theory that people evolved from other life forms trivializes and cheapens humanity, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt and ribs.
9) You claim that God's love is all encompassing and unconditional, and the only condition is that you admit worthlessness and submit fully to his will.
8) Your cringe when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!
7) You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
6) You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of generations old.
5) You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
4) While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
3) You state that prayers are always answered even if the exact opposite of what you pray for happens.
2) Despite the fact that prisons and mental institutions have a higher percentage of Christians than the general population, and college educated people have a higher percentage of atheism than the general population, you claim that Christianity will improve ones moral code and quality of life; you claim that Christians are better people. Then when presented with this contrary evidence, you claim that the devil is to blame for this "deception".
1) Your grandest wish is for God/Jesus to come down from heaven and initiate an apocalypse, yet again committing near total genocide on all of humanity.
Post a Comment
76 Comments:
Paul Manata created a "you might be an atheist if..." list that was full of ad hominem attacks on athiests.
I responded by making a "you might be a christian if..." list that contains mostly relevant issues, instead of just ad hominem attacks.
While I concede that Manata's list is "funnier" than mine, his list is certainly much less factual and relevant than mine. Yet Manata counts this fact as a point in his column! More evidence that his Christian worldview relies on ad hominem and emotion rather than addressing actual relevant issues.
Manata has a really bad case of "shoot the messenger" going on here.
I created this list to show that I can play the list-making game better than he can. Consider the fact that he is pursuing a masters in Christian apologetics, yet it is he who thinks a good way to evangelize is to make humorous yet insulting lists that dont do much more than attack those who have a different worldview than he does, while my list aims more at actual relevant points.
If Paul's intent was to deliberately make a funny and insulting list without much fact, then he succeeded. But what he seems to not understand is what his actions reveal about the quality of his apologetic techniques: to insult and make fun of, rather than attempt to bring people to share his worldview.
I am a better amateur atheistic evangelical than Paul is as a professionaly trained Christian evangelical.
Funny that I have to post this here rather than at his blog, for he removed the comments section. His excuse was that he didnt have time to spend on comments sections. But if that is the case, why didnt he simply keep the comments section available and not spend so much time in it? To remove the ability to discuss these issues on his blog is unbecoming of a Christian apologist.
Thanks for proving my point Paul :)
He mocks atheists because he feels that insulting them personally somehow makes their arguments invalid.
Attacking the arguer, instead of the argument, as Manata is so quick to do, is a sign that one is losing the argument itself. And the hurled insults are a subconscious attempt to avoid facing the deep-down knowledge that one is losing the argument.
Im glad that one particular statement of mine gave you a chuckle. I think its very valid, for Manatas list is only good for laughs and insulting atheists, while my list is good for exposing the problems with the Christian worldview. And if Manata REALLY was ONLY trying to insult atheists and make humor rather than bring people to Christ, then would say that he is deliberately acting in a manner totally opposite of what a Christian apologist is. I would contend that Manata isnt even an apologist with the actions hes taken lately. So much for the masters hes pursuing.
I have personally deconverted a total of 4 people: 3 people from Christianity, and 1 from Judaism. 3 of them are now atheists, and one is an agnostic.
How many people has Manata brought to Christ? How many atheists, agnostics, and other non-Christians has Manata turned into born again Christians? I would doubt that hes even converted 4 people like I have.
And if he has brought a number of people to Christ, I wonder if he did it using the tactics we see have seen him commit lately?
Aaron,
1. My list was both funny as well as some of them having a grain of truth to them. I was a lighthearted post, that was the main point, to get people to laugh at atheists.
2. A blog isn't the place for putting on a suite and acting all serious, at least not for me. I can let my hair down, so to speak, and act a little looser. I think I have proven, and should have to you, that I can engage in debate without "just throwing out ad hominems." So, your lies and misreprsentations are not appreciated.
3. It was lose lose with my blog. I asked people to stay on topic but no matter what I posted they/you would post comments with the same intent. So if I deleted the posts then I was a mean nazi! If I kept them there I had to waste my time with things having nothing to do with the topic of the post. Also, I do not have the time to have my blog become a debate board. You have the luxary of being on the side of 8 people against me, usually. Try walking in my shoes. Anyway, you know how I perform one on one ;).
4. You're deluding your self if you think yours was "factual" while mine was "just jokes." Here's a FEW examples, which disproves your statement that your list was the serious scholarly one:
"1) Your grandest wish is for God/Jesus to come down from heaven and initiate an apocalypse, yet again committing near total genocide on all of humanity."
That's a bunch of B.S.
"21) You always try to observe the ten commandments like Exodus 20:7, but you never try to observe the punishments like Leviticus 24:16."
The state is the one who punishes, not individual Christian civilians.
"20) You trust a book written by sheepherders in a time when humans thought the world was flat and that women determined the gender of offspring, but you don't trust a book written in modern times by a scientist."
Uh, kings, doctors, and national leaders also wrote books.
"12) You insist that God is responsible for everything in the universe, and then insist that original sin is Adam's fault and that Satan was responsible for his own rebellion."
Uh, who does? I believe that God ordained Adams and Satans fall.
"3) You state that prayers are always answered even if the exact opposite of what you pray for happens."
You mean, answerd the way you want them to be? I don't get it??? Let's say "no" was the answer... that's still an answer. This is oncoherent, you didn;t even define anything here.
NOTE WELL AARON, I'M NOT DEBATING EACH OF THESE POINTS WITH YOU, I'M JUST REFUTING YOUR DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS THAT YOU GAVE "FACTS" WHILE I ENGAGED IN NAME CALLING AND MISREPRESENTATIONS. VIRTUALLY ALL YOUR POINTS WERE MISREPRESENTATIONS. OH YEAH, LEARN HOW TO APPLY THE FALLACY AD HOMINEM, AARON. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ALWAYS A FALLACY, RIGHT. AND HALF THE TIMES YOU ACCUSE ME OF IT ARE NOT EXAMPLES OF THE FALLACY, SOME ARE, BUT I LIKE TO BE SARCASTIC. I'M NOT AS ANAL AS YOU ARE, AARON.
I started Graveyard of the Gods ministry because I don't think atheists are doing enough of what really converts people - using emotional arguments and showing how Christian is evil, absurd, cruel and primitive.
What happens is, what people like Paul do is jump around frothing and waving their spears. And some people think that's convincing. But we're the ones with the ideological rifles. All we need is to target our cultural enemies and start shooting.
boo-hoo, is that tremblay whinning again? i've already delt with you, tremblay. rememeber, i dismemered your view that you understood transcendental arguments. shoot, even zach moore was agreeing with me. you have nothing to offer.
Aaron wrote: "You think that a story involving a God who sacrifices himself to himself in order to circumvent a law he created himself that would have forced him to send his own flawed creations to a Hell he created himself makes perfect sense."
This captures the double-minded absurdity of Christianity very eloquently. The reader merely needs to sit back and remove himself from the picture (something Christians don't want you to do) and look at it from an uninvested perspective, this Christian god sure comes across as one silly goofball, issuing arbitrary edicts and then trying to slip past them as if it could disguise itself from itself. And then presuppositionalism comes along and says that logic presupposes all this tangled mess. Anyone who falls for that line deserves the misery that Christianity has to serve up.
I'm sure glad these aren't my problems!
Hi VTG,
You said: "Plus, I still haven't quite figured out why Paul even pokes fun at atheists and argues with them. If things are as he presupposes, God has created them for destruction...what's the point of mocking someone that has no choice in the matter? This again proves his need to cover his own fears by blasting others...even though he claims to believe that God has ordained all of this anyway."
Your thoughts?"
My thoughts are (1) It's so easy to make atheists look stupid, (2) they have a choice in teh matter, they just always choose, as the knight in Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade said, "poorly." (3) God commands me to do so, to close your mought, as it were. (4) I blast because that's all atheists have done to me, so I mimicked their game and know they don't like it, boo-hoo. (5) My fears that God will forsake me to the foolishness you guys espouse, those fears? (6) It's always interesting to me that you guys start websites dedicated to this and spend time arguing against a being you believe doesn't exist, like santa clause, write books refuting an imaginary friend, as you guys refer to him, but you never do this to santa, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, et al! So, this is more silly than your indictment of me, above. So, try again next year. Now, isn't it past your bed time VTG?
I think Paul wants to be the center of attention, because he can't stand that I'm not reading his posts. Oh well. At least he's listening to the ghost of Van Til - which, if you ask me, is ironic in and of itself, but that's another thing.
37. If you think I care if a kid from Canada, who got exposed as a hack and a liar ("Franc: "My *specialty* is transcendental arguments" snicker), and who has to e-maild me when he wants to get answers but then he calls me stupid and says he does not read my posts, but still govels when he needs me to answer things for him, if you think I care what someone like this thinks, you might be an atheist.
Hi VTG,
"I know this has been pondered before, and I know how I would have answered this while 'on your side,"
Tell me, before I proceed, how would you have answerd it on the other side?
Aaron-
While I concede that Manata's list is "funnier" than mine,
I disagree. If Paul's list is humorous, it is of the cheapest variety. "If your kids are named Lucretius, Bertrand, Kai, and Ayn, you might be an atheist." Even Jeff Foxworthy could do better.
Personally, I love your #16. I was howling with laughter.
Paul-
i dismemered your view that you understood transcendental arguments. shoot, even zach moore was agreeing with me. you have nothing to offer.
Talk about misrepresenting someone. You emailed me on 4/18 to say:
"'I just asked Francois if he believed in a priori knowledge. He just replied back to me... "NO"
But you still do, right Zach? This gets funner and funner! I'm gonna pit you guys against eachother!"
To which I replied:
Yes, I believe in a priori knowledge, in the sense of the axioms that are necessary to hold to support any rational worldview.
So you call that agreeing with you? For shame, man. Why do you have to play make-believe just to justify your ad hominems?
Okay, I just read both sets of 'you might be a...' and while neither of them were what I would consider 'spectacular comedy material', I have to say that Paul's list was downright stupid in some portions.
If he actually thinks the theory of evolution is what he tries to portray (in addition to being atheistic) then he needs to attend a highschool biology class (at the very least).
-Meatros
Aaron: "1) Your grandest wish is for God/Jesus to come down from heaven and initiate an apocalypse, yet again committing near total genocide on all of humanity."
Paul Manata: "That's a bunch of B.S."
I don't think it's BS. Many Christians do in fact wish for an apocalypse to come and wipe out the world they hate so much (even though their god supposedly "so loved the world" that he "begot" his only "son" to save it - Jn. 3:16). Also, according to Matthew 6, Jesus taught his followers to ask for their god's "kingdom" to come to the earth in what has come to be known as "the Lord's prayer."
It's very interesting to see committed defenders of the Christian worldview blank out on their own worldview's explicit teachings like this. We are constantly being told that all of Christian theism is somehow necessary for human cognition (why one would believe this remains totally unclear), and yet those who insist that this is the case often show a remarkable ignorance of what their worldview teaches and/or an inability to self-consciously integrate all its doctrines into a cohesive whole. It is as if Christianity turns those who want to think it's true into hyper-reactionary despisers of anyone and anything that doesn't bow to its mystical idols.
Here's another example of the cognitive dropsy that tends to afflict Christians:
Aaron: "3) You state that prayers are always answered even if the exact opposite of what you pray for happens."
Paul Manata: "You mean, answerd the way you want them to be? I don't get it??? Let's say "no" was the answer... that's still an answer. This is oncoherent, you didn;t even define anything here."
Statements like this can only be made if someone does not know (or has overlooked) that, according to John 14:14, Jesus said "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." Is this not a god of power and omnipotence, one that is faith to his own promises to his followers? If this is a faithful and omnipotent god, then we should not see promises like John 14:14 go unfulfilled. Simply, John 14:14 tells us that there will be no prayers from the faithful that will be answered with a "no" from Jesus.
Why not just be honest and acknowledge that reality is objective, not a cartoon?
Paul Manata: "My thoughts are (1) It's so easy to make atheists look stupid,"
Do you think making other people "look stupid" is some kind of accomplishment?
Paul: "(2) they have a choice in teh matter, they just always choose, as the knight in Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade said, 'poorly'."
I've chosen to be honest to myself. How is that a poor choice? If Christianity cannot spread unless people are dishonest to themselves, what does that tell you about what it teaches?
Paul: "(3) God commands me to do so, to close your mought, as it were."
Well, good luck with this. Meanwhile, why doesn't your god just do the dirty work himself? Why does he send someone who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag to censure other minds? Why did he give people minds only to have them suppressed by the use of force?
Paul: "(4) I blast because that's all atheists have done to me, so I mimicked their game and know they don't like it, boo-hoo."
I don't buy this. I think you "blast" because you don't know of any other way to deal with other minds that don't take what you say on your say so. This just means you end up hating what you privately envy - us atheists, who don't have our tails stuck between our legs in fear like you do. We're free while you're locked in a prison cell. It must be awful to try to live with such a dark cloud always looming over you. No wonder you're so irritable and full of contempt. Lighten up, Paul. None of it's true. It's a fantasy-nightmare that you need to wake up from.
Paul: "(5) My fears that God will forsake me to the foolishness you guys espouse, those fears?"
Your fear is that you don't really believe.
Paul: "(6) It's always interesting to me that you guys start websites dedicated to this and spend time arguing against a being you believe doesn't exist,"
You've just missed a huge point, one which your own Van Til tried to impress on budding apologists like you, one that your own blog is supposed to emphasize, namely the antithesis between our respective worldviews. No one here is "arguing against a being" that doesn't exist. We're arguing against ideas that proceed from the belief in a being that doesn't exist, ideas which have, unfortunately, greatly influenced western civilization, a civilization that has proceeded in spite of Christianity, not because of it.
"If your kids are named Lucretius, Bertrand, Kai, and Ayn, you might be an atheist."
Kai ? I'm not sure how the sound of a wounded dog is atheistic, but anyway... here are the names we chose if we ever had children. For a boy, Carl Thomas. For a girl, Hypathia Ayn.
Franc: "Kai ? I'm not sure how the sound of a wounded dog is atheistic,"
I think he was referring to Kai Nielsen, author of Ethics Without God
I just read Paul's laughable little list from Dawson's blog. I liked the one about me.
"When you're an atheist, like Francois Tremblay, and you e-mail me asking me to give you books that have the presuppositionalist arguments in them because you're writing a book refuting presuppositionalism, which shows that you have your mind made up that we're wrong even before you've read any of our arguments, you might be an atheist."
To this I can only reply... what arguments ? He sure can't give us any !
1. If you think concepts are immaterial puffy clouds that float around, you might be Paul Manata.
2. If you think humans are not animals despite being 99.9% same as apes, you might be Paul Manata.
3. If you think "Rand" is a slur word, you might be Paul Manata.
Shall I go on...
Thanx Zach! #16 is also one of my favorites!
Paul: That's a bunch of B.S.
Aaron: Just to be clear on the subject Paul, do you or do you not want Jesus to come back to Earth, initiate the rapture, and start armageddon? If yes, then I was right. If no, then you arent a True Christian.
Paul: You mean, answerd the way you want them to be? I don't get it??? Let's say "no" was the answer... that's still an answer. This is oncoherent, you didn;t even define anything here.
Aaron: In regards to the prayer comment, I was actually referring to many other Christians that Ive had prayer arguments with. But you and I have never touched on the prayer subject. Let me give you an example.
The Bible says, and Christians say, that God always answers every prayer. So what happens when 51% of America prays for Bush to win, and 49% prays for Kerry to win? Did God answer all of those prayers? NO! He could only answer approximately half of them. But Christians still claim that God answers every prayer.
Another example: Paul, what about those who prayed for Schiavo to remain alive? Over at Christian Forums, Ive asked about prayers that werent answered, and they tell me that God answers every prayer. When I give specific examples, like Kerry or Schiavo, they tell me that what we are REALLY doing, is actually praying for our will to concede to Gods. So they count the hits AND the misses as evidence for their prayer-answering claims! There is the validity of my prayer remark in my list.
Aaron said, "Just to be clear on the subject Paul, do you or do you not want Jesus to come back to Earth, initiate the rapture, and start armageddon? If yes, then I was right. If no, then you arent a True Christian."
I know this comment was directed to Paul but I couldn't help this one. Aaron, this is one reason why no one takes you or should take you seriously (besides all your other blunders including spot quoting Van Til and Bahnsen then refuting without even attempting to understand them- much less having read them). I recommend that you do some serious study in eschatology.
Oh aaron and not only eschatology but also what makes one a Christian.
Hi Aaron,
Okay, now I get it. So all you have to do to make your list "factual" is to find some theist somewhere who has said, or believs something. Okay, well then mine is just as factual as yours, on this criteria.
Now, you said:
"Aaron: Just to be clear on the subject Paul, do you or do you not want Jesus to come back to Earth, initiate the rapture, and start armageddon? If yes, then I was right. If no, then you arent a True Christian."
You originally wrote:
"Your grandest wish is for God/Jesus to come down from heaven and initiate an apocalypse"
Now, my response: Your original assertion called it my "grandest wish." Now notice the logically weaker claim that I just "want him to come back." Secondly, your first assertion was about the apocalypse, you latest claim (the one I quoted first, above, was about the rapture. Those two are distinct. So, I'm staying on track and you don't even know what you write. Thirdly, I do not want what your latest claim suggests since I'm a preterist I believe the "rapture" has already happened. Try not to confuse me with modern American evanjellyfishism. So, even though I know you don't like to study up on those you refute (wittness you "refutation" if Goodman on induction), you should really try to otherwise you come out looking like a hack.
With all the things these Christians are telling us to study, you'd think no one could ever be a Christian ! Who reads all this stuff ? What a bunch of worthless geeks.
Get a life, godboys. Smell the fucking coffee !
a christian is different than Christian theology, stop with the fallacies, Tremblay. I know it's hard, but learn to reason a bit better.
Thanx anonymous. You claim I am wrong with the van til stuff merely because I didnt read his books. But did I see you explain WHY my deconstruction was invalid? Did I see you explain why van til was making sense with his faith statements? Nope! It was nothing more than "you didnt read the book so you are wrong. period."
Paul, sorry I didnt realize that you believe the rapture already happened. But I dont think you believe that Jesus already returned to Earth, do you?
Regarding the "grandest wish/desire" thing, please realize that my list was written with more Christians in mind than just yourself, and many Christians believe many different things about the rapture and the apocalypse. So sorry if my #1 list entry doesnt conform exactly with your particular brand of Christianity.
Whether or not the rapture already happened is not really the point in my #1 entry. I was being a bit over descpritive because I was trying to cover as much of Christianity as I can, and the widely varying beliefs between individual Christians makes it difficult.
My real focus here is the apocalypse, as I explained in my direct comments question to you. Whether or not the rapture already happened is irrelevant.
Do you want Jesus to come down from heaven and bring about the apocalypse?
Hey Aaron,
Paul, sorry I didnt realize that you believe the rapture already happened. But I dont think you believe that Jesus already returned to Earth, do you?
Not physically, but he came in judgement against Jerusalem in 70 a.d., you know, like when He said, "I tell you the truth, those standing here will not taste death until they see the son of man comming on the clouds." ANd, "this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened." So, you need to specify which sense of Jesus' comming you mean. In other words. this is why we don't discuss, I don't have time to give you a sunday school lesson every time you talk. I just laught at your assertions about Christian theology.
"Regarding the "grandest wish/desire" thing, please realize that my list was written with more Christians in mind than just yourself, and many Christians believe many different things about the rapture and the apocalypse. So sorry if my #1 list entry doesnt conform exactly with your particular brand of Christianity.
Good, so you can now take back your comments about yours being factual and mine not being factual. Believe me, almost all of my numbers were things I've heard atheists say, or imply.
"Whether or not the rapture already happened is not really the point in my #1 entry. I was being a bit over descpritive because I was trying to cover as much of Christianity as I can, and the widely varying beliefs between individual Christians makes it difficult.
Well, when you talk to me you should try and be precise because when people show they don't understand reformed theology, but then try and refute me, I can only start name calling, much quicker than giving free lessons, don't cha think?
My real focus here is the apocalypse, as I explained in my direct comments question to you. Whether or not the rapture already happened is irrelevant.
I don't even know what you mean by the "apocalypse?" What verse were you thinking of? remember, the "left Behind Series" isn't the Bible, and to bash Christians due to the teachings in a fictional book isn't good form.
Do you want Jesus to come down from heaven and bring about the apocalypse?
Not really, my theology doesn't comit me to escapism. Furthermore, I'm a postmillennialist, so I don't think it'll be happening any time soon.
Anyway, do try and study, then maybe we can have fruitful conversations, agreed?
Paul: "Not really, my theology doesn't comit me to escapism. Furthermore, I'm a postmillennialist, so I don't think it'll be happening any time soon."
This is another instance of what I was talking about - failure to integrate biblical doctrine into one's otherwise professed Christian worldview. The earliest Christians on record clearly taught that Jesus' return and the end of times was "at hand." In Revelations, we read Jesus' words "Behold I come quickly." Since when is 2000-plus years equal to "quickly"? Now Paul tells us "I don't think it'll be happening any time soon" apparently because he's adopted a doctrine ("postmillennialism") which allows him to rectify his worldview according to the current state of affairs in reality at the expense of what the earliest Christians clearly taught.
Amazing! But what else would we expect from a completely irrational and absurd worldview?
BB, you said:
" In Revelations [SIC], we read Jesus' words "Behold I come quickly." Since when is 2000-plus years equal to "quickly"?
First off, it's tghe book of Revelation, no S. Secondly, I told you he came in 70 a.d, so, that was quickly, now wasn't it? Do try and pay attention you dawson.
Now Paul tells us "I don't think it'll be happening any time soon" apparently because he's adopted a doctrine ("postmillennialism") which allows him to rectify his worldview according to the current state of affairs in reality at the expense of what the earliest Christians clearly taught.
If you're talking about his comming in judgement, on the clouds, then it happened in 70 a.d. if you're talking about the second *advent* then it is still future. Do read up big D, otherwise you'll keep getting spanked. Oh yeah, i'm only committed to what the Bible teaches, not what 'early Christians say.' Dawson, writting a lot isn't a sure indicator to knowing a lot.
So Paul, are you then waiting for his THIRD coming, since the second one already happened?
Paul: "First off, it's tghe book of Revelation, no S."
D'oh, pardon me.
Paul: "Secondly, I told you he came in 70 a.d, so,"
Hmmm... If I thought you could put evidence to support this claim, I'd ask you for it. Meanwhile, Revelation was supposedly written in 95 AD on the island of Patmos, so I don't think the author had 70 AD in mind.
Paul: "that was quickly, now wasn't it?"
From, say 33 AD to 70 AD (going on tradition anyway)? No, I don't think even that's "quickly" at all.
Paul: "Do try and pay attention you dawson."
Yes, teacher.
Paul: "Oh yeah, i'm only committed to what the Bible teaches,"
Where does the bible say that Jesus came in 70 AD? I don't think I've ever read any dates in the NT, for instance. Are you suggesting that, even within Christianity, this is not a controversial claim - that Jesus "returned" in 70 AD?
Paul: "not what 'early Christians say.'"
Hmmm... So perhaps you'd be in agreement with those who argue that the gospels were not written by the earliest Christians, but by later perverters of the new faith. I'm glad you cleared that up.
Paul: "Dawson, writting a lot isn't a sure indicator to knowing a lot."
Indeed... How many books did Van Til write?
Hi Aaron,
You said:
"So Paul, are you then waiting for his THIRD coming, since the second one already happened?"
If you have an actual argument rather than a rhetorical question, do let me know, please. Thanks.
Aaron, are you this prideful that you can't admit when you're wrong? Anyway, this has nothing to do with your posts. You asked me questions, I answerd them. Now all you're doing is trying to save face. Please try and study up so I don't have to do this, mmmkay?
Hi Dawson,
"Hmmm... If I thought you could put evidence to support this claim, I'd ask you for it. Meanwhile, Revelation was supposedly written in 95 AD on the island of Patmos, so I don't think the author had 70 AD in mind."
Well, we can debate that if you wish. I'd read Gentry's doctoral dissertation before we interact though. It's called "Before Jerusalem Fell," and its 500 pages dealing with the date of the book. Secondly, the book tells us that the temple was still standing when it was written, and we know the temple was destroyed in 70 ad. Thirdly, even the liberal scholar A.T. Robinson, has dated all the NT books to before 70 a.d. So, you can refute me with your controversial quote from Domition, but I'm prepared for that as well.
"From, say 33 AD to 70 AD (going on tradition anyway)? No, I don't think even that's "quickly" at all.
Uh, from the late 60's dawson. What, were you under the impression that Revelation was underway in 33 ad? But I thought above you said it was writen in 95 ad? We were talking about the quote from revelation, were'nt we? Do try and stay on track, it'll be easier for all of us. As a side, do try and stick to concept formation, you terrible outmatched here. Don't say I didn't warn you. Oh yeah, isn't it the rational thing to do to actually study a position before you start spouting off?
"Where does the bible say that Jesus came in 70 AD? I don't think I've ever read any dates in the NT, for instance. Are you suggesting that, even within Christianity, this is not a controversial claim - that Jesus "returned" in 70 AD?
Uh, it's not that hard, Dawson. All you need is a little math skill. Jesus said that he would come to destroy the temple and judge the Jews by that destruction (Matt. 24). The temple was destroyed on 70 a.d. Hence I deduce that's the date of his comming of the clouds. Dawson, I'm not committed to only the actual words of the text but what can be deduced by good and necessary inference. You still have this straw man idea of sola scriptura running around in your head. Do try and be a bit more scholarly in your critiques. That's the least you can do if I'm gonna spend my time here.
"Paul: "Dawson, writting a lot isn't a sure indicator to knowing a lot."
Indeed... How many books did Van Til write?"
That's what we refer to as the tu quoque fallacy round these parts.
;)
Paul earlier: "Dawson, writting [sic] a lot isn't a sure indicator to knowing a lot."
Paul now: “Well, we can debate that if you wish. I'd read Gentry's doctoral dissertation before we interact though. It's called "Before Jerusalem Fell," and its 500 pages dealing with the date of the book.”
500 pages, just to try to set a date to his faith-based position? He must have a lot of fires to tend to in order to do that. Just so long as we know that the bible doesn’t name a specific date.
500 pages… Boy, some people must really want their invisible magic being to be real.
Paul: “Secondly, the book tells us that the temple was still standing when it was written,”
And of course, you should know that it doesn’t necessarily follow from this that it was written before 70 AD. That would be a blatant non sequitur.
Paul: “Thirdly, even the liberal scholar A.T. Robinson, has dated all the NT books to before 70 a.d.”
“Liberal” is a pretty relative term, and often means nothing more than “not as conservative as we’d like.” At any rate, Robinson in fact does have the desire to tow the party line, even if some want to put some distance between themselves and him. For instance, he accepts the outworn tradition that the epistle of James was actually written by Jesus’ brother, even though Eusebius, writing about 325 numbered this epistle among the “disputed books.” And even Robinson’s attempts to validate such early dates for the gospels are dubious. I’m reminded of Robinson’s reviewer Rev. AT Hanson’s comments on Robinson’s Redating the New Testament (1976):
"Does Robinson believe that John’s picture of Jesus is true to history? He would probably answer: ‘Not entirely, but at least as much as that of the other gospels is.’ Here I simply cannot agree: a figure who claims ‘before Abraham was I am’ seems to me to be very far indeed from historical reality… When I compare the Jesus of the Fourth gospel with the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels, after making every allowance for the extent to which the Synoptic writers have ‘divinized’ and theologized their subject, I must certainly conclude that John’s Jesus has undergone a more thorough and more conscious modification than has the Jesus of the Synoptics… The supposition that an eye-witness composed the gospel is simply inadmissible. I would still put the completion of the Fourth Gospel in the last decade of the first century A.D." (Times Literary Supplement, 8, Oct. 1976.)
So even someone so close to Robinson as Hanson (both were associated with the Society for the Study of Theology) finds Robinson’s attempts to put exceptionally early dates to especially the gospel of John to be quite unconvincing.
Paul: “So, you can refute me with your controversial quote from Domition, but I'm prepared for that as well.”
No, I can’t say I had that in mind. On the contrary, I agree with Paine: “False testimony is always good against itself.”
Me: "From, say 33 AD to 70 AD (going on tradition anyway)? No, I don't think even that's 'quickly' at all."
Paul: “Uh, from the late 60's dawson.”
I had in mind passages such as Matthew 10:7, which has Jesus saying “the kingdom of God is at hand.” Saying that something “is at hand” is the same thing as saying it’s about happen “quickly.” It’s all written to make the reader believe that he’s living in the last times. Of course, I’m not unaware of newfangled arguments intending to show that’s not the case, but if they take upwards of 500 pages to establish just one tiny premise in such arguments, well, let’s not strain the bowels too much!
Paul: “What, were you under the impression that Revelation was underway in 33 ad?”
No, I’m not necessarily under this impression. But Christians apparently are, if they think that all these things were under way “from the foundation of the world” (cf. Matt. 13:35, 25:34; Lk. 11:50; Heb. 4:3; Rev. 13:8, 17:8). So logically, if the year AD 33 comes between “the foundation of the world” and any time thereafter, then how could the Christian say that Revelation was NOT “underway in 33 ad”?
Paul: “But I thought above you said it was writen in 95 ad?”
The view that the book of Revelation was written in AD 95 did not originate with me. If you think it was written at a different time, what do I care?
Paul: “We were talking about the quote from revelation, were'nt we?”
Not exclusively. The quote from Revelation was just one example. If you recall, I had also alluded to statements attributed to Jesus in the gospels saying that all these things were “at hand.”
Paul: “Do try and stay on track, it'll be easier for all of us.”
I’m right with you, Paul. Perhaps even a little more carefully than you realize.
Paul: “As a side, do try and stick to concept formation,
Well, now that you’ve brought it up, please tell me where in the gospels – or anywhere in the bible for that matter – would I go to learn about concept-formation? How does the bible even define the word ‘concept’? Please, Paul, I’m most curious on this.
Paul: “you terrible outmatched here.”
Yes, your insecurity makes it clear that you need this to be the case.
Paul: “Don't say I didn't warn you.”
I promise I won’t, Paul. Really, I’m very eager to learn more about what the bible has to say about concept-formation. As for all the arbitrary eschatological stuff, I’ve always found that to be the most boring part of the biblical worldview. It's funny to watch believers, who are supposed to be "indwelled" with "the Holy Spirit" bicker and hotly dispute these things. So much for "being of one accord" in the house of Christianity. Of course, internal disputes within Christianity are nothing new; the earliest believers were clearly not on the same wavelength, in spite of their appeals to magic insights.
Paul: “Oh yeah, isn't it the rational thing to do to actually study a position before you start spouting off?”
I suppose that depends on what assumptions you’ve loaded into your understanding of what constitutes “the rational thing.” For instance, how does the bible develop the concept ‘rationality’?
Me: "Where does the bible say that Jesus came in 70 AD? I don't think I've ever read any dates in the NT, for instance. Are you suggesting that, even within Christianity, this is not a controversial claim - that Jesus "returned" in 70 AD?"
Paul: “Uh, it's not that hard, Dawson. All you need is a little math skill. Jesus said that he would come to destroy the temple and judge the Jews by that destruction (Matt. 24). The temple was destroyed on 70 a.d. Hence I deduce that's the date of his comming of the clouds.”
Then apparently you agree with me when I said that 2000-plus years does not in any way, shape or form constitute “quickly,” right?
Paul: “Dawson, I'm not committed to only the actual words of the text but what can be deduced by good and necessary inference.”
Can you point to any passages in the bible which identify and develop the principles of “good and necessary inference”? If not, just say so, and join me in looking to a standard other than the bible for this.
Paul: “You still have this straw man idea of sola scriptura running around in your head.”
No, actually, I don’t. I’m just asking where the bible elucidates these things since Christians tell me it’s “authoritative.” Van Til says that “The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication.” (Christian Apologetics, 19-20.) In reaction to this, I’d have to point out first that, even if it is the case that “the Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks,” it doesn’t follow from this that it is. Wishing something to be the case doesn’t make it so. Also, Van Til needs to cut loose the flip-flopping: either the bible does “speak of everything,” or it doesn’t. If he wants to say it does, then he shouldn’t undercut his own assertion by listing things that it doesn’t speak of. That just undermines his credibility as a thinker. Lastly, who’s this “we” he has in mind? I suppose this is just stylistic, but by using this term he could be interpreted as speaking for all Christians, and what Christian would allow another Christian to speak for himself on everything he or she pretends to believe?
Anyway, if the bible doesn’t give any guidance on how “good and necessary inference” operates, just say so. What’s the harm in being honest?
Paul: “Do try and be a bit more scholarly in your critiques.”
Okay, I’ll try, but that will mean I can’t use you as a model intellect.
Paul: “That's the least you can do if I'm gonna spend my time here.”
We’re all here for you, Paul. After all, YOU’RE THE ENTERTAINMENT. (Haven’t you grasped that yet?)
Paul: "Dawson, writting a lot isn't a sure indicator to knowing a lot."
Me: "Indeed... How many books did Van Til write?"
Paul: “That's what we refer to as the tu quoque fallacy round these parts.”
No, Paul, it's called a question. What’s your answer?
Aaron asked: "So Paul, are you then waiting for his THIRD coming, since the second one already happened?"
Paul responded: "If you have an actual argument rather than a rhetorical question, do let me know, please. Thanks."
Actually, I think Aaron asked a good question of you, Paul. You believe Jesus came twice already, right? So do you think he's going to come a third time?
Hi BB-
"500 pages, just to try to set a date to his faith-based position? He must have a lot of fires to tend to in order to do that. Just so long as we know that the bible doesn’t name a specific date.
500 pages… Boy, some people must really want their invisible magic being to be real.”
Just because a book is dated at 68 a.d. doesn't mean God exists, Dawson. I mean, would you like it if I said this: Gould wrote a 700 page book on Evolution, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, boy, 700 pages just to try to set a date to his faith-based position? He must have a lot of fires to tend to in order to do that. C'mon. And, I already told you the Bible does date it, not exactly, but close enough. Then, we can use the mind God gave us to figure things out, to figure this out, Dawson. You're starting to bore me, badly.
"And of course, you should know that it doesn’t necessarily follow from this that it was written before 70 AD. That would be a blatant non sequitur.
Well, if you presupposed that the book wasn't from God then it may be. But if it is from God, then we would have true propositions, from which to deduce a conclusion, and true+valid=sound. So, you've just begged the question, my friend. Furthermore, scholars do this all the time, Dawson. That's how we date virtually all our ancient writings. So it's okay for Aristotle, but not the Bible? Laslty, if the Temple was destroyed you would think John would have jumped at the chance to mention that since Jesus predicted it then John would love to show it, but he wrote that it was still standing. Oh yeah, there's 500 pages of internal/external evidence for an early dtae, should we go through them?
Now, I won't quote your Robbinson stuff, but was there an argument in there rather than pontification?
Paul: “Uh, from the late 60's dawson.”
I had in mind passages such as Matthew 10:7, which has Jesus saying “the kingdom of God is at hand.” Saying that something “is at hand” is the same thing as saying it’s abouthappen “quickly.” It’s all written to make the reader believe that he’s living in the last times. Of course, I’m not unaware of newfangled arguments intending to show that’s not the case, but if they take upwards of 500 pages to establish just one tiny premise in such arguments, well, let’s not strain the bowels too much!
Dawson, we were talking about "quickly" in the book of Revelation. Look, I'll quote what you had in mind: "In Revelations [SIC], we read Jesus' words "Behold I come quickly." Since when is 2000-plus years equal to "quickly"? So, you didn't have Matt. in mind, now did you? Do try and remember what you write, dear dawson, it only makes you look like you're grasping at straws here.
Secondly, these arguments are not "new fangled" theve been around for Millennia. Thirdly, the book doesn't take 500 pages to do that. I already told you it was strictly dealing with the date of Revelation. Fourthly, the kingdom is at hand is a time text and so it was. The Bible defines it's times texts as happening within a generation of it's hearers. Try not to impose your time frame on the Bible, mmkay? So, the Bible defines it's use of the phrases: at hand, quickly, will not tarry, etc. Fifthly, the kingdom is at hand isn't talking about 70 ad or the comming of Christ on the clouds. So, you're not even staying on track with our discussion. Please try to not let the entertainment embarrass you. Oh yeah, where's you e-mail back to me with the subject of our informal debate?
Paul: “What, were you under the impression that Revelation was underway in 33 ad?”
No, I’m not necessarily under this impression. But Christians apparently are, if they think that all these things were under way “from the foundation of the world” (cf. Matt. 13:35, 25:34; Lk. 11:50; Heb. 4:3; Rev. 13:8, 17:8). So logically, if the year AD 33 comes between “the foundation of the world” and any time thereafter, then how could the Christian say that Revelation was NOT “underway in 33 ad”?
Uh, Dawson, quit trying to change subjects. We were talking about ther WRITTING of the book of Revelation. The WRITTING was not under way in 33 a.d. because you said it was WRITEN in the late 90's. So, I know you want to change the subject away from my preterism, but it's not gonna happen, big D.
The view that the book of Revelation was written in AD 95 did not originate with me. If you think it was written at a different time, what do I care?
Well, you threw out the late date view to refute something I said, if you can't counter it then my rebuttal stands, big D.
Paul: “We were talking about the quote from revelation, were'nt we?”
Not exclusively. The quote from Revelation was just one example. If you recall, I had also alluded to statements attributed to Jesus in the gospels saying that all these things were “at hand.”
Uh, yes we were. I know atheists don't are about their reputation since there's really nothing wrong with lying, but you didn't mention those things. You said, "behold I come quickly." Now, if you had some cryptic allusion, not my fault I didn't see it. I also looked back over, nope, still didn't see it. I even copied them to my e-mail and will print it out and study it with a magnifying glass.
Then apparently you agree with me when I said that 2000-plus years does not in any way, shape or form constitute “quickly,” right?
And? (oh yeah, I ignored all your side track, after I dismemeber you on this topic hopefull we can debate something else, I'm bored with your arrogance, time to publicly embarrass you.)
Paul: “Dawson, I'm not committed to only the actual words of the text but what can be deduced by good and necessary inference.”
"Can you point to any passages in the bible which identify and develop the principles of “good and necessary inference”? If not, just say so, and join me in looking to a standard other than the bible for this."
First, let's note that our reformed confession recognizes the Bibel teaches this:
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
I dare say these men knew the Bible far better than both you and I. Secondly, obviously if the Bible is God's word, and if there are true propositions, then by means of a valid argument, we can produce a true conclusion by good and necessary inference. Thirdly, the Bible lays down general principles and expects us to apply those principles to different circumstances, i.e. the issue of worship debated in Acts. So, general principles are given, in most cases, because of circumstances and particulars changing. So, rather than put a fence around our rooftops, as the law in Israel commanded, we should put one around our swimming pool. Since people don't party on rooftops in america the circumstances and particulars have changed, but not the general equity, we can see this wehn Paul uses an Old Testament law, not muzeling an Ox, in support of Pastors pay. So, it's all over the Bible, Dawson.
Paul: “You still have this straw man idea of sola scriptura running around in your head.”
"No, actually, I don’t. I’m just asking where the bible elucidates these things since Christians tell me it’s “authoritative.”
From Genesis to Revelation.
Van Til says that “The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication.” (Christian Apologetics, 19-20.)
Okay.
In reaction to this, I’d have to point out first that, even if it is the case that “the Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks,” it doesn’t follow from this that it is.
But he wasn't writting to you, an atheist, dawson. The direct context deals with Christians and our approach to apologetics, he was telling us what we take to be true. Do try and include the context instead of misinterpreting others to better yourself. remember, you're a "man" and you "think with your own brain." So, stop acting like a child.
Also, Van Til needs to cut loose the flip-flopping: either the bible does “speak of everything,” or it doesn’t. If he wants to say it does, then he shouldn’t undercut his own assertion by listing things that it doesn’t speak of. That just undermines his credibility as a thinker.
He tells us and qualifies what he 'means" by his statement. So, a charitable reading wouldn't get you to this destination of mischaracterization. Anyone with half-a-brain can figure out what he's saying. That is, it speaks on everything GENERALLY, but it doesn;t mention everything SPSECIFICALLY. Do try and get the authors intent, if you can't it only undermines your credibility.
Lastly, who’s this “we” he has in mind? I suppose this is just stylistic, but by using this term he could be interpreted as speaking for all Christians, and what Christian would allow another Christian to speak for himself on everything he or she pretends to believe?
You got it, buddy! Good job big D. But you refuted your first point. Secondly, Ephesians 4 tells us that we have teachers and pastors for the body that we may be brought to unity and not hold to false doctrine. But, more specifically, he's speaking to reformed Christians. He's telling them we we all affirm when we join a church and tell the elders we submit to the Westminster Confession of Faith as an accurate summary of what the Bible teaches. SO, he's just assuming that reformed Christians all think this way since they have affirmed it previously. He's writing in much different times in america, also.
Anyway, big D, please offer something substantial, try and stay on track, if not then we won't have an interaction because you are playing games. Think of this conversation as a learning experience, to better yourself, not as a way to run and avoid questions. Mmmkay?
-Paul
p.s.
Aaron asked: "So Paul, are you then waiting for his THIRD coming, since the second one already happened?"
Paul responded: "If you have an actual argument rather than a rhetorical question, do let me know, please. Thanks."
"Actually, I think Aaron asked a good question of you, Paul. You believe Jesus came twice already, right? So do you think he's going to come a third time?
No, it was rhetorical, Dawson, and you know it. But, I'll play... where does the Bible say that there are only two commings of the Lord? Also, I've distingushed between "advent" and "comming." Please try to not characterize me with the new fangled arguments of Americal Evanjellyfishism, I thought I already covered this?
Paul: “Just because a book is dated at 68 a.d. doesn't mean God exists, Dawson.”
Agreed, Paul. I don’t think anything in reality implies that any gods exist.
Paul: “I mean, would you like it if I said this: Gould wrote a 700 page book on Evolution, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, boy, 700 pages just to try to set a date to his faith-based position?”
Was Gould’s only concern in the space of that book (actually over 1400 pages, is it not?) the establishment of a questionable date? I’ve not read Gould’s book, but from my understanding of biological theories, setting specific dates to some event is usually not much of a concern. Typically, scientists look at causal trends over the course of very large time frames. But since evolution is science, and therefore a matter of study requiring particular care and precision, I could see why it would take so many pages.
Paul: “He must have a lot of fires to tend to in order to do that. C'mon.”
To establish a specific date? Yes, I would think so. But I highly doubt ol’ Stephen Jay’s purpose in writing The Structure of Evolutionary Theory was not simply to establish a specific date. I suggest you should consult with Zach on these matters, Paul. He’s an expert in science.
Paul: “And, I already told you the Bible does date it, not exactly, but close enough.”
Yes, you did say that. I’ll be standing by for you to give a convincing argument for this, though.
Paul: “Then, we can use the mind God gave us to figure things out, to figure this out, Dawson. You're starting to bore me, badly.”
Well, perhaps the Holy Spirit of longsuffering and love will kick in and override your boredom. But if you’re bored, why would you write a 1936 word reply to me? You are participating here by choice, are you not?
Me: "And of course, you should know that it doesn’t necessarily follow from this that it was written before 70 AD. That would be a blatant non sequitur.
Paul: “Well, if you presupposed that the book wasn't from God then it may be.”
I’m not actively “presupposing” one outcome as opposed to any other, Paul. I’m not presupposing that the book is from your god any more than I’m presupposing that it isn’t. But I know that you’re presupposing certain outcomes, which just tells me that you’re motivated to rationalize all points introduced into the discussion so that they seem to confirm your preferred, presupposed outcome. I’m just inquiring, nothing more. You seem to resent this. Why is that?
Paul: “But if it is from God, then we would have true propositions, from which to deduce a conclusion, and true+valid=sound.”
This almost sounds like you’re saying “if it is from God, then there’s no possibility that I could be wrong.” Do you mean to say this? Let’s not forget that Matthew 19:26 says “with God all things are possible.” If we take Matthew seriously here, then we’d have to allow for the possibility that you’re wrong. I’m certainly willing to entertain that possibility. Aren’t you?
Paul: “So, you've just begged the question, my friend.”
I see. By pointing out your blatant non sequitur, I begged the question? Boy, you really do make for great entertainment, Paul!
Paul: “Furthermore, scholars do this all the time, Dawson.”
Scholars do what all the time? Beg the question? Well, I suppose if you take Van Til and Bahnsen to be model scholars, I can understand why you’d suppose this.
Paul: “That's how we date virtually all our ancient writings.”
Let me get this straight: scholars who beg the question “all the time” do so in order to “date virtually all our ancient writings”? Hmmm… that wasn’t my understanding, but please, proceed.
Paul: “So it's okay for Aristotle, but not the Bible?”
I don’t think we’ve discussed Aristotle. Have we?
Paul: “Laslty, if the Temple was destroyed you would think John would have jumped at the chance to mention that since Jesus predicted it then John would love to show it, but he wrote that it was still standing.”
Well, if the author of John wanted his later work to appear to his readers as having been written prior to the event in question, it would have been very easy to resist the temptation to mention it. You seem far too eager to take everything you read in the bible at face value, which suggests a very uncritical mind.
Paul: “Oh yeah, there's 500 pages of internal/external evidence for an early dtae, should we go through them?”
Well, Paul, I suspect you think it’s important, while I do not. But if you want to bring out the salient points, why don’t you post them on your blog one of these days? Your working them could be the validation of the view that the destruction of the temple was not only a genuinely fulfilled prophecy, but also evidence that Jesus was paying earth another visit. (Was that in a physical body?) But hold on a minute. Suppose I prophesy this morning that this afternoon I’m going to go to the grocery store, and this afternoon I actually do go to the grocery store, can I also claim to have genuinely fulfilled a prophecy?
Paul: “Now, I won't quote your Robbinson stuff, but was there an argument in there rather than pontification?”
I’d like to know specifically how you would distinguish argument from pontification. For instance, many Bahnsenites say that Bahnsen’s opening statement in his debate with Stein constitutes an argument. But I would say it fails to qualify as an argument since he never presents any inference to draw the conclusion that his god exists. I pointed this out in my blog Bahnsen’s Poof.
Paul: “Uh, from the late 60's dawson.”
Me: “I had in mind passages such as Matthew 10:7, which has Jesus saying “the kingdom of God is at hand.” Saying that something “is at hand” is the same thing as saying it’s abouthappen “quickly.” It’s all written to make the reader believe that he’s living in the last times. Of course, I’m not unaware of newfangled arguments intending to show that’s not the case, but if they take upwards of 500 pages to establish just one tiny premise in such arguments, well, let’s not strain the bowels too much!”
Paul: “Dawson, we were talking about ‘quickly’ in the book of Revelation.”
Yes, we’re also talking about statements in the gospels, too, since I mentioned them as well. Or, do you not want to look at those for some reason?
Paul: “Look, I'll quote what you had in mind: "In Revelations [SIC], we read Jesus' words "Behold I come quickly." Since when is 2000-plus years equal to "quickly"? So, you didn't have Matt. in mind, now did you?”
Yes, I did. I had all such instances in mind. There’s a running current throughout most of epistles and the gospels repeating over and over that the end times are “at hand.” I used the quote from Revelation, but I also used quotes from other NT passages as well. Didn’t you see them?
Paul: “Do try and remember what you write, dear dawson, it only makes you look like you're grasping at straws here.”
I doubt anyone has the impression that I’m the one who’s grasping at straws here, Paul. But, we could take a survey of those who may be reading if you like. (I’m imagining now that there will be a bunch of Anonymous comments posted saying I’m grasping at straws now. That would be just too funny!)
Paul: “Secondly, these arguments are not "new fangled" theve been around for Millennia.”
I see. So, there’s been no innovations in this department in recent times? Interesting. And all those 500-page books, just repeating what has “been around for Millennia”? Seems rather unproductive.
Paul: “Thirdly, the book doesn't take 500 pages to do that. I already told you it was strictly dealing with the date of Revelation.”
Wait a minute. The book you’re talking about is 500 pages, right? And this 500-page book “was strictly dealing with the date of Revelation,” right? But you’re also saying that “the book doesn’t take 500 pages to do that”? Paul, do you want to edit this?
Paul: “Fourthly, the kingdom is at hand is a time text and so it was.”
I read this sentence several times, and it’s not clear what you were trying to say. Can you clarify?
Paul: “The Bible defines it's times texts as happening within a generation of it's hearers.”
What constitutes “times texts”? Is there a formula for distinguishing one passage using temporal references from another using the same such that one is a “time text” defined as you say, while the other is not?
Paul: “Try not to impose your time frame on the Bible, mmkay?”
What are you going to do if I do impose my time frame on it? Are you going to hurl more insults or something?
Paul: “So, the Bible defines it's use of the phrases: at hand, quickly, will not tarry, etc.”
Actually, I didn’t see any statements geared especially to qualifying (let alone giving specific definitions to) these phrases. Rather, it just uses them. Can you give an example of what you mean by “the Bible defines it’s [sic] use of the phrases” in question? For instance, when the author of Revelation puts the words “Behold, I come quickly” into Jesus’ mouth, where’s the verse which defines this?
Paul: “Fifthly, the kingdom is at hand isn't talking about 70 ad or the comming of Christ on the clouds.”
It’s not? What’s it talking about then? And where does it talk about the time frame when we should expect “the comming [sic] of Christ on the clouds”?
Paul: “So, you're not even staying on track with our discussion. Please try to not let the entertainment embarrass you.”
Oh, I suppose you think you’re “comming” very close to embarrassing me, don’t you?
Paul: “Oh yeah, where's you e-mail back to me with the subject of our informal debate?”
There isn’t one, and if you continue USING ALL CAPS throughout an entire e-mail to me, you won’t get one. Yell at your kid, not at me.
Paul: “What, were you under the impression that Revelation was underway in 33 ad?”
Me: “No, I’m not necessarily under this impression. But Christians apparently are, if they think that all these things were under way “from the foundation of the world” (cf. Matt. 13:35, 25:34; Lk. 11:50; Heb. 4:3; Rev. 13:8, 17:8). So logically, if the year AD 33 comes between “the foundation of the world” and any time thereafter, then how could the Christian say that Revelation was NOT “underway in 33 ad”?
Paul: “Uh, Dawson, quit trying to change subjects.”
Well, it’s not like I was bringing up private e-mail exchanges between us out of the blue, you know.
Paul: “We were talking about ther WRITTING of the book of Revelation. The WRITTING was not under way in 33 a.d. because you said it was WRITEN in the late 90's.”
Paul, have you ever considered signing up for a national spelling contest?
Paul: “So, I know you want to change the subject away from my preterism, but it's not gonna happen, big D.”
No, that won’t happen because big P is bigger than big D, right? I’m glad you cleared that up in a jiff!
Me: “The view that the book of Revelation was written in AD 95 did not originate with me. If you think it was written at a different time, what do I care?”
Paul: “Well, you threw out the late date view to refute something I said, if you can't counter it then my rebuttal stands, big D.”
Yes, I know it’s so very important to you that you’re always right, so go ahead and think it.
Paul: “We were talking about the quote from revelation, were'nt we?”
Me: “Not exclusively. The quote from Revelation was just one example. If you recall, I had also alluded to statements attributed to Jesus in the gospels saying that all these things were “at hand.”
Paul: “Uh, yes we were.”
Perhaps you want to focus on just that one quote, but I was speaking much more broadly, and I think my earlier statements made this very clear.
Paul: “I know atheists don't are about their reputation since there's really nothing wrong with lying,”
I can’t speak for other atheists, Paul. I can only speak for myself. I really don’t put a lot of stock in what others think of me since I’m not trying to live in their minds, and I don’t fear other minds. I certainly don’t need their approval like you do.
Paul: “but you didn't mention those things.”
Yes, I mentioned “those things” – plural, Paul, i.e., more than just one quote.
Paul: “You said, "behold I come quickly." Now, if you had some cryptic allusion, not my fault I didn't see it. I also looked back over, nope, still didn't see it. I even copied them to my e-mail and will print it out and study it with a magnifying glass.”
This is what I wrote, Paul:
This is another instance of what I was talking about - failure to integrate biblical doctrine into one's otherwise professed Christian worldview. The earliest Christians on record clearly taught that Jesus' return and the end of times was "at hand." In Revelations, we read Jesus' words "Behold I come quickly." Since when is 2000-plus years equal to "quickly"? Now Paul tells us "I don't think it'll be happening any time soon" apparently because he's adopted a doctrine ("postmillennialism") which allows him to rectify his worldview according to the current state of affairs in reality at the expense of what the earliest Christians clearly taught.
To find it quickly, just hit your control-F and type “Revelations” (the misspelling you’re “comming” to hate so much) and search for it. Now notice I do in fact cite the quote “Behold I come quickly,” but just before this I cited the phrase “at hand” used elsewhere in the New Testament.
Me: “Then apparently you agree with me when I said that 2000-plus years does not in any way, shape or form constitute “quickly,” right?”
Paul: “And?”
I take that as a yes. You just find it so difficult to admit that you agree with lovable big D, right big P?
Paul: “(oh yeah, I ignored all your side track, after I dismemeber you on this topic hopefull we can debate something else, I'm bored with your arrogance, time to publicly embarrass you.)”
Have you ever had any higher aspirations, Paul?
Paul: “Dawson, I'm not committed to only the actual words of the text but what can be deduced by good and necessary inference.”
Me: "Can you point to any passages in the bible which identify and develop the principles of “good and necessary inference”? If not, just say so, and join me in looking to a standard other than the bible for this."
Paul: “First, let's note that our reformed confession recognizes the Bibel teaches this:”
You have one too many conjugated verbs in this sentence, Paul. And you might want to run it through spell-check, too.
Paul: “VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:”
Do we have to infer what constitutes “good and necessary consequence” from some passage in the bible someplace? If so, what is that passage, and what are the steps taken to infer it? Meanwhile, if the bible doesn’t “expressly set down” a full system of epistemology (I’m in full agreement with Mike Sudduth when he writes “I say that Bible knowledge is not sufficient, nowhere nearly so, for being a good epistemologist”), then what are Christians going to turn to in order to find one?
Paul: “unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12]”
I see, perhaps this is why there have been no innovations in biblical defenses and apologists are just recycling old, shabby arguments that were refuted centuries ago. Got it.
Paul: “Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13]”
Of course, the appeal to internal messages downloaded from the big kahuna himself. This is just a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that they really have no rational arguments to support what they call “the saving understanding.” If this understanding were truly rational, they wouldn’t need to appeal to these internal, untestable and completely subjective feelings.
Paul: “and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]”
Well, I have no problem guiding my ways “by the light of nature.” But I don’t need the churchmen to tell me this.
Paul: “I dare say these men knew the Bible far better than both you and I.”
Knowing what the bible says is one thing, Paul. But adopting an faith-based (i.e., anti-rational) worldview is something completely different. Again, I agree with Sudduth on this: it may very well be the case that these guys “knew the Bible far better” than I ever will, but “Bible knowledge is not sufficient, nowhere nearly so, for being a good epistemologist.” And if they weren’t good epistemologists guiding their theories according to reason, then it’s quite probable that they didn’t have a full grasp of man’s need for a fully rational, integrated philosophy like Objectivism.
Paul: “Secondly, obviously if the Bible is God's word, and if there are true propositions, then by means of a valid argument, we can produce a true conclusion by good and necessary inference.”
Well, you’ve certainly got some hefty hypotheticals there to deal with. Have fun.
Paul: “Thirdly, the Bible lays down general principles and expects us to apply those principles to different circumstances, i.e. the issue of worship debated in Acts.”
Well, if you want to call them “general principles,” but if those “principles” are about something as useless as “worship” of an invisible magic being, they certainly are not rational, and there would be no value to be gained in debating them.
Paul: “So, general principles are given, in most cases, because of circumstances and particulars changing.”
Yes, I can certainly see the need for principles, but only for those that are rational. Thus I would have no need for “general principles” that have to do with what Christians consider to be worthy of “worship.” They’re free to worship anything they want, and I’m free, too.
Paul: “So, rather than put a fence around our rooftops, as the law in Israel commanded, we should put one around our swimming pool.”
I guess that Christians who have acquired the wealth it takes to get a swimming pool conveniently ignored the apostle Paul’s exhortation in I Cor. 10:24 which states: “Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.” Or, perhaps those Christians sought someone else’s wealth, and used it to buy their swimming pools?
Paul: “Since people don't party on rooftops in america the circumstances and particulars have changed, but not the general equity, we can see this wehn Paul uses an Old Testament law, not muzeling an Ox, in support of Pastors pay. So, it's all over the Bible, Dawson.”
I see. But it’s going to take the muscular Paul “big P” Manata to hack it out, right?
Paul: “You still have this straw man idea of sola scriptura running around in your head.”
Me: "No, actually, I don’t. I’m just asking where the bible elucidates these things since Christians tell me it’s “authoritative.”
Paul: “From Genesis to Revelation.”
I see, so, somewhere between Genesis and Revelation, we’ll find out something about how the human mind forms concepts? Can you narrow it down a bit for me?
Me: “Van Til says that “The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication.” (Christian Apologetics, 19-20.)”
Paul: “Okay.”
Me: “In reaction to this, I’d have to point out first that, even if it is the case that “the Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks,” it doesn’t follow from this that it is.”
Paul: “But he wasn't writting to you, an atheist, dawson.”
So what? A non sequitur is a non sequitur, no matter who’s the intended audience.
Paul: “The direct context deals with Christians and our approach to apologetics, he was telling us what we take to be true. Do try and include the context instead of misinterpreting others to better yourself. remember, you're a ‘man’ and you ‘think with your own brain’.”
There’s only so much that an appeal to the broader context in which a statement is made will accomplish in undoing any error or overstatement that statement sets forth. The point is that something doesn’t become the case just because someone thinks it’s the case. I know that’s hard to grasp for Christians whose metaphysics ultimately reduces to wishing making it so, but you’re dialoguing with someone who has both feet on the earth, and consciousness doesn’t have that kind of power, Paul.
Paul: “So, stop acting like a child.”
But Paul, if I don’t act like a child, how can I get into heaven? Jesus says in Matt. 18:3 “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” You must really want to get into heaven, eh big P?
Me: “Also, Van Til needs to cut loose the flip-flopping: either the bible does “speak of everything,” or it doesn’t. If he wants to say it does, then he shouldn’t undercut his own assertion by listing things that it doesn’t speak of. That just undermines his credibility as a thinker.”
Paul: “He tells us and qualifies what he 'means" by his statement. So, a charitable reading wouldn't get you to this destination of mischaracterization. Anyone with half-a-brain can figure out what he's saying."
So, are you trying to say that your god gave me less than half-a-brain?
Paul: “That is, it speaks on everything GENERALLY, but it doesn;t mention everything SPSECIFICALLY.”
Why didn’t he just say this instead of saying on the one hand that the bible “speaks of everything” and then on the other pointing out that it doesn’t do this? With the looseness you want to apply to Van Til, and the looseness Van Til wants to apply to the scope of the bible’s reach, one could say this about a lot of books. Using the same liberality you want to reserve for Van Til, I could say “Well, Rand doesn’t speak of atoms, football games, internet servers or splenectomies in The Fountainhead specifically, but she does speak of these things generally.”
Paul: “Do try and get the authors intent, if you can't it only undermines your credibility.”
I’m doing the best I can, Paul. I guess I’m just a difficult case.
Me: “Lastly, who’s this “we” he has in mind? I suppose this is just stylistic, but by using this term he could be interpreted as speaking for all Christians, and what Christian would allow another Christian to speak for himself on everything he or she pretends to believe?”
Paul: “You got it, buddy! Good job big D. But you refuted your first point.”
My first point was: “even if it is the case that ‘the Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks’, it doesn’t follow from this that it is.” How does my third point refute my first? My first point identifies the commission of an informal fallacy, and my third is a question about how wide a net Van Til seems to be casting with his stylistic nuances. That does not undo the fallacy Van Til has committed.
Paul: “Secondly, Ephesians 4 tells us that we have teachers and pastors for the body that we may be brought to unity and not hold to false doctrine.”
Yes, it does do this. But I’ve always wondered why they would be necessary for this if believers are “indwelled by the Holy Spirit.” In a church environment, then, it seems that believers are getting all they need internally (from the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit”) and externally (from teachers and pastors who are guided internally by the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit”), and yet still they bicker and dispute with each other over a whole range of theological issues. Interesting.
Paul: “But, more specifically, he's speaking to reformed Christians.”
Like Zach used to be. Got it.
Paul: “He's telling them we we all affirm when we join a church and tell the elders we submit to the Westminster Confession of Faith as an accurate summary of what the Bible teaches.”
Only, “it speaks of everything,” and yet it doesn’t “speak of everything.” Got it.
Paul: “SO, he's just assuming that reformed Christians all think this way since they have affirmed it previously.”
Right – they’re sheeple.
Paul: “Anyway, big D, please offer something substantial, try and stay on track,”
Okay, I promise to try my best, Paul!
Paul: “if not then we won't have an interaction because you are playing games.”
And your reacting to them very seriously is very entertaining.
Paul: “Think of this conversation as a learning experience, to better yourself, not as a way to run and avoid questions. Mmmkay?”
Mmmkay.
_________________________________
Aaron asked: "So Paul, are you then waiting for his THIRD coming, since the second one already happened?"
Paul responded: "If you have an actual argument rather than a rhetorical question, do let me know, please. Thanks."
"Actually, I think Aaron asked a good question of you, Paul. You believe Jesus came twice already, right? So do you think he's going to come a third time?
Paul: “No, it was rhetorical, Dawson, and you know it.”
I think it’s a perfectly valid question, given the views you’ve endorsed. You think Jesus came during his alleged lifetime, birthed to a virgin (say 4 BC?) until his crucifixion (say 33 AD?). That’s one. You also think he came back a few decades later and destroyed the temple, right? That’s two. So, naturally, one can reasonably if you seriously believe Jesus will come back for yet another visit. If you have an answer for this, I don’t know why it would be hard for you to state it.
Paul: “But, I'll play... where does the Bible say that there are only two commings of the Lord?”
I’ve not stated that the bible says “there are only two commings [sic]of the Lord.” It’s not my view that there have been any “commings of the Lord.” It’s your views we’ve been inquiring about.
Paul: “Also, I've distingushed between ‘advent’ and ‘coming’."
So, will Jesus come for a third visit, or not? I'd recommend Jet Blue. They were very comfortable.
Paul: “Please try to not characterize me with the new fangled arguments of Americal Evanjellyfishism,”
Paul, you’ve had every opportunity you should need to present whatever positions and arguments you want to defend. If you don’t take your opportunity to do so, don’t be sore at me.
okay, so basically we'll just continue to one-up the other guy. But the basic point we can all take home is that what started this all-Jesus' coming and the time texts used elsewhere-have not been rebutted. So I take it I have vindicated myself and also shown that atheisst, without even reading a subject, will "refute" it.
Dawson, I told you that I accidentally hit my caps button on that e-mail, now I'll ask nicely: may you respond?
BB is correct Paul.
And just an FYI, I never ask rhetorical questions, and I always try to answer rhetorical questions.
Sometimes my questions seem rhetorical, but they are literal and I wish you would answer them. How do you have two second comings? Isnt this next coming of Jesus a 3rd coming?
oh, and I agree that the number of times shouldnt matter, but Im just wondering how your own personal "jesus-coming-numbering" system counts, because it seems to me that you are personally trying to count TWO second comings... a spiritual one that already happened, and a material one that is yet to happen.
Im asking you to help me understand your faith more Paul. What kind of apologist refuses that request?
"Reason can only be authoritative based upon circular reasoning. A rule that it does not allow. You lose."
Replace "reason" with "Christianity" and you're absolutely correct.
I'm tired of you Aaron. I answerd the question. I'll do it one more time. Just as long as you know you're not critiquing me. And you're not trying to really "understand my faith." The difference between you and me is that I come straight with my smack talk. Aaron, if you dress up a pig and put perfume on here, she's still a pig.
"oh, and I agree that the number of times shouldnt matter, but Im just wondering how your own personal "jesus-coming-numbering" system counts, because it seems to me that you are personally trying to count TWO second comings... a spiritual one that already happened, and a material one that is yet to happen.
Im asking you to help me understand your faith more Paul. What kind of apologist refuses that request?
YOU, AARON, brought up the two/three comings as some sort of refutation. Now, tell me where the Bible says that there are only two? Tell me how many the Bible teaches? You see, all you're doing is taking a preconceived understanding of Christianity, trying to fit me into that mold, and then acting like a child when I don't fit into it. You keep using the term "second coming." I DENY this term. So, your whole problem stems from a modern, evangelical, and american understanding of eschatology. Don't take it out on me if you were taught properly. So, since I deny the term "second coming" you shouldn't say that I'm trying to teach two second comings, this begs the question against me.
Jesus will come again physically some time in the future. But Jesus came in judgment in 70 a.d. just as he said he would. In Matt 24 he tells the disciples that if they look at the temple not one stone would be left on another. He tells them that the abomination of desolation-the roman army-will come to destroy Jerusalem. He said that this would happen to the generation he was speaking to. He said they would see him coming on the clouds. "Coming on the clouds" is Old Testament language that the hearer would understand, not the 20th century american. It was very frequently used to speak of God's judgment. In the Old Testament, almost everytime Jehovah would destroy a nation, whether it Israel or not, he would mention clouds and his feet standing on them, him riding on them, etc. Anthropormorphisms, obviously. Jesus tells us in Matt 24 that he will judge Jerusalem, then. Why, well later he tells us that the Jews have killed all the prophets Jehovah has sent and so all the bood of the prophets would "fall on this generation (the one he was speaking to). Then in Revelation we read that John is to measure the temple because the gentiles will trample on it for 42 months (as long as the Romans crushed Jerusalem!). And in Revelation Jesus said he was coming quickly and soon. John, the one who wrote it, calls himself a *partaker* in the tribulation- so I obviously don't believe there's some future "great tribulation" since that happened during Nero-the beast of Revelation- reign. Now, in 70 a.d. the Romans finally toppled Jerusalem. They burned it to the ground. When the burnt the temple all the gold flowed into the walls around the temple. Guess what, the Romans took the temple apart stone by stone. Jesus told his disciples this would happen. He told them not one stone would be left on another.
This was God's divorce decree against the whore, Israel. God divorced Israel and married the spotless bride, the New Testament Church. The NT Church is made up of one who is a Jew inwardly- all those who love Christ-from Abraham to myself- are true Jews.
"Thanx anonymous. You claim I am wrong with the van til stuff merely because I didnt read his books. But did I see you explain WHY my deconstruction was invalid? Did I see you explain why van til was making sense with his faith statements? Nope! It was nothing more than "you didnt read the book so you are wrong. period.""
Stop being retarded aaron. Where did I say you were 'wrong'? Where? Did I see you truly interact with Van Til? NO. That was the implication and why the comment was stated that no one should take you seriously as you don't take others seriously and actually interact with them. GOT IT???
Anon: "Stop being retarded aaron. Where did I say you were 'wrong'? Where?"
So, do you think Aaron was wrong, or not? Don't beat around the bush. Have some confidence in your judgments and state your position unequivocally. If you think Aaron was wrong, give some specifics on why you think this.
Anon: "no one should take you seriously as you don't take others seriously and actually interact with them."
Can you give three GOOD reasons why someone should take Van Til seriously? If you can't give three, can you give one?
'nother stellar response by the atheist sheep, Not Reformed.
Bahnsen Burner, Um, I think "take seriously" means to interact scholarly with. You know, read a guys works before you "refute him." Otherwise it looks like one is prejudiced and has an a priori convistion that someone is wrong, not very scholarly. I mean, Aaron actually critiqued Goodman's "New Problem of Induction" without ever reading Goodman's article, which isn't hard to find. Now, since you're "a man and you think with your own mind" you should come down of Aaron for this. I mean, if I had a penny for everytime you chide someone for not reading Rand I'd be a rich man. So, show that your a consistant "man" who "thinks with his own mind" instead of constantly sticking up for your fellow sheeple.
Oh, and I guess people are rabidly studying up on preterism to give a critique to what I wrote, buch of faith-based hypocrites you all are.
Paul: "Bahnsen Burner, Um, I think 'take seriously' means to interact scholarly with."
Paul, I didn't ask what "take seriously" means. Rather, I asked:
Can you give three GOOD reasons why someone should take Van Til seriously?
Any answers?
Paul: "You know, read a guys works before you 'refute him'."
Or in the case of a woman's work, "refute her," right? I guess we won't see you try to "refute" Rand until you've actually studied her, right? That's good.
Paul: "Otherwise it looks like one is prejudiced and has an a priori convistion that someone is wrong, not very scholarly."
Well, that is precisely what Bahnsen suggested that apologists do - presuppose that their opponents are wrong even before they've examined their positions. For instance, in Presuppositional Procedure, Bahnsen writes:
"The Christian can show that the particular objections raised by the unbeliever would, within the Christian outlook, not prove to be legitimate objections or intellectual problems at all.”
How could someone know that "the particular objections raised by the unbeliever" are not "legitimate objections or intellectual problems" BEFORE one knows what those objections even are? Your own words here, Paul, are quite appropriate: "prejudiced... not very scholarly."
Paul: "I mean, Aaron actually critiqued Goodman's 'New Problem of Induction' without ever reading Goodman's article, which isn't hard to find. Now, since you're 'a man and you think with your own mind' you should come down of Aaron for this."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but if you're thinking I should tell Aaron to read Goodman, you'll be disappointed. I don't think Goodman is very important. Instead, I'd suggest some works by Kelley instead, and I believe I did that in my comments to his blog on induction.
Paul: "I mean, if I had a penny for everytime you chide someone for not reading Rand I'd be a rich man."
If I had a penny for every time someone maligned Rand's position without having any firsthand familiarity with it, well, I suppose I'd be pretty wealthy myself. But none of us gains due to someone else's flawed reasoning and prejudice, so what's the point? Here's what you could do, however, Paul: take $10 or $20 and go buy a book or two by Rand and actually sit down and read it. If I have time and I think you're being genuine, I might even take a little time to help you understand what you're reading. It's a completely different universe from someone like Van Til, whose writing is so clumsy, imprecise and unclear. (Why else would Bahnsen thought it needed to be so heavily "interpreted"?)
Paul: "So, show that your a consistant 'man' who 'thinks with his own mind' instead of constantly sticking up for your fellow sheeple."
My worldview does not seek to reduce human beings to sheep, Paul. You're confusing your worldview with mine, which does seek to liken human beings to herd animals (cf. Mt. 10:6, 16, 15:24, 18:13, 25:32, 26:31; Jn 10:1-27, 21:16-17, etc.). Ever read your gospels before?
Jesus: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (Jn. 10:27)
Dawson,
Paul gave reasons in his last comment. Maybe you have problems reading. Now you'll probably come back with some genius comment that those aren't good reasons!
Dawson said, "I don't think Goodman is very important."
You are a hypocrite dawson and this says it all. I'm not even going to comment on the rest of your weak attempt to provide your boy aaron with justification.
(Hint: We don't think Rand is very important either - so why bother reading her. After all, she's a hack.)
Dawson says- "Ug, I man (beats chest), I think with brain. Rand good, others bad, ug. Study Rand or you can't critique her, ug, don't study Goodman but you can critique him, ug. I man, I contradict myself with my own mouth, ug (beats chest and runs away with club)."
Anon says: Oh, good point Dawson, I'll just let others read your own writting because you do the job of refutinmgh yourself better than anyone else does, even Postmilla Paul Manata, and that's pretty hard to do.
Anon: "Paul gave reasons in his last comment."
Reasons for what specifically? For taking Van Til seriously? Can you identify them?
Anon: "Maybe you have problems reading."
I admit that reading Paul's hackwork is not very easy for me, especially with all his misspellings and poor grammar. So if there's something I missed, kindly clarify it for me.
Anon: "Now you'll probably come back with some genius comment that those aren't good reasons!"
Well, if those reasons are never presented, how could one assess them as either good or bad?
Me: "I don't think Goodman is very important."
Anon: "You are a hypocrite dawson and this says it all. I'm not even going to comment on the rest of your weak attempt to provide your boy aaron with justification."
How does thinking that Goodman is not important make me a hypocrite? Anyway, if you have anything more than name-calling, I supposed we'd have seen it by now.
Anon: "(Hint: We don't think Rand is very important either - so why bother reading her. After all, she's a hack.)"
Well, if you don't think Rand is important, then I'd expect you to ignore her rather than continue maligning her without familiarity with her work. At any rate, if you've never studied her works firsthand (and your only familiarity with Rand's views is through secondary sources which have a confessional bias against her views because they don't incorporate belief in invisible magic beings), then how could you know that she's a "hack"? I'll consider the source.
Despite your hypocritical post, Dawson, I'll comment on the only relevant portion:
Dawson asks, after quoting Bahnsen:
How could someone know that "the particular objections raised by the unbeliever" are not "legitimate objections or intellectual problems" BEFORE one knows what those objections even are? Your own words here, Paul, are quite appropriate: "prejudiced... not very scholarly."
You need to understand the two-fold method of Bahnsen's apologetic method. So, from WITHIN OUR WORLDVIEW it is obvious that there are no objections. Presupposing our worldview is true then how could a finite, puny human object to an omnipotent, omniscient God? Obviously if our worldview is true then there can't be any arguments that stand since an ALL KNOWING God has told us He exists.
Now, when we CRITIQUE and ARGUE against others then we are doing the second method of apologetics. According to this method we NEED to study our opponents, as Bahnsen has previously written and taught on-that's why he went to a secular college to get his Ph.D., Dawson. That's why I read Martin, Smith, et al., Dawson.
So, the moral of the story is that Dawson tried to show his knowledge of Bahnsen, but only shows that he's studied just enough to make him look like an idiot, again. This will be fully exposed in my blog on Dawson's paper about presuppositionalists being divided.
Now, stop hurting yourself dawson, you've been beat down a few times in this blog. If you spend some money and read and listen to Bahnsen and tell me that you are serious about learning, I may even try and sit down with you and teach you. It may require teaching since it is real philosophy, not like Rand's laughed at philsophy.
Dawson you are joking or are stupid...
Paul said, "Otherwise it looks like one is prejudiced and has an a priori convistion that someone is wrong, not very scholarly. I mean, Aaron actually critiqued Goodman's "New Problem of Induction" without ever reading Goodman's article, which isn't hard to find. Now, since you're "a man and you think with your own mind" you should come down of Aaron for this. I mean, if I had a penny for everytime you chide someone for not reading Rand I'd be a rich man. So, show that your a consistant "man" who "thinks with his own mind" instead of constantly sticking up for your fellow sheeple."
Now I'll leave it to you to pick out the reasons. You should be able to (this is like 4th grade dawson).
Dawson said, "How does thinking that Goodman is not important make me a hypocrite? Anyway, if you have anything more than name-calling, I supposed we'd have seen it by now."
Again dawson you are either joking or are stupid. Please take things in context (reread the context your entire paragraph was in). It was in the context that you tell aaron not to even worry about him because the almighty dawson has now spoken and concluded that he is not important.
Aaron has not read him yet 'refutes' him. You don't like it when people critique Rand without understanding her yet you don't mind when your boy aaron does the same thing with Goodman (see your quote below).
Let's use your reasoning- Robbins, Ryan, Nyquist (he doesn't believe in magical beings), and a whole host of other real academics think that Rand is a quack and not important - therefore, I will not bother with her.
Dawson says, "Well, if you don't think Rand is important, then I'd expect you to ignore her rather than continue maligning her without familiarity with her work. At any rate, if you've never studied her works firsthand (and your only familiarity with Rand's views is through secondary sources which have a confessional bias against her views because they don't incorporate belief in invisible magic beings), then how could you know that she's a "hack"? I'll consider the source."
Dawson, again you are either joking or are just stupid. This is EXACTLY WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING. hint hint aaron. maybe you should tell aaron to ignore bahnsen and van til as well.
You know I used to respect you more than these other hacks on this website but you just proved that you are no better than the rest.
Dawson says, "Well, if you don't think Rand is important, then I'd expect you to ignore her rather than continue maligning her without familiarity with her work. At any rate, if you've never studied her works firsthand (and your only familiarity with Rand's views is through secondary sources which have a confessional bias against her views because they don't incorporate belief in invisible magic beings), then how could you know that she's a "hack"? I'll consider the source."
Anon said, "Dawson, again you are either joking or are just stupid. This is EXACTLY WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING. hint hint aaron. maybe you should tell aaron to ignore bahnsen and van til as well."
heck now that I think about it we should probably just shut down this entire website...
Dawson says- "Ug, I man (beats chest), I think with brain. Rand good, others bad, ug. Study Rand or you can't critique her, ug, don't study Goodman but you can critique him, ug. I man, I contradict myself with my own mouth, ug (beats chest and runs away with club)."
Paul: "Despite your hypocritical post, Dawson,"
Again, Paul, how does my statement that Goodman is not important make me a hypocrite? I think what's happening is that you've interpreted my statements as encouraging Aaron to interact with Goodman without reading him. I haven't done that. By saying Goodman is unimportant, I'm saying it's safe to ignore him completely. There's no hypocrisy in this. But Aaron is free to read Goodman if he likes, and he may even disagree with my assessment of Goodman.
Paul: "Dawson asks, after quoting Bahnsen: How could someone know that "the particular objections raised by the unbeliever" are not "legitimate objections or intellectual problems" BEFORE one knows what those objections even are? Your own words here, Paul, are quite appropriate: "prejudiced... not very scholarly."
Paul: "You need to understand the two-fold method of Bahnsen's apologetic method."
It's not hard. In a nutshell:
Step 1: Assert that his invisible magic being exists.
Step 2: Assert that he knows this by revelation from said invisible magic being.
Step 2: Assert that anyone who objects is wrong.
That's all I see him doing, and my analysis of his opening statement in his debate with Stein shows this. He just WANTS it to be true, just like you do. That's why you can't prove it, because all you have is the desire that it is true, not the knowledge that it in fact is true. But since wishing doesn't make it so, you continue with name-calling and ridicule instead of argument. Why not just acknowledge that I don't believe it, and that your attempts to persuade me otherwise have failed, and leave it at that?
Paul: "So, from WITHIN OUR WORLDVIEW it is obvious that there are no objections."
Exactly, as I said: you just PRESUPPOSE it's true and thus simply PRESUPPOSE everyone else is wrong. You don't actually know this to be the case, you just assume it, by your own admission. That's not knowing, that's wishing.
Paul: "Presupposing our worldview is true then how could a finite, puny human object to an omnipotent, omniscient God?"
Presupposing that the Lahu worldview is true, how could a finite, puny Christian apologist object to Geusha? You see, all you have is a faith, that is, the abandonment of reason. And your contempt for me is due to your anger resulting from this being exposed. We all see it, Paul, and I think you do, too, for that's why you continue to come over to an atheist web to save your face. You've not persuaded anyone that your IMB exists, and with your vicious attitude and unquenchable spite, you're not going to. You just convince everyone that you have an attitude and spite is all.
Paul: "Obviously if our worldview is true then there can't be any arguments that stand since an ALL KNOWING God has told us He exists."
Yep, as I said: Just assert you're position is right, and assert that everyone else is wrong. When you get an actual argument, come see us.
Paul: "Now, when we CRITIQUE and ARGUE against others then we are doing the second method of apologetics. According to this method we NEED to study our opponents, as Bahnsen has previously written and taught on-that's why he went to a secular college to get his Ph.D., Dawson. That's why I read Martin, Smith, et al., Dawson."
For one, it's already clear from your perspective that you don't need to study these authors in order to dismiss them, since you've already merely asserted ("presupposed") that they're wrong by virtue of their non-belief in your IMB. Second, you've demonstrated no firsthand comprehension of the positions of the thinkers you name here, so if you are in fact in the midst of studying them, I urge you to improve your study habits. Lastly, I have yet to see you present any genuine, viable ARGUMENT for or against anything, Paul. Like Bahnsen, you just assert your IMB exists, and everything else is supposed to somehow follow from this. Hey, if you want to believe that, fine. But I don't. Why does that disturb you so much?
Paul:"So, the moral of the story is that Dawson tried to show his knowledge of Bahnsen, but only shows that he's studied just enough to make him look like an idiot, again."
Actually, you've confirmed everything I said about Bahnsen. He just asserts that any objections to Christian that apologists might field in the future are automatically wrong. He doesn't "know" this (he'd have to be omniscient himself to know such things). But since he wants Christianity to be true, he thinks he can simply "presuppose" its truth, and go on from there.
Paul: "This will be fully exposed in my blog on Dawson's paper about presuppositionalists being divided."
Please, entertain us some more, Paul.
Anon: "Dawson you are joking or are stupid…"
Even if you thought I were only joking, I suppose you'd find a way to think of me as stupid anyway, so go with the latter.
In regard to giving GOOD reasons to study Van Til, Anon felt it necessary to repeat Paul's statement:
"Otherwise it looks like one is prejudiced and has an a priori convistion that someone is wrong, not very scholarly. I mean, Aaron actually critiqued Goodman's "New Problem of Induction" without ever reading Goodman's article, which isn't hard to find. Now, since you're "a man and you think with your own mind" you should come down of Aaron for this. I mean, if I had a penny for everytime you chide someone for not reading Rand I'd be a rich man. So, show that your a consistant "man" who "thinks with his own mind" instead of constantly sticking up for your fellow sheeple."
Anon then stated: "Now I'll leave it to you to pick out the reasons. You should be able to (this is like 4th grade dawson)."
I didn't see anything about Van Til there. So if you can't identify any reasons why one should specifically study Van Til, I'll assume none have been presented.
Me: "How does thinking that Goodman is not important make me a hypocrite? Anyway, if you have anything more than name-calling, I supposed we'd have seen it by now."
Anon: "Again dawson you are either joking or are stupid."
Why not think it's both?
Anon: "Please take things in context (reread the context your entire paragraph was in). It was in the context that you tell aaron not to even worry about him because the almighty dawson has now spoken and concluded that he is not important."
Indeed, I don't think Goodman is important. That's my opinion. How does that make me a hypocrite?
Anon: "Aaron has not read him yet 'refutes' him."
And that means I'm a hypocrite? How does that follow?
Anon: "You don't like it when people critique Rand without understanding her yet you don't mind when your boy aaron does the same thing with Goodman (see your quote below)."
Aaron is not my "boy," Anon. I don't have custody over him, nor am I responsible for what he does and thinks. He belongs to himself, and is free to do as he chooses.
Anon: "Let's use your reasoning- Robbins, Ryan, Nyquist (he doesn't believe in magical beings), and a whole host of other real academics think that Rand is a quack and not important - therefore, I will not bother with her."
That's fine. If you want to take the sheepish attitude and follow in line with people like Robbins and Ryan, go right ahead. I really don't care. Really, I don't. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, does it? Hypocrisy basically entails preaching one thing and yet practicing something contradictory to that preaching. You've yet to point out where I've done that. Saying that someone else has done something that I've spoken against does not make me a hypocrite.
Me: "Well, if you don't think Rand is important, then I'd expect you to ignore her rather than continue maligning her without familiarity with her work. At any rate, if you've never studied her works firsthand (and your only familiarity with Rand's views is through secondary sources which have a confessional bias against her views because they don't incorporate belief in invisible magic beings), then how could you know that she's a "hack"? I'll consider the source."
Anon: "Dawson, again you are either joking or are just stupid."
Again, I don't know why you don't just say both and get it over with.
Anon: "This is EXACTLY WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING. hint hint aaron. maybe you should tell aaron to ignore bahnsen and van til as well."
Aaron can ignore whomever he pleases. That doesn't make me a hypocrite either.
Anon: "You know I used to respect you more than these other hacks on this website but you just proved that you are no better than the rest."
I know, I’m just an evil, stupid, ignominious atheist, right? Or, as Bahnsen put it, "In actuality, this autonomous man is dull, stubborn, boorish, obstinate and stupid.” (Always Ready, p. 56.) With insults like this that the apologist can unpocket any time he finds what he calls "arguments" simply don't work, he can be "always ready" with something to fling at the atheists he hates so much.
p
Are you that stupid, Dawson.
Hewre's what you said about Rand:
"Well, if you don't think Rand is important, then I'd expect you to ignore her rather than continue maligning her without familiarity with her work. At any rate, if you've never studied her works firsthand (and your only familiarity with Rand's views is through secondary sources which have a confessional bias against her views ."
So, since Aaron critiqued Goodman WITHOUT READING HIM, was this a bad move??????? My question, which you're avoiding, is: don't you think Aaron is a hack for critiquing Goodman without reading Goodman, just like someone who critiques rand without reading rand is a hack?????
You're a man, remember. Stop sticking up for the sheep.
I call their bullshit. Scott Ryan IS a mystic and believes in magical beings. He doesn't talk about his Christianity but in his book it is quite obvious. I don't know the other morons so I can't comment, but I'm sure they are also Christian propagandists.
Franc: "I call their bullshit. Scott Ryan IS a mystic and believes in magical beings. He doesn't talk about his Christianity but in his book it is quite obvious."
If I recall correctly, Ryan is actually Jewish, not Christian, but I might be wrong. That he wants a magic being to exist is clear, however, and this seems to be his primary motivation for critiquing Rand (like so many others). Some years ago Ryan apparently got his start critiquing Rand over on the OWL list. A number of very capable Objectivists on that list, like Jetton, Chase, Dwyer, etc., interacted extensively with Ryan, showing with precision just where he erred. It was quite beauteous - like watching skilled surgeons remove a very stubborn cancer, and then Ryan, perhaps out of angst, published a book against Rand, simply repeating the mistakes he'd been corrected on (like a dog going back to his own vomit, as the OT puts it). Some boys just never learn apparently.
Franc: "I don't know the other morons so I can't comment, but I'm sure they are also Christian propagandists."
Robbins is a "Scripturalist" a la Gordon Clark (you know, the guy who says that the senses give us no knowledge of objects and other over-ripe, literal nonsense). Robbins published a book in which he tried to interact with Rand's philosophy. It's a really sorry read. Bryan Register published a sufficient interaction with Robbins' book to show how utterly ridiculous Robbins' "refutation" of Objectivism is.
It's pretty simple, folks. If you don't embrace Objectivism, you embrace subjectivism. Trying to critique Objectivism from a subjectivist standpoint is, well, pretty innane.
Franc: "I don't know the other morons so I can't comment, but I'm sure they are also Christian propagandists."
I thought you weren't going to comment, retard...
No mention as to Greg Nyquist. He was specifically listed as he's an atheist as well.. of a different denomination of course...
Dawson the almighty has thus spoken, "If I recall correctly, Ryan is actually Jewish, not Christian, but I might be wrong. That he wants a magic being to exist is clear, however, and this seems to be his primary motivation for critiquing Rand (like so many others)."
Actually you do know that Ryan's favorite philosopher is Brand Blanshard which he has stated several times in his book. you do know that Blanshard was an atheist as well don't you.. Of course you do as you are the almighty, dawson. All you have to do is say they don't matter. (have you read ryan's critique)???
Paul: "Of course you do as you are the almighty, dawson. All you have to do is say they don't matter."
That's right. They don't.
Paul: "(have you read ryan's critique)???"
I haven't bought his book (nor do I intend to), but I've read plenty of his nascent ramblings to know what he's all about. It's just more ax-grinding that is really quite unimportant to me. But, if you want to list some reasons why anyone should take Ryan seriously, you could do this at the same time you list any reasons why someone should take Van Til seriously.
Dawson said, "Paul: "Of course you do as you are the almighty, dawson. All you have to do is say they don't matter."
That's right. They don't.
Paul: "(have you read ryan's critique)???"
I haven't bought his book (nor do I intend to), but I've read plenty of his nascent ramblings to know what he's all about. It's just more ax-grinding that is really quite unimportant to me. But, if you want to list some reasons why anyone should take Ryan seriously, you could do this at the same time you list any reasons why someone should take Van Til seriously."
Dawson,
this is not paul, good try though. You know you are a real piece of work.
Who do I sound like? Unless you can give me three good reasons to take anyone seriously, then I will just dismiss them.
Paul: "this is not paul, good try though."
You're words and spite are completely indistinguishable from anything Paul Manata writes, so unless you want to quit hiding behind "anonymous" and sign on to identify yourself, I'll continue to call you Paul. Perhaps "the mind of Christ" that you and Paul supposedly share erase your personal identities and thus make you indistinguishable from each other.
Paul: "You know you are a real piece of work."
Thank you, Paul. I appreciate the compliment.
Paul: "Who do I sound like?"
Like Paul.
Paul: "Unless you can give me three good reasons to take anyone seriously, then I will just dismiss them."
I don't care what you do.
Paul: "this is not paul, good try though."
Anon says, "You're words and spite are completely indistinguishable from anything Paul Manata writes, so unless you want to quit hiding behind "anonymous" and sign on to identify yourself, I'll continue to call you Paul. Perhaps "the mind of Christ" that you and Paul supposedly share erase your personal identities and thus make you indistinguishable from each other."
Well go right ahead.. I'll take it as a compliment. However, Anonymous is my identity; some imitators try to steal it but nevermind them...
Paul: "You know you are a real piece of work."
"Thank you, Paul. I appreciate the compliment."
:) (not paul though - someone's always having to correct your mistakes) ;)
"Paul: "Who do I sound like?"
Like Paul.
Paul: "Unless you can give me three good reasons to take anyone seriously, then I will just dismiss them."
I don't care what you do."
Well then I'm sure you don't care if I post as Anonymous either as that is my name (or laugh at Rand for being a hack)... :) So I don't want to hear anymore complaining...
paul: Rand is a hack.
Dawson: Hasve you read her?
paul: yes.
dawson: but not detailed enough. just like the hindus teach that one needs a highly evolved spiritual being to help one through the vedas, you need me to help you understand rand, even though I say that reading her is not like reading van til since she makes sense, but you still need me to teach you.
paul: okay big D, she's still a hack, though.
dawson: but you haven't read her.
paul: yes I have.
dawson: no, cause if you really had you would agree with her.
paul: okay dawson, you're the man. scott ryan also says she's a hack, and he's read her.
dawson: I don't care about ryan, he's a hack.
paul: have you read ryan?
dawson: no, but i've looked at secondary sources.
paul: well then! I've read plenty of secondary sources on rand.
dawson: you can't do that with rand.
paul: oh? why not?
dawson: because i've elevated her to magical being status.
paul: you're a moron.
dawson: i know, but don't tell anyone else. i like people to believe that "I'm a man and I think with my own mind."
paul: i know you do dawson, but wishing doesn't make it so.
Paul: "wishing doesn't make it so."
Exactly right, Paul: wishing does not make it so. That's why I don't believe your god exists, by the way.
I never said, for example, that you have to read the 1000+ pages of Atlas Shrugged to be able to critique Rand or objectivism.
Besides, this whole "Aaron didnt read Goodman" thing is missing the point. You are dismissing my critique of Goodman not based on my critique itself, but merely because I hadnt read the whole paper.
Why not refute my critique directly? See, your claim of me not reading the Goodman paper begs the question by ASSUMING that my not having read it would make my critique erroneous.
But... you not shown how my not reading of Goodman actually MAKES my critique erroneous.
I read about Goodman, I read about his paper, and I read up on the basic message of it all. If my critique of Goodman is so inherently poor then it should be easily refuted directly, something which has not been done.
All you guys really are doing is CLAIMING that my critique is incorrect without DEMONSTRATING it.
And we can always turn the tables around. For example: "Paul, how can you refute the Quran without reading it? Have you read the entire Quran? If not, how can you critique Islam?"
And heres an even more fun example: "How can anyone be a Christian without reading the entire Bible?" Not many Christians on this planet have read even half of the Bible, much less all of it.
I just went 10 pages deep on a google search for Goodmans "New Problem of Induction" from 1966. I could only find papers and essays about it, but not the actual paper itself.
Aside from paying for it, I dont know where to find it. I dont want to spend money on it as Ive spent enough money on books and other publications this past month. But everything I did read from the various university and philosophy websites agrees with what was cited in the wikipedia link.
So from now on, stop telling me that my "grue" critique was invalid. Instead show me, demonstrate to me, directly, why my "grue" critique is wrong.
Greetings from a Singapore Atheist
Judging by the number of comments on your blogger, mine is gonna end right at the bottom of the pile....so here goes.
First of all, congratulations for the success of your blogger. To be able to see atheism flourish is gratifying.
Myself, I am from Singapore, and have recently set up a forum to reach out to closet atheists in Singapore and also beyond our shores.
Anyway, its been a pleasure. You can visit me at www.cyclops686.blogspot.com. My latest rant is on abortion issues.
Regards
The Beast
Hi there,
I appreciate the quality of your writing and posts. However, I just want to remind you that not ALL "Christians" have blind faith that the Bible is literally the Word of God. Many folks are progressive Christians who have a much more sophisticated way of looking at things. I consider myself to be a progressive Christian, a Unitarian Universalist Christian with Quaker leanings. I, for one, do not think that ANYONE is damned -- whether or not they have "blind faith".
Again, I appreciate your interesting blog.
Outstanding ... thank you.
Wow. what a thoroughly unpleasant person this Manata is. I'm almost feeling compassion for him.
And yes, it's ad hominem. On purpose. I feel no need to add any argument for and againt, because Aaron did well on his own.
Almost forgot:
Why on earth would one of these "not all christians" christians worship a man yet disagree with his teachings?
Sounds a tad...hypocritical, no?
This is kind of delicate issues to talk about.
I love to hear other one's opinion, but I also like to be respected by people no matter what I believe in or not.
Giving respect to people is like giving them the chance to get some Generic Viagra is the want it
Thanks a lot for respecting my comment
<< Home