Advertisements

Atheists: There are No “Heavyweights” of Theology

I’ve seen an interesting claim several times recently by different atheist bloggers. It’s been stated a few different ways. Let me illustrate. First, John W. Loftus:

In my opinion there are no heavy weights for Christianity just as there are no heavy weights for Scientology or Islam or Orthodox Judaism or Hinduism. It’s all improbable to the core and I see no reason why one religious myth’s scholar is any better than another. (source)

I see it in this post from Ray Garton, as well:

I’ve got news for you.  We’re all experts on religion to one degree or another, every last one of us.  Religion is not like, say, heart surgery or entomology or aviation.  Sure, there are people who spend years in school studying theology and the bible, years in seminaries becoming clergymen.  But there are also people who wake up one morning and decide to start their very own religion, and then do it.  You, if you so desired, could go online and, for a small fee (small compared to the tuition that would be required to get a degree in anything), become an ordained minister, start a church and – presto-chango! – become a tax-free religion (yes, it really is that easy).

In any field of endeavor in which you are free to make it up as you go along, the word “expert” has little or no meaning.

In this video, Angie Jackson (aka Angie the Anti-Theist) also makes the claim (2:02-3:13). When criticized for not taking on better theistic arguments, she responds by saying that theism is self-evident nonsense no matter who she takes on. Therefore, she doesn’t need to seek out any better arguments because she can defeat all of them easily.

The underlying idea is that all we, as theologians, are doing is making this stuff up as we go along. That presupposes many, many things. First, it presupposes that they are absolutely correct and there is no God. From that, it it goes on to posit that there is no revelation, since no one is beyond this world to reveal it. And finally, it concludes that rigorous and lifelong study of the Scriptures yields no useful knowledge, no matter whose mind takes on the task.

The first proposition shows an incredible arrogance. To suppose, from material investigation only, that the immaterial doesn’t (or can’t) exist isn’t being fair-minded at all.

The second proposition, building from the first, concludes that there is no divine revelation due to the fact that there is no divine. The Scriptures are nothing but the scribbling of ignorant Bronze Age herdsmen. This proposition is accepted based on the erroneous conclusion that there is no God. God can be deduced from science, but not proven by science. If there is no reason to accept the first proposition, then the second proposition is also nonsense because special revelation is the only way to understand God’s character. It’s impossible to know the full character of God from general revelation only.

A written Scripture, in that framework, makes sense.

The third proposition is a negative consequence of scientism, which is the philosophy that only science can yield truth, and therefore knowledge gleaned by science is the only valid knowledge we can possess. (This notion has been linked to positivism, and they both can be refuted by the simple fact that, while they both require empirical evidence to prove everything, there is no empirical evidence to prove either of these propositions.) This rules out almost all of classicism, and philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle–anything that isn’t science isn’t knowledge.

By that standard, what I do (philosophy with some theology) is bunk to these people. Philosophy can’t be proven by science, though I would argue that science can suggest the truth or falsity of certain philosophies. Some people who subscribe to scientism go so far as to say that nothing learned before the Age of Enlightenment is worthwhile anymore.

This just isn’t so. The classical philosophers have much to offer us.

But, here’s the real problem. Assuming that these guys are wrong, and there really is a God who sits in judgment, who do you want teaching you his Word? L. Ron Hubbard, who (by all accounts) wholesale made up Scientology, or a godly Christian pastor, who has studied the revealed Word of God his whole life?

Before you make your choice, think about this. The soul, the part of you that is you, that is your essence, your being, is eternal. The beginning of anything sets the trajectory for how that “anything” plays out. This life, the beginning of your eternal existence, is going to set the trajectory of your eternity.

Philosopher Peter Kreeft used geometry as an illustration. Planar geometry represents this life, while adding a third dimension represents eternity. A planar shape, such a square, magnified into eternity, can only ever be a cube. Same with your life. In eternity, your “shape” is determined by the foundation you laid in this life. You can’t get around that.

Eternity is a long time. I want the guy who studied his stuff to teach me about God.

Advertisements

About Cory Tucholski

I'm a born-again Christian, amateur apologist and philosopher, father of 3. Want to know more? Check the "About" page!

Posted on July 5, 2010, in Apologetics, Theology and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 20 Comments.

  1. One can believe that a god is possible and still say that the Bible is a mythical book and that the God of Christianity does not exist.

    Christianity rests on the Bible. If the Bible is not what Christians say it is then the foundation collapses and the house built on it does too.

    If the Bible is nothing more than just another book one can rightly dismiss the god it presents as a mythical being just like the greek gods.

    I do not believe in the Christian God nor do I believe the Bible is a divine book. That said, I am quite qualified to teach the Bible if a Church is interested in having me. 🙂 I studied it for 33 years. I know the book. I am not a person who became an agnostic in my younger years. I came to this after many, many years in the ministry.

    I will gladly teach you about eternity. 🙂

  2. HOW CAN YOU TEACH WHAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE OR HAVE?, IT SOUNDS AS IF AT ONE POINT YOU STOPPED BELIEVING, THE BIBLES PROPHETIC SCRIPTURES ARE NOT LIKE ANY-OTHER BOOK, EVERY WORD IN THAT BOOK FROM BEGINNING TO END, HAVE AND ARE FULFILLING ITSELF… EVEN YOU!,YOU ARE PROOF THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE, THE EU ( THE EUROPEAN UNION ),THE OLD HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, THAT IS RETURNING IS PROOF, THE TIME OF THE RISING OF THE INTELLECTUAL MIND, THE TALK OF WAR (NOT BATTLES), BELIEVERS TURNING FROM THE FAITH GIVING IN TO FALSE DOCTRINE, NATURAL DISASTERS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE IN SEVERAL PLACES AT ONCE, EVEN CLOSE TO EACH OTHER….YOU HAVE PLENTY OF PROOF WHATS STOPPING YOU?, NO WORLD COULD EXIST IN CHAOS, IT WOULD TARE ITSELF APART, YOU NOTICE EVERYTHING HAS A CYCLE, THATS ORDER NOT CHAOS. LOOK TO YOUR OWN BODY HOW WORKS AND REPAIRS ITSELF, ORDER!, NO WE DID NOT COME FROM MONKEYS, 0 EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND THAT HASN’T BEEN FABRICATED BY MAN, ORDER!,I AM YOUR EVIDENCE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE, LOOK THIS USA WAS FOUNDED ON GOD THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, IT WAS TOLD TO US THEN THAT IF WE WERE TO STOP BELIEVING WE WOULD FALL INTO CHAOS AND BLINDED BY SIN, SINCE TAKING PRAYER OUT OF SCHOOL AND DOING ALL BUT STOPPING US FROM WORSHIP, LET ME ASK YOU, HOW ARE WE DOING THESE DAYS?, PROOF!, ORDER!, YOU CAN’T TEACH AND NOT BELIEVE, A HOUSE DIVIDE CAN NOT STAND!, COME HOME

  3. Cory, you are arguing with yourself, not the people you are demonizing. Your three “propositions” are your own concoction. You cannot attribute them to nonbelievers. You are making the same mistake ALL believers make when discussing nonbelievers — you are assuming we are all a group of like-minded people. Not true. Atheism is not a club, it’s not a religion, it’s not an organization. The word “atheist” says only one very specific thing about a person: That the person does not believe in god or gods. It says absolutely nothing else. Nonbelievers come from every walk of life, every economic level, they are of all ages, and represent a vast and varied landscape of political views, philosophies and personal experience. They all approach their nonbelief in different ways, and they don’t believe for a wide variety of reasons. Many started out as believers, many did not. This is not a “group” in the organized, like-minded sense.

    Christians, on the other hand, share the same core belief, they share the same guidebook for their belief, they CLAIM to adhere to the same rules, and none of that ever changes. Christians themselves maintain that god and the bible never ever change. They remain static (unless you count the fact that they DO change — Christian attitudes toward slavery and segregation, which it once vehemently supported, have changed, for example). Christianity IS a “group” in the organized, like-minded sense. And that group even shares political views — it has become SO politically active that sometimes it’s difficult to tell if it’s a religion or a political party. Despite the wildly different teachings within Christianity (you folks can’t seem to agree on much beyond the god you worship), summarizing Christians as a group is not really generalizing. One only needs to state their own definition of themselves. And if one does not believe in the things that Christians believe in, then yes, it’s all made up, concocted by men thousands of years ago who understood little about the world in which they lived and needed to make stuff up to explain it.

    YOU are showing “incredible arrogance” in your attempt to define the thoughts and attitudes of people who have only one thing in common — that they do not believe in your god (or any god). You are attempting to sum up nonbelievers as if they shared the commonality that is shared by Christians. This gets old — the idea that we are like you, that atheism is a religion, that evolution is faith, that we, too, are believers who simply believe in something different. It’s been going on for a long time, and it’s the reason why so many nonbelievers are now speaking out, some quite loudly. We’re tired of it. You keep trying to turn us into YOU. We aren’t you. You cannot say one thing is true about all nonbelievers. Well, actually, you CAN, but in doing so, you are revealing your ignorance about human beings outside your circle of belief. It’s quite … sad.

    Christians have been extremely outspoken for a long, long time now on … well, on everything. In one way or another, they condemn everyone who is … well, not them. Nonbelievers have quietly tolerated this for a long, long time. Now nonbelievers are speaking up and talking back. As a result, Christians frantically try to define us, label us, and make up reasons why we are so awful. And frankly, it looks sillier than hell. You’re pulling your hair and shouting proclamations about something you clearly do not understand — but, then, what else is new? You might take a few notes from nonbelievers over the years who have quietly, tolerantly let you rant and condemn everyone in sight. You might learn something from the example that we, until recently, have set. You might just want to go about your business and do what you do … and stop embarrassing yourselves.

    • Never has so much communicated so little.

      In the first paragraph, you explain why believers shouldn’t lump atheists into a single category. In the second paragraph, you explain why it’s okay for atheists to do that with believers. That is special pleading. It is an error in logic, and it seriously impugns whatever credibility that you may have.

      Built upon a logical fallacy, the rest of the argument doesn’t come out good.

      As a Christian, I am commanded by God to be salt and light for the world. So, sitting silently while nonbelievers launch ill-conceived assaults on us (The God Delusion, God is Not Great, et. al.) isn’t an option. I am commanded to give a reason for the hope that is within me, and that is what I am doing with this blog. It is my business, therefore, to not be silent and not accept the onslaught of unbelievers.

  4. Enoch Sherman

    You make a common error and turn logic on its head by starting with the presumption that there is a god suggesting that it cannot be disproved. It is not for atheism or science to prove that there is no god. It is for those who hypothesize the existence of an immaterial being that somehow communicates with and affects the material, and expect others to believe their hypothesis, to show reliable evidence that supports it. All atheists are saying is that no one has shown that evidence.

    Anyone can claim to deduce anything they want (soul. angels, devils, heaven, hell, etc.) but if I tell you that I have deduced that there are fairies under the garden, you would be right to want to be able to examine the evidence to support it. And it would not be sufficient that I or any number of people over any period of time believe it to be so. In fact many people over the ages have written much about fairies (and many other fantastical creatures). I could quote from all those writings to support my belief in the fairies under the garden and it would carry no weight with you without the presentation of irrefutable evidence. It is only that evidence for which atheists are asking.

    • Unfortunately for you, I have previously asked atheists what sort of evidence they would like me to present for God. That question is met with a deafening SILENCE.

      Anecdotal evidence (such as a personal testimony) doesn’t count as evidence because of the subjective nature of the anecdotes being presented.

      Philosophical arguments don’t count because philosophy isn’t true knowledge, only that which is verifiable by modern science can offer us true knowledge.

      The design of nature doesn’t count as evidence because nature “clearly” isn’t designed.

      Bible prophecy doesn’t count because it’s too vague and the evangelists who wrote the gospels took most of the prophecies out of context anyway.

      Miracles don’t count as evidence because miracles are violations of the natural laws, which are inviolate by nature, therefore miracles cannot occur by definition.

      Jesus’ proclamations don’t count because there is no evidence that he actually existed.

      So, in other words, to sum up the atheist position: “If we deny, distort, or ignore all the evidence for God, what evidence is there?”

  5. It is very difficult to be a “heavyweight” in theology. There is so much mythology, misogyny, racism, sexism, cruel and unusual punishment, mixed messages, and down right nonsense within the bible, that the only people you can address that will sit through your oratory would be those whose minds are so fearful of death that they would believe ANYTHING that gave them hope to the escape the grave.

    • Do work really hard at in-the-box-atheist-groupthink, or does it just come naturally?

      • Enoch Sherman

        Logical reasoning does indeed come naturally. It’s too bad that instead of using it to respond to the actual content of a message, you rely on playground-level name calling to try to bully the poster.

        This kind of response and some others above have convinced me that this is not a blog where reasoned discussion is welcomed, and I am now taking it off my bookmarks.

      • This kind of response and some others above have convinced me that this is not a blog where reasoned discussion is welcomed, and I am now taking it off my bookmarks.

        You are wrong. I do welcome reasoned discussion. As it happened, Ms. Leonard’s comment was an atheist argument template, and I (along with many others) have responded to all of the charges before: allegations of mythology, misogyny, racism, sexism, cruel and unusual punishment, mixed messages, and so-called “nonsense.” Like Mr. Garton’s “Christians cherry-pick the Bible” argument, it just gets tiring to refute an argument and then have it thrown back at you as if you have said nothing.

        It irritates me enough, that I tend to make fun of the people who keep using refuted arguments. I do try to refrain, but it is extremely difficult and sometimes the temptation is just too much (like in this case).

  6. “The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion.”

    – Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

  7. Enoch Sherman

    Cory,
    Since you would like to include anecdotes, philosophical conclusions, circular reasoning (the bible is true so what it says about itself is true and it says it is the truth so what it says it true), more anecdotes (miracles), quotes from fiction, etc., in your “evidence” for god, then you must believe my hypothesis that there are fairies under the garden, since I can provide much of the above “evidence” to support it.

    If, on the other hand you insist on evidence that is observable by many people who will all agree on what they observed, then we can begin a discussion about whether that evidence points to the supernatural existence of fairies under the garden, or that there is another explanation for the evidence that doesn’t rely on the supernatural.

    • Since you would like to include anecdotes, philosophical conclusions, circular reasoning (the bible is true so what it says about itself is true and it says it is the truth so what it says it true), more anecdotes (miracles), quotes from fiction, etc., in your “evidence” for god, then you must believe my hypothesis that there are fairies under the garden, since I can provide much of the above “evidence” to support it.

      What sort of anecdotes, philosophical arguments, or miracles have been attributed to the fairies under the garden?

      The Bible is a viable historical document. It isn’t 100% perfect, but neither is any ancient document purporting to be history. Sweepingly dismissing it as fiction isn’t handling it fairly.

      Personal testimony can be convincing ins some instances. You are making the mistake the philosophy can never count as true knowledge by dismissing philosophical arguments for God’s existence. If treated fairly, then the Bible can provide persuasive evidence for Jesus, and you have to do something with Jesus’ claims. He’s the only purported Messiah who arose from the dead and had the story persist for 2000 years, despite the efforts of many (both ancient and modern) to debunk this claim.

      So, no, I don’t have to believe your claim about fairies. It doesn’t have the same credibility, whether you assert that it does or not.

      If, on the other hand you insist on evidence that is observable by many people who will all agree on what they observed, then we can begin a discussion about whether that evidence points to the supernatural existence of fairies under the garden, or that there is another explanation for the evidence that doesn’t rely on the supernatural.

      Now we’re getting somewhere. Consider:

      For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Cor 15:3-8, emphasis added)

      This is believed by scholars to be an early Christian creed, datable to within 5 years of the Resurrection. What it states is that, despite claims made to the contrary, the apostles weren’t the only witnesses to the Resurrection. This creed puts the number of witnesses at over 500. You have 500 people who witnessed Jesus’ post-Resurrection appearances making the claims around Jerusalem. In so doing, they risk their jobs, families, ability to buy and sell in the marketplace, and their lives to tell this “fictional” story. Why would that many people risk so much if they saw nothing, or could have explained what they saw as a group hallucination?

      So, this is an example, like the one you bring up, that many people saw something and all agree on what they saw. This is good evidence.

  8. Cory wrote: In the first paragraph, you explain why believers shouldn’t lump atheists into a single category. In the second paragraph, you explain why it’s okay for atheists to do that with believers.

    First of all, you need to respond to what I write rather that RESTATING what I write and responding to THAT. I was very clear in my first paragraph. The word “atheist” describes one single solitary aspect of a person’s life — that he/she does not believe in god or gods. The word “Christian” applies to a person’s entire life. It informs every aspect of their thinking and behavior. That is what I said. Now, if you’d care to respond to THAT, fine, but please don’t rewrite it and then respond to your distortion. If Christians are such unique individuals, then why do they always say and do the EXACT SAME THINGS in discussions with nonbelievers? The first thing they do — ALWAYS!

    • First of all, you need to respond to what I write rather that RESTATING what I write and responding to THAT.

      It is preferable in academic writing to paraphrase rather than to directly quote a person’s argument. This is because it is still necessary for the author to restate the substance of the quote in order to explain its relevance, so it is far more expedient to paraphrase. Direct quotes should be used sparingly.

      If Christians are such unique individuals, then why do they always say and do the EXACT SAME THINGS in discussions with nonbelievers? The first thing they do — ALWAYS!

      “If [atheists] are such unique individuals, then why do they always say and do the EXACT SAME THINGS in discussions with [believers]?” Elsewhere on this blog, you have used the long-refuted “Christians cherry-pick the Bible” argument. You also state, as the majority of atheists have in the past, that you are very familiar with Christian beliefs and that you know the Bible better than the average Christian. Yet, you have absolutely no understanding of law and grace and how to apply it to Christian living. You are desperately trying to show me that atheists aren’t simple caricatures to be stuffed into a single mold, but in so doing, you are becoming the very caricature that you’re fighting. Didn’t Alanis Morrisette write a song about that? What was it called?

  9. I apologize for the abrupt end to my post above. I’m working on a new keyboard and I’m not familiar with it yet.

    The first thing they do — ALWAYS! — is to RESTATE what the nonbeliever is saying and then reply to that restatement. Please, Cory, do me the courtesy of responding directly to what I write. Of course, instead of responding to what I write, you respond as if I’m taking an exam in a debate class. This is an infantile evasion disguised as debate. There was nothing fallacious in my first paragraph.

    Cory wrote: As a Christian, I am commanded by God to be salt and light for the world.

    You are also commanded to kill adulterers, homosexuals, witches, sabbath-breakers, nonbelievers (as well as everyone in the town from which the nonbeliever comes) and disobedient children. Do you do all of those things, too? You are commanded to avoid eating pork and seafood. Do you do that?

    Cory wrote: I am commanded to give a reason for the hope that is within me, and that is what I am doing with this blog.

    Then you’re not doing what god tells you. You’re not giving a reason for the hope that’s in you. Don’t kid a kidder, Cory. This blog is devoted to picking apart atheists and nothing more. If you can’t even be honest about what you’re doing, how do you expect me to take anything else you say seriously?

    • Wow. I see no anger in any of my posts or replies. Maybe you’re the one who’s projecting?

      Cory wrote: You run a blog called God is for Suckers.

      No, I do not. That blog has been around for years. Earlier this year, I was asked to contribute to it. I have absolutely nothing to do with the administration of that blog. I agreed to contribute, although I did not care much for the name of the blog. I have been involved in the changing of that name. The blog has moved and is now ATHEIST OASIS: A REFUGE OF REASON. I strongly suggest, Cory, that you do a little research into the topic you’re discussing. Ultimately, it’s much less embarrassing.

      Sorry. Sometimes I get carried away.

      Cory wrote: I offer personal testimony only for the edification of other believers, and I do not share the transformations God has enacted in my life with people like you (see Mt 7:6).

      Ah, yes, there’s some of that Christian love to which I’ve become so accustomed. Naked arrogance is inherent in all religion, and Christianity is no exception. Use a phrase like “people like you” in conversation with a Christian and they go through the roof. But they feel perfectly comfortable talking to nonbelievers like that because they believe themselves to be imbued with a superiority that allows it.

      You’ll have to excuse me, but I don’t recognize the bible as any kind of authority on anything, so quoting it to me or referring me to it is yet another evasion. If you can’t have a discussion without doing that, then you can’t expect to be taken seriously by anyone who doesn’t recognize it. I have conversations with people, not a book.

      I stand behind what I said. You are the ONLY atheist I have ever encountered who has asked me for a personal testimony. I explained why I don’t use that technique, and you (again) got angry. Ironic, since you rant about believers getting angry about the same thing.

      I’m sure that you don’t take the Bible as an authority. I do, however, and quoting it is how I support my methodology. So you’re going to have to live with the Bible quotes.

      Cory wrote: I take that command seriously,

      That one, yes. Not so much all the others. The bible as smorgasboard. I’ve often thought the bible should be equipped with a sneeze guard, like the salad bar it is.

      Typical atheist drivel, which I’ve responded to numerous times in the past. Too many apologists, philosophers, and theologians, all more decorated academically than I have also responded to this crap. It’s tiring, annoying, and its hard to do without being extremely sarcastic since I’ve done it many times in many places.

      Cory wrote: then you have no understanding of Calvinism. Or Christian theology in general, for that matter.

      Don’t make the mistake — as so many Christians do — of assuming I have no understanding of your beliefs. I’m very familiar with Calvinism and deeply, intimately familiar with Christianity. I also know the Holy Horror Novel better than the great majority of Christians I encounter. Just as I’m familiar with the slippery argument techniques they use — it’s like trying to play golf with a live eel as a club.

      Good for you. I’m happy that you think you know my beliefs. So far, you haven’t demonstrated that you have. For example, you just used the “Christians cherry-pick the Bible” argument. If you knew Christian belief as well as you claim, then you would understand why certain precepts of a specifically Jewish nature aren’t practiced anymore. You’d also understand that the penalties prescribed in the Mosaic Law are not enforceable by Christians, and you’d know why that was the case. If you actually know all of this, then you’re ignoring much Christian theology on purpose, and that means you’re willfully ignorant and therefore not worthy of my time.

      The first thing they do — ALWAYS! — is to RESTATE what the nonbeliever is saying and then reply to that restatement. Please, Cory, do me the courtesy of responding directly to what I write.

      Holy crap, you are completely ridiculous! In general, it is preferable to paraphrase a person’s argument rather than to directly quote them. Most academic writing STILL REQUIRES THE AUTHOR TO RESTATE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE QUOTE IN HIS OWN WORDS. It is far more expedient to paraphrase.

      Cory wrote: As a Christian, I am commanded by God to be salt and light for the world.

      You are also commanded to kill adulterers, homosexuals, witches, sabbath-breakers, nonbelievers (as well as everyone in the town from which the nonbeliever comes) and disobedient children. Do you do all of those things, too? You are commanded to avoid eating pork and seafood. Do you do that?

      There you go again. This is pathetic. Why am I still responding to you?

      Cory wrote: I am commanded to give a reason for the hope that is within me, and that is what I am doing with this blog.

      Then you’re not doing what god tells you. You’re not giving a reason for the hope that’s in you. Don’t kid a kidder, Cory. This blog is devoted to picking apart atheists and nothing more. If you can’t even be honest about what you’re doing, how do you expect me to take anything else you say seriously?

      I’ve already explained why I’m not using personal testimony, and what I think personal testimony is rightly used for. I’ve also given numerous recent examples of posts not related to atheism: either worldview issues or heresy issues. My current e-book projects are related to Calvinism, not atheism. Atheism is the bulk of what I do, but it isn’t all I do.

      You obviously haven’t read my previous work on subjects like law and grace, which present a serious challenge to your argument that I’m cherry-picking my beliefs from the Bible. And you ignore much of what I tell you that’s contrary to what you’re trying to accuse me of. Confirmation bias, anyone? So, why should I believe anything you say?

  10. Cory wrote: It is preferable in academic writing to paraphrase rather than to directly quote a person’s argument.

    Ah, so you think this is academic writing. I’m beginning to see the problem: You’re completely delusional. I don’t need to be paraphrased — and by the way, you’re not paraphrasing, you are RESTATING. There’s a difference. Clarity in writing is not a problem I’ve ever had. The problem here is that you cannot argue with what I say, so you have to argue with what YOU say I say, which, of course, is completely different than what I say. It’s a tired old trick favored by people who don’t have a leg to stand on in an argument.

    Cory wrote: Sometimes I get carried away.

    No, son, you don’t. You don’t have anything with which TO get carried away. What you’re doing here on this website is yammering. Gibbering. Micturating into the gales. The only thing you’ve made clear is that you are a waste of my time. I will leave you to the activity you list on your Facebook page: “writing books.” Good luck. Judging by what I’ve read here, you’ll need it.

    • What is so ironic about you saying that I don’t properly respond to your arguments is the fact that you are attacking a strawman Christianity that doesn’t exist, combined with the fact that you have not (nor will you ever) properly respond to law and grace as it pertains to the Christian life. I have actually pointed out flaws in your arguments and your reasoning. Rather than respond to that, or at the very least substantiate the charge that I didn’t respond to the actual argument that you made, you have made fun of me and called me delusional.

      Well, if you pop back, maybe we can have a better conversation. If you don’t come back, I’m not going to lose sleep.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: