Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Mikeenders]

before you start making accusations Matthew perhaps you should read better

I can't speak to Stein's objection but there is something off with Ferguson making snide remarks about posts here (and elsewhere about everyone at theologyweb) and then you essentially posting them here for him. What Ferguson does on his own blog is fine but if he is not going to engage the discussion here then we don't need his thoughts on the discussion here either. There should be no poster posting in absentia.

I accused Gary of posting it here. If the "for him" is what has you confused yes people can do things for other people without their permission and I never claimed he had your permission . if in absentia has you confused then consult a dictionary - awareness is not a necessary condition.. Since you wish to be accusatory let me be clear - I respect your request now that you have made it but lest you are confused about that acceptance of your request - you are owed no apology because no one outside of Gary has done anything wrong. You have the unfortunate character flaw that you think you can write all kinds of incendiary things about your opponents but get your feathers ruffled if they respond with analysis you do not find pleasing.

So Again no one has to consult you to review your blog posts as to what your actual position is. Its your obligation as a writer to be sufficiently competent in expressing what the position is . Its good form to allow you to respond to a review (or a rebuttal to you writings) but it is not a condition for a review of your blog, you or anything you publish on any forum, blog or social account. Posters should not post as you copying and pasting as I stated but had Gary quoted a snippet of you blog post or comment and then built a post on it - any and everyone here would have full moral and logical rights to respond to it , anaylyze your blog and assess your authority.

Those are the facts of life when it comes to blogging.

[mwferguson]

before you start making accusations Matthew perhaps you should read better



I accused Gary of posting it here. If the "for him" is what has you confused yes people can do things for other people without their permission and I never claimed he had your permission . if in absentia has you confused then consult a dictionary. Since you wish to be accusatory let me be clear - I respect your request now that you have made it but lest you are confused about that acceptance of your request - you are owed no apology because no one outside of Gary has done anything wrong. You have the unfortunate character flaw that you think you can write all kinds of incendiary things about your opponents but get your feathers ruffled if they respond with analysis you do not find pleasing.

So Again no one has to consult you to review your blog posts. Its good form to allow you to respond to a review but it is not a condition for a review of your blog, you or anything you publish on any forum, blog or social account. Posters should not post as you copying and pasting as I stated but had Gary quoted a snippet of you blog post or comment and then built a post on it - any and everyone here would have full moral and logical rights to respond to it , anaylyze your blog and assess your authority.

Those are the facts of life when it comes to blogging.

I made no conditions and asked for no apologies. I clarified the context of my comment reply to Gary and my lack of interest in getting involved here. I also only asked that people contact me, if they wish to clarify and learn my actual positions. I can't control if they misrepresent me, but can only correct it when it occurs, which was my only intent when I first responded to Gary.

I think it is fair that you have been more polemical in your tone to me in the discussion above than I have been to you (with snide remarks about my "character flaws," etc.). As such, I am losing interest in talking to you. Peace.

[Mikeenders]

I made no conditions and asked for no apologies. I clarified the context of my comment reply to Gary and my lack of interest in getting involved here. I also only asked that people contact me, if they wish to clarify my actual position. I can't control if they misrepresent me,

Thats precisely the point Matthew. People who respond to what you write are not misrepresenting you. that in itself is an attempt to character assassinate on your part. You can clarify your position because it was incomplete on your part or not as coherent as you would wish without them misrepresenting you. Again in the real adult world you cannot claim that someone responding to your writings or arguments needs to first contact you for clarification before they can respond or else be misrepresenting you. Everyday books, article and blog posts are reviewed where the reviewer has not contacted or been able to contact the author. Now once the review is out there then its fair and decent to allow you to clarify but this level of control you wish to exert of always being contacted first whereas you speak of apologists regularly without contacting them has no moral nor ethical force. If so should I now not take exception that you have decided to post on your blog an accusation that anyone here stated you were behind posting in absentia. Why didn't you PM me to clarify first?

I think it is fair that you have been more polemical in your tone to me in the discussion above than I have been to you (with snide remarks about my "character flaws," etc.).

Classic example. You just had to come back to post that I had made an accusation I never made but ignore your own attack to lecture on polemics. I think it fair to sat that none of us can live in isolation of what we have written elsewhere. You've been extremely derisive about TW posters on some of your blog comments and your polemic tone against "apologists" (aka anyone who believes the NT and finds it rational to maintain such )is all over your blog so lets not play disingenuous games. You regularly bemoan the character of apologist but have the duplicity to be upset over me mentioning a character flaw of you not being able to take the same?

As such, I am losing interest in talking to you.

Perhaps or given your recent habit of deleting comments on your blog of bloggers that dissent from your views you don't like the freedom people have in forums.

[psstein]

You are all delusional.

Although I may not have convinced any of you of the falseness of your supernatural belief system, I hope that someone who has or will happen onto this thread will read a little of what I have said and a light will go on in his or her brain with the following result: "Hey. My belief system isn't real. The assertions of its reality is only based on hearsay and conjecture. I am free of the fear of invisible ghost gods and devils!"

DRINK! This is like reading a poor mix of Hitchens' and Dawkins' tirades.

Anyone ever think the "irrational" and "deluded" argument is just projection?

[Christianbookworm]

DRINK! This is like reading a poor mix of Hitchens' and Dawkins' tirades.

Anyone ever think the "irrational" and "deluded" argument is just projection?

Yep. The fundy atheists were irrational fundy "Christians" once.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Indeed. This reminds me of John Loftus who goes on and on about people being brainwashed.

[Mikeenders]

DRINK! This is like reading a poor mix of Hitchens' and Dawkins' tirades.

Anyone ever think the "irrational" and "deluded" argument is just projection?

NO I think its rank intellectual laziness as is putting labels up such as "apologist". Its an excuse to not have to engage counter logic and facts and as relates to skeptics and atheists also a way for them to tickle their fancy that they are intellectually superior because they adhere to a minority view and the poor uneducated souls that are not privy to their brilliance are still trapped in mental illness. so in other words a blend of

Utter laziness and pathetic arrogance.

But perhaps one day I will tell you how I really feel about it

[tabibito]

NO I think its rank intellectual laziness as is putting labels up such as "apologist". Its an excuse to not have to engage counter logic and facts and as relates to skeptics and atheists also a way for them to tickle their fancy that they are intellectually superior because they adhere to a minority view and the poor uneducated souls that are not privy to their brilliance are still trapped in mental illness. so in other words a blend of

Utter laziness and pathetic arrogance.

An "apologist" is one who indulges in intellectual laziness instead of going to all the trouble of spending a bit of time analysing the texts to see what they actually do say for themselves, instead of seizing on the first likely explanation (however outlandish) that comes to mind. That kind of thing really is utter laziness and pathetic arrogance. And worse, the embarrassment it causes Christianity makes evangelical efforts all the more difficult.

[37818]

Yep. The fundy atheists were irrational fundy "Christians" once.

". . . They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. . . ." -- 1 John 2:19.

[tabibito]

". . . They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. . . ." -- 1 John 2:19.

Ah - I've been looking for that one for a few days now.

[Mikeenders]

An "apologist" is one who indulges in intellectual laziness instead of going to all the trouble of spending a bit of time analysing the texts to see what they actually do say for themselves, instead of seizing on the first likely explanation (however outlandish) that comes to mind. That kind of thing really is utter laziness and pathetic arrogance. And worse, the embarrassment it causes Christianity makes evangelical efforts all the more difficult.

Not quite sure if you are serious. I'd define that as a bad apologist (or a televangelist) not an apologist

[tabibito]

Not quite sure if you are serious. I'd define that as a bad apologist not an apologist

Apologist by way of contrast with "apologist".

[Mikeenders]

Apologist by way of contrast with "apologist".

Ahh. I get you now. On a side note I've thought for awhile it was time to ditch the whole apologetics translation. The connotations of the word "apology" over the years has changed too much.

[tabibito]

Ahh. I get you now. On a side note I've thought for awhile it was time to ditch the whole apologetics translation. The connotations of the word "apology" over the years has changed too much.

Agreed, but its sort of traditional - and what could be used to replace it? Expositorics?

[Gary]

My dear friends on Theology Web,

I miss you guys.

I really do. I am experiencing an intense grief reaction since our discussions here ended. However, I feel I have long ago worn out my welcome on this Christian forum, therefore, I will not be posting further comments here on TW. However, I would very much enjoy further discussions with you on issues regarding the supernatural claims of the Bible, in particular the alleged Resurrection of Jesus, on my blog, Escaping Christian Fundamentalism, web address:

• Edited by a Moderator •

Take care! Hope to hear from some of you, especially Stein!