On being a current apologist: A response to Randy Hardman

[KingsGambit]

It always has to be about evolution, doesn't it? To be fair, Hardman emphasized it in the blog series Nick is responding to. I simply never had a problem reconciling the two; my brain may be wired uniquely.

[whag]

In other words, you actually had no point of any relevance or worth to this discussion. Thank you.

It's relevant that Enns is one of the few apologists who pushes back on creationism. As a result, Christians attack him for not repeating the same lame talking points.

Besides, the man Enns didn't repeat the talking points to had Holy Spirit epistemology, so he couldn't be as in danger as King's Gambit seems to think he was.

[KingsGambit]

It's relevant that Enns is one of the few apologists who pushes back on creationism. As a result, Christians attack him for not repeating the same lame talking points.

Enns isn't an apologist, he's an academic (and there is no shortage of Christian academics who do push back on creationism).

[whag]

It always has to be about evolution, doesn't it? To be fair, Hardman emphasized it in the blog series Nick is responding to. I simply never had a problem reconciling the two; my brain may be wired uniquely.

No, my point is that you're lamenting Enns effect on that man, making way too much of his silence on the talking points. It's clear from his blog that he's a Christian, and here you are saying he should probably have been drowned by millstone. That was the verse up we're referring to, yes?

[KingsGambit]

No, my point is that you're lamenting Enns effect on that man, making way too much of his silence on the talking points. It's clear from his blog that he's a Christian, and here you are saying he should probably have been drowned by millstone. That was the verse up we're referring to, yes?

Um, no, I'm not saying Enns should have a millstone around his neck. First, I think we all know Jesus used hyperbole... and second, my only point was rather that taking extra care for the weak (physically or spiritually) is a Christian principle. I was just trying to present this as a scriptural principle, not as a prooftext for anything.

[whag]

Enns isn't an apologist, he's an academic (and there is no shortage of Christian academics who do push back on creationism).

All the more reason to lay off on him for not repeating apologetic talking points.

I agree there are many liberal Christian academics who push back on creationism.

[whag]

Um, no, I'm not saying Enns should have a millstone around his neck. First, I think we all know Jesus used hyperbole... and second, my only point was rather that taking extra care for the weak (physically or spiritually) is a Christian principle. I was just trying to present this as a scriptural principle, not as a prooftext for anything.

Hyperbole or not, you said it's the worst thing one can do. In this case, you crudely applied the context of Jesus time to Enns ministry, which is much more epistemologically based and reflective. Obviously, these are two completely different cultures and times.

You make atheism sound like it's just around the corner for some Christians. I thought Holy Spirit epistemology was the "defeater" in these cases, such as the man who asked Enns about his "certainty."

[jpholding]

It's relevant that Enns is one of the few apologists who pushes back on creationism

It's not in the least relevant to this discussion, or to me.

As a result, Christians attack him for not repeating the same lame talking points.

I don't. Thank you for continuing to show how irrelevant your point was to this discussion. Consider taking medication to resolve your problem with "diarrhea of the mouth".

Besides, the man Enns didn't repeat the talking points to had Holy Spirit epistemology, so he couldn't be as in danger as King's Gambit seems to think he was.

I will build you a 10 foot high set of letters, plated gold, with the following message: I DON'T CARE. You had nothing relevant to say; you only had a typical childish desire to insert projections of your psychological malfunctions. Which is the usual where you are concerned.

[KingsGambit]

Hyperbole or not, you said it's the worst thing one can do. In this case, you crudely applied the context of Jesus time to Enns ministry, which is much more epistemologically based and reflective. Obviously, these are two completely different cultures and times.

You make atheism sound like it's just around the corner for some Christians. I thought Holy Spirit epistemology was the "defeater" in these cases, such as the man who asked Enns about his "certainty."

I have to confess I am not familiar with the concept of Holy Spirit epistemology, but as somebody who spends a fair amount of time reading Enns' blog and his comments, it's fair to say that his blog does draw a number of Christians whose faith is wavering, and also a fair number of ex-Christians.

As Enns himself wrote in Inspiration and Incarnation, sometimes the Bible sets trajectories rather than firm rules. A biblical trajectory that comes up in various locations is the Christian's duty to the person who is wavering, doubting, or struggling in general. Maybe the verse I alluded to (which may have to do with sexual abuse in the first place) wasn't the most accurate, but there are others, such as Jude 1:22-23. It is clear that a Christian has a duty to be helpful when one approaches somebody for help, such as the anguished commenter who was directly trying to address Enns, regardless of whether they are typically an apologist or not.

[whag]

It's not in the least relevant to this discussion, or to me.



I don't. Thank you for continuing to show how irrelevant your point was to this discussion. Consider taking medication to resolve your problem with "diarrhea of the mouth".



I will build you a 10 foot high set of letters, plated gold, with the following message: I DON'T CARE. You had nothing relevant to say; you only had a typical childish desire to insert projections of your psychological malfunctions. Which is the usual where you are concerned.

It became relevant when you criticized Enns intellect, which has nothing to do with Enns refusal to play the apologetics game. He's approaching faith a bit differently than you. Case in point, he doesn't use comic sans, not would he make a dumb cartoon about Elisha and the 42 bears.

Yep, that's just what apologetics needs.

[KingsGambit]

What's wrong or childish with JP making a cartoon to express his point? How is that different from Jesus speaking in parables to illustrate a point?

[whag]

I have to confess I am not familiar with the concept of Holy Spirit epistemology, but as somebody who spends a fair amount of time reading Enns' blog and his comments, it's fair to say that his blog does draw a number of Christians whose faith is wavering, and also a fair number of ex-Christians.

As Enns himself wrote in Inspiration and Incarnation, sometimes the Bible sets trajectories rather than firm rules. A biblical trajectory that comes up in various locations is the Christian's duty to the person who is wavering, doubting, or struggling in general. Maybe the verse I alluded to (which may have to do with sexual abuse in the first place) wasn't the most accurate, but there are others, such as Jude 1:22-23. It is clear that a Christian has a duty to be helpful when one approaches somebody for help, such as the anguished commenter who was directly trying to address Enns, regardless of whether they are typically an apologist or not.

That's better, I think. I mainly objected to the huge burden you put on Enns. He does great work, and I thought it unfair that you'd think his emphasis of faith over "certainty" robs people of faith. his blog is replete with defenses of Christianity and TE.

I'd argue fundamentalism creates many more apostates than Enns refusal to parrot talking points that give people a dangerously false sense of certainty.

The only reason so many struggling Christians come to his site is precisely because Christian education has been so mismanaged. Enns seems to be doing a lot more than others in trying to correct that.

[Apologiaphoenix]

If people go against Enns for his position, then why is the same not given to, say, Alister McGrath? Enns is gone after on other grounds. I don't care about someone's position on evolution. I care about how they handle the data they speak about.

[whag]

What's wrong or childish with JP making a cartoon to express his point? How is that different from Jesus speaking in parables to illustrate a point?

It's a lot different if the cartoons are aesthetically awful and pointless. I've seen two of his cartoons in total.

How many have you seen and which are you favorites? Perhaps I'm wrong, and most of them are great tools.

[whag]

If people go against Enns for his position, then why is the same not given to, say, Alister McGrath? Enns is gone after on other grounds. I don't care about someone's position on evolution. I care about how they handle the data they speak about.

Do you mean why doesn't McGrath experience the same opposition as Enns?