John Loftus can’t seem to remember that he’s in no position to make arguments like the one he just threw up (and I do mean, “threw up”) on the Ten Commandments. I’m not talking about the pedantic canards re the Code of Hammurabi, or the “versions” on the Ten Cs, or slavery, etc. – those are stale and brittle, and I’ve answered them on my site or by links, and Loftus has had the answers to these points beaten into his thick skull numerous times by now. (The stupidest one, though, is that he STILL thinks the command against images has something to do with art.)
What I mean is this, where Loftus says:
Besides, what about some other commandments that aren’t listed but could be, like: ‘Thou shalt not own slaves or beat them,’ ‘Thou shalt not treat people differently because of the color of their skin,’….
Blah blah blah, etc. But once again, Loftus seems to forget:
1) There’s a command against adultery in there.
2) It certainly didn’t stop HIM, now, did it?
3) So what makes him think it's a good argument that all of these additions of his would have done some good? Hello?
It’s pretty clear by now that Loftus never learns. Or worse: He knows better, but keeps resurrecting the same canards over and over again because he’s desperate to deconvert those who know no better, and so trust him.
Really, how low can you get?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
12 comments:
If you are unaware of the rules on comments, please consult this post for more information.
Complaints and suggestions about the blog's comment moderation policies should be addressed here.
READ BEFORE POSTING: Do not post comments if they do not deal with the topic addressed in our posts and ESPECIALLY if they deal with pointing out the hypocricy of Christians and the flaws of the Christian religion. This is not about issues of sensitivity but maintaining an atmosphere of freshness and relevant discourse. ANYONE posting these comments (in the event they do NOT deal with the topics we have introduced) will have their comments deleted without warning. Post with care and attention to this simple request, thank you.
NOTE: This blog mirrors Debunking Christianity in that we allow only registered users of Blogger and Google accounts in commenting on our web pages. Anonymous commentators are not permitted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
You seem to take singular glee in Loftis' adultery. It reminds me of the rotten kid who gets in an argument with a sibling and then -- as if this enhances his argument any -- yells, "Yeah, well at least I don't wet the bed like you always do! Nya, nya, nya!"
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting marital infidelity invalidates a person's philosophical arguments? If you say "yes," you're philosophically imbecilic. If you say "no," you're probably bringing up the adultery for no reason other than mean-spiritedness.
By the way, should we go down the list of Christians who have fallen in this area? It's not a particularly short list.
Evangelicals talk all the time about how, "We're all just sinners," and, "There but for the grace of God go I." Then when someone actually sins, especially in a sexual area, the indignation goes off the charts. Not very consistent.
Under the right circumstances and conditions, a large percentage of the male population -- Christian or otherwise -- is vulnerable to falling in this area. So try not to be so haughty. It's possible you're not as invulnerable as you suppose.
Dear AFLAC,
ReplyDelete>>>You seem to take singular glee in Loftis' adultery.
1) Spell his name right if you're going to quack about it.
2) No, the point is NOT his adultery but that he has repeatedly whined that the Bible is "not clear." This doesn't wash with the clear command against adultery, which he violated.
If he had stolen something, or coveted his neighbors' home, rather than committed adultery, then my essay would have the same point but use THAT as the subject.
Dense people like you can't seem to grasp this for some reason, AFLAC.
>>>Are you suggesting marital infidelity invalidates a person's philosophical arguments?
No, AFLAC. That's your imagination and ignorance and frustration at work. :D
>>>If you say "no," you're probably bringing up the adultery for no reason other than mean-spiritedness.
No, you're just stupid is all. I bring it up for no other reason than that Loftus (note the spelling) keeps whining about how the Bible is soooo unclear, and that if God had been more clear, it would have stopped a lot of bad things. His adultery is living proof that he is making this argument up, and is a hypocrite where it is concerned.
>>>>By the way, should we go down the list of Christians who have fallen in this area? It's not a particularly short list.
Make one. Then tell me how many have also blamed the Bible for not clearly outlawing adultery. Then you'll have something worth quacking about, AFLAC.
>>>So try not to be so haughty. It's possible you're not as invulnerable as you suppose.
Well, at least I'm not vulnerable to the sort of stupidity you're subject to. But on that account, forget it -- I have no interest in anyone but Mrs H. She's one hot babe, too! :D
Now go sell some life insurance, you feathered freak!
Curses, I misspelled "Loftus." You pounced on that right away and thereby neutralized my arguments utterly. Good job! Touché!
ReplyDeleteI've misjudged you, sir. I thought you were just an immense bladder of swamp gas, belching out false arguments and put-downs. No more. You have vanquished me with cogent, razor-sharp reasoning and I bow to you.
You also enlightened me about the real reason for Loftus' sin. He was confused about the seventh commandment. Is that the excuse he gave for breaking the law of God? I never knew that. So as it turns out, you're not just taunting him like some depraved sixth-grade loser hanging from the monkey bars -- no, you're only pointing out an inconsistency in his logic. And doing it with style, I might add. Got it.
I have so much to learn about this apologetics stuff.
You also called my bluff about Christians who have committed adultery. Dang! Can't think of a one. Do you have to be so good?
I have no doubt that Mrs. Holding is lovely. You probably hear mumbling behind your back, things like, "What is SHE doing with a total creep like THAT?" But they're so wrong. I'm sure that underneath that putrid, loathsome, obnoxious exterior is a lovely soul. It may take the stripping away of many, many, many, many layers to find it. Like three inches of lead-based paint on a child's wagon. But it must surely be worth the toil.
And yes, I'd like to sell you some insurance. My company currently offers "Left Behind" insurance. You will be covered in case heaven doesn't want you. We'll send an agent over to discuss your options right away.
AFLAC, quack quack,
ReplyDelete>>>Curses, I misspelled "Loftus." You pounced on that right away and thereby neutralized my arguments utterly. Good job! Touché!
Actually, what that shows is that you have a high level of proficiency in commenting in ignorance -- as further demosntrated by your functional illiteracy viz a viz the point of my post. :D
>>>You have vanquished me with cogent, razor-sharp reasoning and I bow to you.
Duck pate isn't much of a meal. Thin and watery. Especially your sort, which has fed on Skeptical literature.
>>>You also enlightened me about the real reason for Loftus' sin. He was confused about the seventh commandment.
No, AFLAC, that isn't the argument either. Keep flouncing around with your mental constipation and maybe after about 756 guesses you'll get it right.
>>>I have so much to learn about this apologetics stuff.
That much, you DO have right.
><>You also called my bluff about Christians who have committed adultery. Dang! Can't think of a one. Do you have to be so good?
You should have just stopped at "Can't think" and you would have characterized yourself sufficiently.
>>>And yes, I'd like to sell you some insurance.
Well, don't insure your brain -- there's no coverage for organs you don't use.
>>>My company currently offers "Left Behind" insurance. You will be covered in case heaven doesn't want you.
Oops, dipped yourself in hot oil again, AFLAC. I'm a preterist, which means I consider Left Behind to be a load of crap, just like your arguments. :D Yet another example of how you quack before you know what you're quacking about.
When it comes to arguments, you're as good as that other fella Launchpad is at flying planes.
You are SUCH a meanie! Once again, you've cut me to the quack.
ReplyDeleteAll insults aside, what difference does John's personal situation make to the argument?
ReplyDeleteIf it had been stated anonymously, what would the answer have been?
My instinct would be, since there are other instances of people actually doing what the Bible tells them to do, that the effect of God explicitly having told people to refrain from slave ownership and bigotry would have been that about as many people would have taken that as seriously as anything else he said.
Duh -- you don't get the point either, Cheese Eater? :D
ReplyDeleteTry remedial reading....I've already answered your question.
"Viz a viz"?? Bobby, Bobby.
ReplyDeleteAlright, JPH, *I* will continue to be nice. You may be however you like. You just wouldn't be you, if you weren't. ;-)
ReplyDeleteYou made more than just "a" particular point that I apparently didn't understand.
And "my" question you already answered was, I think, the smaller, supporting one that I asked.
But I still don't see an argument against the charge that the Bible could have been more direct and specific in prohibiting certain evils - and that these evils would have therefore been lessened.
I don't know how to ask this more plainly:
***Since other commandments are followed to some degree, why wouldn't those suggested by Loftus also have been followed to some degree?***
I don't see how this answers it:
"1) There’s a command against adultery in there.
2) It certainly didn’t stop HIM, now, did it?
3) So what makes him think it's a good argument that all of these additions of his would have done some good? Hello?"
You're implying that the commandment against adultery (and later implied that examples of other broken commandments would work here also) doesn't even do "some" good - and that therefore, why should God have wasted his time with any other additions?
If you mean that, you might as well say that it was futile for God to even have a commandment against adultery, plus the other examples you gave, since people have been known to break them.
Hey, I just figured out what a cheese-eater is, or at least think I have your intended meaning narrowed down, given your background in overseeing those unsavory types in the library, back in the day:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cheese+eater
I'd thought it had some odd French connotation (like wine drinker, maybe), until I looked it up.
No one else will ever hear about your sordid secrets, I promise. ;-)
If there could be a more highbrow version of those claymation celebrity deathmatches, your rivalry with Loftus would be it. Maybe along the way one of you might clue me in on the meaning of life and I'll learn something.
Nice interview you had on that British radio show, btw. Part of me still hopes you're right.
Yes, I too listened to the "Unbelievable" show that featured Holding. I must say, to my great sorrow, that Holding was highly articulate and well-reasoned. I was so hoping he'd fumble around like an oaf, but alas. Nice job. (It certainly worked in your favor that your opponent was peddling a highly unlikely hypothesis, but nice job.)
ReplyDeleteThere's no great sorrow about that here. All of me hopes he's partly right, is the way I should have put it.
ReplyDeleteI used to think that Christianity was an incontrovertible force for good in this world and provided perfect justice in the next.
I've had to scale back my enthusiasm, to put it mildly, but I've never understood the 180-degree turns I see in so many others.
Sure, there's a lot of "superstition" out there, but I see it being in about the same league as any other unsupported opinion, of which there are also many among the nonreligious.