Today's important news to note: The Cowboy Who Wasn't There has finally been published for the internet to see. My own chapter and a few of JP's can be viewed for free as sample chapters. Although it was against my intentions of having the book available only to Tektonics subscribers (what I'd consider sort of preaching to the choir), JP compiled the project himself, I merely contributed. Go out and get subscribed if you aren't already if you'd like to read the whole thing yourself, although I'm sure with time it may go onto Amazon.com or even into print (JP has no current intentions of it going into print at this time).
On other things, akakiwibear has returned from his blogger dormancy and has requested to be removed from the list of blog staff here at Debunking Loftus. I have respected his wishes and he has now been removed as a contributor to this blog. It is also worth noting that because akakiwibear made this public on his own blog, John determined that once akakiwibear was removed, he could once again comment on Debunking Christianity. I can only make that out as John trying to remove as much vocal opposition as possible, because as much opposed as this blog is to John, I still permit him to comment here.
Harry McCall has also returned in new form: That is, he has severed ties completely with Debunking Christianity because of John's overbearing narcissism. I have been considering the possibility of bringing him onboard to replace our old friend kiwi because McCall is a former DC member and can shed some light on things most of us here wouldn't even know about. Not to mention John's attempts at silencing opposition would be further thwarted. ;) McCall can accept or decline the informal invitation if he so chooses. In the event that McCall does join us, I am hoping that we might be able to bury the hatchet in areas where it has been most prominent, and we can all start on a new foot.
On other non-blogging related updates, Patrick Swayze, the star of "Ghost", "Roadhouse" and "Dirty Dancing" died yesterday after having fought a two year-long battle with pancreatic cancer. Swayze knew he was dying and that his death was inevitably in the near-future, but nonetheless is it a tragic loss for the light of the world. R.I.P., Patrick (1952 - 2009).
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
3 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
TBT, I'm glad that you wished Swayze the best, but am uncertain that the Evangelical Christian contributors to your blog will want to wish Swayze as much love and hope as you do. "Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus, Allah, they are all important in my world," to quote Patrick Swayze in the video, "Patrick Swayze Spiritual Side of Hollywood."
ReplyDeleteHarry McCall is not a deist to my knowledge, nor an agnostic as I am. He may also want to discuss the Bible more than discuss John Loftus because reading books of theology is one of Harry's favorite pastimes. McCall also has exchanged some emails with Holding in the past that did not endear Holding to Harry.
Also, TBT, Thanks for discussing your own personal journey/story in the intro to the book about Loftus. I have yet to read J.P. Holding's journey/story, but remain interested in doing so. Please ask him to share it sometime.
And for the record, I seem to recall being the one who first mentioned J.P. Holding and debating on tweb to John. I also see that you skipped over a lot of the story concerning tweb, just giving a bit of the beginning and then lots at the end. Fact is, any moderate Christian, liberal Christian or non-Christian who questions anything Holding wrote is soon met by Holding and company. And sleights grow magnified relatively quickly. Holding and I began modestly and quite courteously at first as well.
As for Holding's scholarly abilities versus those of John's, Holding's website still features his defenses of biblical inerrancy, a position I find untenable. Though I do applaud JP for finally arriving at a vision of "hell lite," and finally arriving at the recognition that O.T. verses employed by N.T. writers as "prophecies of Jesus' first coming" were employed in a pesher or midrashic fashion that proves nothing to Jews, Deists, or non-Christians. Two cheers for those recognitions on JP's part. Though I do think J.P. has a long way to go concerning his "default" view of Genesis 1 as "young-earth creaitonist," and a long way to go concerning understanding ancient Near Eastern cosmic geography in both testaments. And an even longer way to go when it comes to understanding how and why his beloved "context group" people are not inerrantistic like himself, and indeed, how relying on them raises as many questions as he proposes to use their writings to "solve."
Lastly, you brought up the "Christ myth" in your introduction to John's book, since it is part of your own story concerning who and why you believe as you do, but John Loftus proposes that Jesus was most likely an apocalyptic preacher not a total myth. Read Dale Allison (whom you might like in fact since he's open to all the world's miracles and religion, but also critically minded when it comes to Jesus studies), and Edward Adams, The Stars Will Fall, and see the book, In God's Time (an Evangelical trying to come to terms with the apocalyptic Jesus view of many scholars today), as well as the admissions made by James D. G. Dunn.
Ed:
ReplyDelete1) Harry does not have to be a deist to be invited to post on this blog. I simply want to have a variation of backgrounds and perspectives amongst the authorship. That's all.
2) I'm well aware of John's position on Jesus. I was simply pointing this out because we could in many ways compare John to Acharya S (he did allow her for a time to post on DC, after all), so I touched upon this comparison to reveal that scholarship is that honest inquiry should be at the heart of all scholary writing. I have good reasons to believe John is being deliberately disingenuous in this and in most other regards. At is as he has said, a way for people to gain popularity off of others. So really Ed, by John's own admission, you're a mere parasite to his cause. If I were called out as a parasite to someone whom I thought I was lending a helping hand, I would immediately cut off association with them.
Hiyo Ed, a few matters regarding what you said
ReplyDelete" but am uncertain that the Evangelical Christian contributors to your blog will want to wish Swayze as much love and hope as you do. "
I for one lament at the fact that he died while still at his fifties. I lament that such gifted actor had to die just now, but that is about it. Don't know about his personal life, but even if he had his flaws in his conduct, one can still mourn him for the talent he possessed (sure didn't stop millions from mourning Michael Jackson, the universal answer to every joke out there. :P )
" Though I do applaud JP for finally arriving at a vision of "hell lite," "
It may seem lite from your understanding, but the idea of an eternal shame is not exactly the most pleasant of thought for the average human being. Just because it won't be eternal physical pain, it really doesn't make it any liter either.
" and finally arriving at the recognition that O.T. verses employed by N.T. writers as "prophecies of Jesus' first coming" were employed in a pesher or midrashic fashion that proves nothing to Jews "
Understod what you said, that the many of the OT verses are not direct DIRECT predictios of the Jesus as the Messiah, that does not mean that the verses quoted did not prove anything. Many of the way they were used were ways of demonstrating their applications towards Jesus of Nazareth. Not to mention Jews were still with a strong expectation of a saviour that would redeem them, which in the case of the Christians, they're claim lies that Jesus of Nazareth is the only one to have succesfully fullfilled all the requirements expected of the long awaited Messiah (Expectations found throughout Old Testament writ).
" Though I do think J.P. has a long way to go concerning his "default" view of Genesis 1 as "young-earth creaitonist," "
Well, will see if one day he is convinced by the enlightening Gospel of Darwin one day. :P (And I mean that in the lighthearted manner :) ).
" and a long way to go concerning understanding ancient Near Eastern cosmic geography in both testaments. "
Wrong, JPH holds a strong awareness of how the ancients concieved of what you call "cosmic geography" (http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html . For the Hebrews, It was more a matter of, "They could care less what the shape of the planet had, or they had little to no concern at the composition and form of the sky and beyond).
" and why his beloved "context group" people are not inerrantistic like himself "
That's patently false Ed. The Context Group holds no unanimous official position regarding Biblical Inerrancy in any form.
" how relying on them raises as many questions as he proposes to use their writings to "solve." "
That wouldnt affect their researchd in any way on the results of their findings either. Their concern lies in proper and correct understanding of Biblical writ at hand, not on how reliable it's textual transmission has been.
" John Loftus proposes that Jesus was most likely an apocalyptic preacher not a total myth. "
Loftus is hardly in a position and training to properly assess what kind of man Jesus of Nazareth was in the first place (and given the quality of his arguments, heh, even less :P bahahahah ).