Over on TWeb, I'm conducting a poll on whether I should put together a rebuttal to John's new book:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=137785
Come on over and cast your vote. As of this moment, the yea votes outdo the nays by a sliver of one cipher.
The pros:
It'll really tick John off and may even send him once and for all to Arkham for treatment. Just check his promo post on the book. You'd swear that he was taking it to bed with him every night and cuddling with it. (Cigarette, John?)
It'll provide great entertainment.
The cons:
It'll take some time to compose a rebuttal. Say, 3-4 days all together. After all, it's not like John or his friends have anything new to say, and his contributors include some of the nuttiest people on the planet, like Jason Long and Dan Barker and even Hector Avalos.
John will take it as a sign that his book is so good it is in need of rebuttal. Of course, John has this way of putting "spin" on any reaction to his books such that it means something good. If Norman Geisler used it as toilet paper, John would consider that as a positive because it meant Norm was so engrossed in the book that he was even reading it while he was on the toilet. With John, if you rebut it, it's because it was so good it needed rebuttal; if you don't rebut it, it's because you were scared to do so and knew it was unbeatable.
Naturally, John is quite deluded to think such a thing. It remains that I've had absolutely ZERO requests to rebut John's book, and as noted in a prior entry, the same could be said of one of the world's largest apologetics ministries. In contrast, I've received dozens of requests to refute Zeitgeist. Apparently, if we use John's logic, Zeitgeist is a better rebuttal to Christianity than anything he's written. How 'bout that.
Of course, there's a mediate position too, which I plan to use if the vote ends in a tie, which looks possible right now.
I can always turn the rebuttal over to this pretty face....
Posts
Edski the Blabber dropped in a pile of what was mostly irrelevant bovine excrement, so I deleted it, but will note this:
ReplyDelete>>>But I suggest reading the book first.
I always read what I rebut, Edski. Too bad your side can't seem to do the same.
>>>I hope a few of your friends at tweb will also do so.
Only if they want high comedy. We at TWeb know you people better than anyone and know what a joke you are.
><>>Since you're working on a book on the resurrection here's some more to read and rebut:
This is what I deleted, and it was all blabber that had nothing to do with the Resurrection per se (had to do with textual authenticity, stuff I covered in my last book or will come in another book).
Now stop throwing up in my space, Edski.