2010 is the official year of the new decade.
On August 31, the Internet will once again be exposed to another entry in the "Contra-Loftus" series.
Featuring James Patrick Holding of Tektonics.org, Nick a.k.a. "ApologiaPhoenix" of TheologyWeb, amongst many others old and new.
Introducing:
The follow-up and subsequent entry to 2009's "The Cowboy Who Wasn't There", this time serving as a reponse to one of Loftus' latest releases, The Christian Delusion (early 2010).
Featuring James Patrick Holding of Tektonics.org, Nick a.k.a. "ApologiaPhoenix" of TheologyWeb, amongst many others old and new.
Introducing:
The follow-up and subsequent entry to 2009's "The Cowboy Who Wasn't There", this time serving as a reponse to one of Loftus' latest releases, The Christian Delusion (early 2010).
Posts
I see that you've set your sites on composing a highly intellectual rebuttal, starting with a scholarly sounding title that echoes a movie about gay cowboys. How many contributors to this work will be anonymnous? Also, if JP Holding was raised nominally Bahai before he converted to Christianity, at what young age did he convert, at what level of education, and what books did he read that convinced him Christianity was true? Was it a Four spiritual laws booklet combined with some Chick tracts? Just wondering how extensive his search for truth was right BEFORE he converted.
ReplyDeleteEd, you are a becoming the epitome of someone who screams their lungs out in an isolation tank.
ReplyDeleteNot good showmanship on your part. Oh, and, for any semblance of homosexuality that may radiate from our rebuttal works, you might want to go back to the source of where these rebuttals are coming from and why their titled they way they are...ED.
Since Edski stopped by with that always-flowing sewer he calls a mouth, this is a good time/place to slap him for some poor reading of his he reported on McGrath's blog, where he first said:
ReplyDelete"For the record James, J.P. Holding also is 'hoping' that folks like N.T. Wright and Ben Witherington will one day see the light."
Then he quoted me:
"I can really say only 3 people (Colson, Kennedy, Piper) are strong representatives of where Christianity needs to be. Unfortunately they are far outnumbered by people who teach either heresy or 'feelgood' doctrines, or whose teachings are so 'milky' that they do more harm than good in the long run. It'll be a great day when those names (i.e. Colson, Kennedy and Piper) include the likes of Witherington, Wright, and other scholars and apologists...but that day is probably a long way off, if it comes at all.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/christianmyths.html"
Then said:
"So, James [McGrath], quit holding back that day, and 'become a strong representative of where Christianity needs to be' per J.P. Holding's understanding. Hop on the bandwagon and also hold onto Witherington and Wright's shirtsleeves while you leap up onto it. "
Edski has worked in a library this long and still can't read English. I am not saying that With and Wright need to "see the light". I'm saying they need to be on the list of Most Influential Christians!
Edski is so dumb he forgot that the list was the basis for the article in the first place! So instead, he actually thinks I am saying that it would be great if With and Wright joined that list by being "enlightened".
Now as dumb as Edski is, you'd think he'd notice that those two W's are given positive ratings all over my material, and have been for years. The obvious point is therefore that I am wishing the two W's were ON THE LIST of Influential Christians ALONG WITH Piper, Colson, and Kennedy.
Edski once again proves that he is one of the 50 Dumbest Fundy Atheists in the world. And McGrath is just as dumb for "buying" Edski's interpretation.
>>>Just wondering how extensive his search for truth was right BEFORE he converted.
More extensive than yours is now, Edski. I was reading high-level stuff when I was still in high school. Never touched that Four Spiritual Laws crap and collected Chick tracts for the art. In any event this is no sub for the fact that even now you're a primitive, backwards rube who couldn't debate the virtues of any relevant point with me on ANY level. I could argue FOR the Bible teaching that the earth is flat and beat you at THAT.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete