I see Jason Engwer is still at it over at Triablogue. Some poor guy by the name of Lyosha07 is the target recently. Boy, reading those comments takes me back. His insults today are almost identical to the insults he'd routinely direct towards me, John Loftus, Matthew Green, and many others. In one post that contained many insults towards me he explained that he really didn't see these as a fallacy because for him "ad hominem" is defined differently. I never quite grasped that.
Just for fun I thought I'd click on his name below his post to bring up some of his most recent entries. I decided to comb through some exchanges he's had with others recently just to get a flavor for the tone. About 20 posts came up, some of which involved him disputing with people that he disagreed with. It didn't take long to extract these interesting statements. I just did keyword searches for words such as "ridiculous," "absurd," "ignorant," and such like.
It's interesting that Engwer is often critical of his opponents for leaving the discussion. I wonder why these "ignorant, illiterate, irrational, absurd, careless, dishonest" skeptics don't stick around and spend more time with Jason?
Thread 1
You don't seem to be giving your arguments much thought before you post them.
Thread 2
As bad as Lyosha07's latest post is, it's at least more substantive than most of what he writes, though that isn't saying much.
What is the criticism of "talking snakes and plants" supposed to prove, then? The Biblical illiteracy and irrationality of the skeptic?
Thread 3
You've been corrected on this point more than once. You're either careless or dishonest.
You left the discussion after I responded to your "interactions".
The concept that I would need to cite a creed in order to define my terms is ridiculous.
The idea that the means of attaining justification is a "minor" issue is ridiculous.
Your claim that I only gave you "mere phrases", without any information defining those phrases, is absurd.
Thread 4
Historical Number Cruncher is a poor communicator. It's often difficult to determine what he's trying to say. I suspect that he hasn't done much research and hasn't given these issues much thought.
Thread 5
The idea that Jesus would commend a tax collector who had no faith is ridiculous, whereas the concept that the tax collector wouldn't have been baptized in a Jewish temple isn't.
You don't know much about Evangelical theology, do you?
Your response above is another illustration of why I refer to "Roman Catholic desperation".
Again, you don't seem to know much about Evangelical theology.
You've ignored much of what I said, and your assumption that the tax collector had already been justified earlier isn't suggested by the text or context.
Once again, you've shown your ignorance of Evangelical theology.
But it is absurd to read the concept into Luke 18 when nothing suggests it.
As I said before, the idea that Jesus was commending a tax collector who had no faith is ridiculous (Hebrews 11:6).
But it would be ridiculous to argue that all of these passages are exceptions to a rule.
Thread 6
Readers ought to note that Jaguk needs to have these things explained to him. What does that suggest about his level of discernment and how much effort he's given to thinking through his arguments?
The concept that God would raise people from the dead, but leave them with no clothing or deteriorated clothing, is ridiculous.
To act as if we should ignore what we know about ancient Jewish views of resuscitations and resurrections, what ancient Jews thought of public nudity, etc. from the larger context in which Matthew was writing, but instead must isolate Matthew 27 from that context, is an absurd method of interpretation that would lead to many ridiculous conclusions in other areas of human communication if you were to apply your reasoning consistently. But you aren't consistent.
I would say that your concept that God sends these people into first-century Israel in the nude is what's ridiculous.
Thread 7
Jimmy keeps repeating bad arguments that have already been refuted:
The idea that Josephus can't be trusted to tell us about the canon of the Judaism he witnessed and that others he consulted had witnessed, because he wasn't a Christian, is absurd.
If you're so ignorant of the subject as to be unfamiliar with Josephus' comments against the Apocrypha (much as you didn't know that Jerome and Rufinus included Esther in the canon), then shouldn't you first familiarize yourself with that sort of information? Why are you posting on these issues you know so little about?
You don't seem to have much familiarity with the issues involved.
Thread 8
When so many other Jewish sources also reject the Apocryphal books, along with many Christian sources, the suggestion that Josephus was something like a first-century equivalent of Mormonism is ridiculous.
The idea that Josephus can't be trusted to tell us about the canon of the Judaism he witnessed and that others he consulted had witnessed, because he wasn't a Christian, is absurd.
For you to act as though I hadn't mentioned these things before is absurd.
And your claim that "The fact we can both cite sources shows there wasn't [a canon]" is ridiculous.
That's not the issue, and the fact that you keep trying to make it the issue, even after being corrected so many times, doesn't reflect well on you.
And your claim that Josephus doesn't exclude the Apocrypha is absurd. It's reminiscent of your ridiculous claim that Jerome and Rufinus excluded Esther, even though both men include Esther. Do you consult these sources before you make claims about them?
Are you suggesting that the evidence doesn't favor either conclusion? If so, that's a ridiculous position to take.
Asking for a list from somebody like Aquila or Josephus, as if only a list would be relevant to this discussion, is ridiculous, and you've been corrected on this issue repeatedly.
For you to ignore those comments made by Josephus, then tell us what impression you get from the phrase "exact succession", is ridiculous.
For you to now act as though you've been asking for documentation on these issues, but wasn't given any, is ridiculous.
Again, how could you make such a ridiculous comment if you had read the passage in Josephus?
No comments:
Post a Comment