An Open Challenge to Norman Geisler

[Chrawnus]

Spend a lot of time on this topic, do you?

Spoken like a true hypocrite.

[ukchristian28]

Spoken like a true hypocrite.

Absolutely right Chrawnus and no Sarah I don't spend that much time on this topic. I have occasionally raised it with various skepics who harp on and on about it like you do, but no more than any other issue. When I start on about it on just about every thread involving J.P Holding (even if it's not the topic of the thread and no one has brought it up first) or start a website devoted only to discussing it or go around asking skeptics about it on every message board out there, then you might be justified in making a comparison between myself and you people.

I tell you what though. Now that we are talking about it how about you take a look at J.P Holding's article on the subject and do a point by point refutation of it, appealing to scholarship equal to that which J.P draws upon? That might be going a bit off topic for this thread but perhaps J.P or one of the mods could start a separate thread for it. It will be interesting to see if you can offer anything other than the usual moaning and groaning, which I think we are all getting a bit bored of by now. Here's the article:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html

[SarahB]

Absolutely right Chrawnus and no Sarah I don't spend that much time on this topic. I have occasionally raised it with various skepics who harp on and on about it like you do, but no more than any other issue. When I state on about it on just about every thread involving J.P Holding or start a website devoted only to discussing it or go around asking skeptics about it on every message board out there, you might be justified in making a comparison between myself and you people.

I tell you what though. Now that we are talking about it how about you take a look at J.P Holding's article on the subject and do a point by point refutation appealing to scholarship equal to that which J.P draws upon. That might be going a bit off topic for this thread but perhaps J.P or one of the mods could start a separate thread for it. It will be interesting to see if you can offer anything other than the usual moaning and groaning, which I think we are all getting a bit bored of. Here's the article:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html

It's what---0430 and you're still at it?

Scholarship? That's a laugh. He's a librarian. And he can't even get Licona to side with him!

Beddy-bye.

[Teluog]

Scholarship? That's a laugh. He's a librarian.

Because librarians have no clue how to look things up.

[Raphael]

Has he? Not that I have heard, but does anyone know anything about this?

I listen to a lot of Driscoll's stuff. Some of his earlier stuff he did "cuss" upon occasion (depends on what you consider to be cussing as well and it was not common or frequent). And as a result in a book about music for some reason the author referred to him as "the cussing pastor" this has sadly stuck in some circles.

He has publicly apologised for it a number of years ago and in none of his recent series have I heard anything that could be labelled cussing.

[jpholding]

You've been at the Insults for Christ game for--what?--a DECADE and you STILL can't get any authoritative traction for it. Not even from Licona.

And of course, little girl, you're so enamored of Licona's authority that you've accepted his judgment that the Resurrection is historical....right?

[jpholding]

Because librarians have no clue how to look things up.

Librarians broker scholarship for average people.

However, it's much easier for the little girl to sit on the sidelines and carp than to answer an argument by looking up something herself.

[jpholding]

Making fun of someone's name however may not be without Biblical precedent. According to J.P the Bible (in the Hebrew) sometimes misspell's King Nebuchadnezzar's name. Spelled correctly it means "Nabo protect the crown". The misspelling makes it mean "Nabo protect the mule". However, I haven't been able to validate this claim so far as I can't find any reference to it online apart from statements by J.P.

You probably wouldn't. My source for that is Goldingay's commentary on Daniel, which is not the sort of source an average online person would use. Goldingay in turn is citing Van Selms. In my article on Daniel the source cite is [Gold.Dan, 4n] with the source code list at bottom of http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html

Goldingay's commentary is available in snippets from Google Books, and if you search for "mule" the note with this will turn up.

Another suggestion I have seen is that "Jezebel" is altered to mean "piece of dung" though I have had no use for that one and have not tried to confirm it.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's what---0430 and you're still at it?

Scholarship? That's a laugh. He's a librarian. And he can't even get Licona to side with him!

Beddy-bye.

You do understand that people do have different work/sleep shifts around the world, right?

[SarahB]

And of course, little girl, you're so enamored of Licona's authority that you've accepted his judgment that the Resurrection is historical....right?

(I'll try it your way, let's see how it feels) The point is your Insults for Christ model has no support outside your Tweb cubby hole. You wouldn't dare submit it for professional peer review. It is an anchor chain forged by your own monumental ego. Your chubby fingers will never let go because it's who you are. You're a big fat phony like Ergun Caner.

At at least he makes a living at it.

Have a nice day.

(No, that didn't feel very good at all)

[Chrawnus]

(I'll try it your way, let's see how it feels) The point is your Insults for Christ model has no support outside your Tweb cubby hole. You wouldn't dare submit it for professional peer review. It is an anchor chain forged by your own monumental ego. Your chubby fingers will never let go because it's who you are. You're a big fat phony like Ergun Caner.

At at least he makes a living at it.

Have a nice day.

(No, that didn't feel very good at all)

Amateur...

[Teluog]

Amateur...

Well hey, Sarah is allowed to insult. JPH isn't . . . just because.

[Chrawnus]

Well hey, Sarah is allowed to insult. JPH isn't . . . just because.

Well, I was talking more about the quality of the insults Sarah hands out and not her hypocrisy, but you do have a point there.

[Mountain Man]

(I'll try it your way, let's see how it feels) The point is your Insults for Christ model has no support outside your Tweb cubby hole. You wouldn't dare submit it for professional peer review. It is an anchor chain forged by your own monumental ego. Your chubby fingers will never let go because it's who you are. You're a big fat phony like Ergun Caner.

At at least he makes a living at it.

Have a nice day.

(No, that didn't feel very good at all)

Of course it didn't feel good because this was just a straight up insult with nothing of substance behind it. You see, there really is a difference between "You're an idiot!" and "You're an idiot because if you had bothered to do the bare minimum of research then you would know X, Y, and Z and wouldn't have brought up such a worthless objection in the first place."

This is why this debate tactic so readily gets under people's skin, because while they huff and puff about the insults, they also know that the sound arguments behind them aren't so easily dismissed, and that's what really bugs them.

[lilpixieofterror]

(I'll try it your way, let's see how it feels) The point is your Insults for Christ model has no support outside your Tweb cubby hole. You wouldn't dare submit it for professional peer review. It is an anchor chain forged by your own monumental ego. Your chubby fingers will never let go because it's who you are. You're a big fat phony like Ergun Caner.

At at least he makes a living at it.

Have a nice day.

(No, that didn't feel very good at all)

You do understand that Alister McGrath calls Dawkins a fundamentalist atheist in his book, "The Dawkins Delusion" and David Bentley Hart calls Dan Brown a borderline illiterate in his book, "Atheist Delusions". GK Chesterton and CS Lewis were also known to engage in insults (I doubt SarahB has ever heard GK Chesterton's "Heretics" and most likely skimmed though CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and thus didn't catch these). Now, if we go back in time Origen wasn't very nice to Celsus and often insulted the guy in his refutations. Likewise, Tertullian and Irenaeus are pretty insulting to their opponents as well. In fact, it's a pretty modern view, that insults are wrong, in all cases. Perhaps if you were to bother to actually read books instead of squawking on your perch, like a shrill bird you'd know these little facts? I'm sorry Sarah, but you should really stop saying such foolish things and instead try doing this thing called 'research' before you rant?