A Stone At Sloan

[Sparko]

he deleted my comments.

[Tassman]

That is not the subject matter of this thread at all. So yeah it IS off topic.

But it isn't! The assumption of Inerrancy underlies the whole Geisler vis-à-vis Licona thread. And yet those who hold to it descend into ridicule or placing on “ignore” any who question it.

Why such “denial”? Because they know there is no justification for such a notion. It is based on the belief in a perfect God and the assumed corollary that His Word must therefore be likewise perfect, i.e. inerrant. In short inerrancy (just as belief in God), is an article of faith unsupported by credible evidence.

[Sparko]

But it isn't! The assumption of Inerrancy underlies the whole Geisler vis-à-vis Licona thread. And yet those who hold to it descend into ridicule or placing on “ignore” any who question it.

Why such “denial”? Because they know there is no justification for such a notion. It is based on the belief in a perfect God and the assumed corollary that His Word must therefore be likewise perfect, i.e. inerrant. In short inerrancy (just as belief in God), is an article of faith unsupported by credible evidence.

wow, it really bothers you that Nick has you on ignore, doesn't it?

[ikaika777]

wow, it really bothers you that Nick has you on ignore, doesn't it?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Poor widdle Tassy Wassy. He thinks his arguments are so brilliant that he should be the center of the universe here. Well, I do think black holes are supposed to be great centers of gravity and we all know Tassy carries one with him.

Let Tassy keep coming by. He just makes me laugh.

[Tassman]

wow, it really bothers you that Nick has you on ignore, doesn't it?

No! Why would you think that? All that bothers me are the thirty posts of Christian evasions to my question posed in post number #3. But that reflects badly on the Christians, not me.

[ikaika777]

But that reflects badly on the Christians, not me.

Um, yeah you keep telling yourself that stalker.

[Tassman]

Poor widdle Tassy Wassy. He thinks his arguments are so brilliant that he should be the center of the universe here. Well, I do think black holes are supposed to be great centers of gravity and we all know Tassy carries one with him.

Let Tassy keep coming by. He just makes me laugh.

After 30 evasive responses it is clear that I will not be getting an answer from AP or his little band of followers to the OP comment, which I queried way, way back in my post #3. Namely:

“The sad reality is Geisler is not helping Inerrancy. If you read the blogosphere, and I do, people are being driven from it. Geisler is destroying the legacy, nay, has destroyed, the legacy he spent a lifetime building. If anyone is responsible for the decline in affirming Inerrancy today, it is not Licona. It is Geisler himself”.

So, anyone at all, although I’m not holding my breath: Why is the decline in affirming Inerrancy of concern? Why is such a doctrine adhered to in the first place? A simple question but all it has produced are evasions, snide comments (as per Nick's schoolyard taunts) and denigration none of which enhances the authoritative grandeur Nick attempts (but dismally fails) to exude.

[ikaika777]

So, anyone at all, although I’m not holding my breath: Why is the decline in affirming Inerrancy of concern? Why is such a doctrine adhered to in the first place? A simple question but all it has produced are evasions, snide comments (as per Nick's schoolyard taunts) and denigration none of which enhances the authoritative grandeur Nick attempts (but dismally fails) to exude.

And a normal person would realize that you aren't liked and that you are irrelevant and unimportant to anything worth responding to except to be made fun of for total enjoyment. But being obtuse is your strong suit in your life.

[Tassman]

And a normal person would realize that you aren't liked and that you are irrelevant and unimportant to anything worth responding to except to be made fun of for total enjoyment. But being obtuse is your strong suit in your life.

Get a grip, Ikaika. “Flaming” is not an appropriate response to my oft repeated but as yet to be answered question.

[Sparko]

No! Why would you think that? All that bothers me are the thirty posts of Christian evasions to my question posed in post number #3. But that reflects badly on the Christians, not me.

right.

[Adrift]

Why is such a doctrine adhered to in the first place?

Against my better judgement,

Its part of a long (sometimes sophisticated) chain of reasoning that starts with the questions "who am I? what am I here for? where did I come from? and where am I going?". Through arguments, evidence, logic, and experience many people reason that God exists, then that the Christian message is truthful and that Jesus was raised from the dead, then that the scriptures have proven themselves reliable, trustworthy and authoritative, and finally in agreement with scripture itself, that it was written by men under divine inspiration.

All of this is already presumed in the OP, and by the intended readers of the OP. And none of it has anything directly to do with the topic at hand. Every reader of this thread knows that except you. Its only because of your ego and selfish pride that you believe that whatever tangential thought pops into your head must be more important than whatever the thread creator had in mind for his thread. Believe it or not, not every thread is suitable for your personal little vendetta against Christianity. Some, like this one, are simply to discuss current events among theologians.

I'm sorry to tell you that no one here has been stumped. Your questions are simple, but off topic, and (along with the fact that people simply find you unpleasant) that's the reason no one has bothered answering them. Your imagined victory over your imagined enemies due to your imagined boldness, wit, and cleverness are in your head. We all know that you find the OP and the chain of reasoning I outlined above unreasonable. We don't care. What Tassman thinks, or what Tassman feels he must get off his chest isn't the subject of this thread. There's plenty of room on this forum for you to start your own thread on just about anything your mind desires. Chances are, there's already dozens of threads created on the topics you think are important though. If I was a mod, I'd have kicked you from the thread a long time ago for being disruptive, but I guess Nick doesn't mind.

[ikaika777]

All of this is already presumed in the OP, and by the intended readers of the OP. And none of it has anything directly to do with the topic at hand. Every reader of this thread knows that except you.

s only because of your ego and selfish pride that you believe that whatever tangential thought pops into your head must be more important than whatever the thread creator had in mind for his thread.

Believe it or not, not every thread is suitable for your personal little vendetta against Christianity.

I'm sorry to tell you that no one here has been stumped.

along with the fact that people simply find you unpleasant) that's the reason no one has bothered answering them.

Your imagined victory over your imagined enemies due to your imagined boldness, wit, and cleverness are in your head.

We don't care. What Tassman thinks, or what Tassman feels he must get off his chest isn't the subject of this thread.

If I was a mod, I'd have kicked you from the thread a long time ago for being disruptive

[MaxVel]

Before Tassman starts the inevitable whining about people commenting on him, he should remember that he's insistent in making himself the subject of this thread. If he doesn't want people to talk about him, he should develop better social skills and realise that his particular brand of snide comments are unwanted here.


If he has read the more recent threads Nick has posted in his forum, he would realise that Nick is very strong on having beleifs based on reason and evidence rather than 'blind faith'.

One of Tassman's problems is that he is unable or unwilling to see that other people may be quite reasonable and rational to hold a position that he disagrees with. It is apparent in almost everything that he posts that he believes that they just must be acting irrationally, if not plain deluded.

Added to that Tassman is quite persistent in putting the worst possible interpretation on any Christian's belief. If a Christian says that he believes that the Bible is reliable, or something along those lines, Tassman seems determined to conclude that that means that the Christian is a one-dimensional Bible idolater, insistent that every word in the Bible is literally true, someone who makes Geisler and KJY onlyists look reasoned and nuanced. His insistence on lumping all Christians in to one stereotype, and his inability to listen to what people are saying that they actually believe make a real dialogue with him almost impossible.

Hence we ignore him.

Oh - the snide comments about 'inerrantists', smears on 'apologists' and general tone of intellectual and moral superiority (both unfounded) that Tassman don't help either...

[Tassman]

Against my better judgement,

Why, because, as an atheist, I am likely to disagree with you? Well yes! Isn't that what a discussion group is about? But full kudos for being the first in over 30 posts to provide a reasoned response.

Its part of a long (sometimes sophisticated) chain of reasoning that starts with the questions "who am I? what am I here for? where did I come from? and where am I going?".

“What am I here for?” assumes a purpose in life (and a purpose-giver) but this belief is unsupported by verifiable evidence. At best it is an article of faith. The other three questions are readily answered by evolutionary processes.

Through arguments, evidence, logic, and experience many people reason that God exists, then that the Christian message is truthful and that Jesus was raised from the dead, then that the scriptures have proven themselves reliable, trustworthy and authoritative, and finally in agreement with scripture itself, that it was written by men under divine inspiration.

The reasoning is based on premises that cannot be verified, therefore the conclusions cannot be shown to be true. Again, such beliefs are an article of faith.

All of this is already presumed in the OP, and by the intended readers of the OP.

Oh, so the OP was only intended for a “limited audience”, i.e. an audience of believers in an inerrant bible. Right!

And none of it has anything directly to do with the topic at hand. Every reader of this thread knows that except you. Its only because of your ego and selfish pride that you believe that whatever tangential thought pops into your head must be more important than whatever the thread creator had in mind for his thread. Believe it or not, not every thread is suitable for your personal little vendetta against Christianity. Some, like this one, are simply to discuss current events among theologians.

Re the bolded: Yes, we already know you don’t like me.

Perhaps Nick should make clear which readership he is addressing in his posts and what subjects are “off limits”.

The topic “at hand”, is ground in the assumption of biblical inerrancy as a “given”. It is the “given” I’m questioning which has stirred up the hornets nest. An out-of-bounds topic, it seems!

I'm sorry to tell you that no one here has been stumped. Your questions are simple, but off topic, and (along with the fact that people simply find you unpleasant)

Well I’m glad you’re sorry!

We both know that anybody who questions the cherished beliefs of certain Christians around here will be reviled and belittled by these very same Christians. It’s par for the course. The list of atheists who have been driven from TWeb by personal abuse and mockery is long and a sad reflection of the spiritual insecurity of some Christians in these forums.

that's the reason no one has bothered answering them. Your imagined victory over your imagined enemies due to your imagined boldness, wit, and cleverness are in your head.

Nonsense! If you could produce an argument that resulted in me “crashing down in a screaming heap” you would take great pleasure in presenting it. Apparently you can’t.

Re the bolded: This is a highly paranoid speculative projection on your part.

We all know that you find the OP and the chain of reasoning I outlined above unreasonable.

Logic, not me per se, dictates that the “chain of reasoning” you “outlined above is unreasonable”. The reasoning is based on premises that cannot be verified, therefore the conclusions cannot be shown to be true.

We don't care. What Tassman thinks, or what Tassman feels he must get off his chest isn't the subject of this thread. There's plenty of room on this forum for you to start your own thread on just about anything your mind desires. Chances are, there's already dozens of threads created on the topics you think are important though.

Oh but you do care as evidenced by the vitriolic responses of you and your fellow Christians. These are not the responses of people secure in their faith. They are responses designed to silence opponents, come what may, by whatever means it takes.

If I was a mod, I'd have kicked you from the thread a long time ago for being disruptive, but I guess Nick doesn't mind.

Disruption not of my making! The disruptive flaming and mockery in this thread certainly didn't emanate from me – as has been observed by the TWeb Christians who have apologized to me for the behavior of their fellows in Christ.