Obviously, Loftus is not content with ‘debunking Christianity’ he feels the need to take everything personal and then ‘debunk’ Dr. West. He has since taken to insulting the good Doctor, publicly, and generally behaving like a pouting 5-year-old brat. Wait, I take that back. My 5 year wouldn’t do the things that Loftus does. (See here, here, here and here)
Why you may ask?
First, Loftus is hardly a ‘biblioblogger’. I mean, sure, I kid Dr. Jim Linville and his desire to destroy the SBL, but honestly, even as an atheist, he is a bible scholar and thus a biblioblogger. Not my cup of tea, but really, neither are Baptists (:)). I don’t think he has a personal agenda to destroy Christianity, unlike Loftus. And unlike Loftus, the good Doctor isn’t short on mental control, humor, or down right fun. Loftus, on the other, since finally being added to the ‘Complete List of Bibliobloggers’ after what seemed like decades of whining and complaining to be on such a list – and if for no other reason than to stop hearing Loftus’ nagging, I’m glad they shut it down – he has decided that it was his mission in life to unseat the good doctor. Because you know, being number one gets you into atheist heaven.
Not only that – because unseating the good doctor is considered a pastime for the rest of us but Loftus seems to thing that it is a mission of life or death – he has now taken to making stupid and moronic suggestions and claims. (See above)
Anyway, enough of the rant. Why am I post thing? Well, I think Loftus is a complete and utter, well, no, I’ll take the high road. I think that as a biblioblogger (Yes, I am), and the current and reigning number 2, and pretty humbly proud of those things, an attack on one biblioblogger by a, whatever Loftus is, is an attack on us all. Regardless if you like Dr. West or not, he is a biblioblogger and a believer, and frankly, well, what Loftus is doing, is just wrong, stupid, and childish (again, no offense to the children who act better than Loftus). This is not the ‘lesser of two evils’ trick, but an honest to goodness and sincere motivation to stand with fellow bibliobloggers.
Oh, and the Quote of the Day, when Loftus was bragging about his new ‘Alexa ranking’, Jim shot back -
or to put it another way- the gap between you and me is greater than the gap between me and google!
So, loyal readers and friends, take time to first visit Jim’s blog, Jeff’s blog, Dave Black, and James McGrath’s blog and leave numerous comments. Numerous comments. Spend the rest of the day doing so. Have fun with it. (Well, except Dave’s, but visit his blog often and from various IP addresses.)
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
Wow thanks for the link.
Jeff
Yeah, sorry if this causes you any harm from Loftus, but the man is well, crossing boundaries.
Have a very blessed day, Jeff and may more readers discover your wonderful blog.
Wow thanks for the link.
Jeff
Yeah, sorry if this causes you any harm from Loftus, but the man is well, crossing boundaries.
Have a very blessed day, Jeff and may more readers discover your wonderful blog.
Couple of things I’ve never understood.
One, why would an atheist even want to be on the top list of bibliobloggers – unless s/he was a biblical scholar.
AND then Why would an atheist want to be a biblical scholar. Seems to be a fair number of them though, so I know I’m missing something.
So, yes, please read those blogs that Joel listed above and any to the right! Turn a new one of them into the newest top 10 entry because you visited it so often! That would be wonderful
Amen, Bitsy.
I’ve asked the came question and the answer was is that some atheists see the bible as literature thing, so who doesn’t like classic literature?
Loftus is far from a biblical scholar, intending only to ‘debunk Christianity’ and in doing so starts his vitriolic attacks of those who believe. His agenda is clear – if he cannot have faith, then no one can. I can almost hear the maniacal laughter.
Couple of things I’ve never understood.
One, why would an atheist even want to be on the top list of bibliobloggers – unless s/he was a biblical scholar.
AND then Why would an atheist want to be a biblical scholar. Seems to be a fair number of them though, so I know I’m missing something.
So, yes, please read those blogs that Joel listed above and any to the right! Turn a new one of them into the newest top 10 entry because you visited it so often! That would be wonderful
Amen, Bitsy.
I’ve asked the came question and the answer was is that some atheists see the bible as literature thing, so who doesn’t like classic literature?
Loftus is far from a biblical scholar, intending only to ‘debunk Christianity’ and in doing so starts his vitriolic attacks of those who believe. His agenda is clear – if he cannot have faith, then no one can. I can almost hear the maniacal laughter.
joel i’ve never actually paid any serious attention to loftus. i’m fascinated that he’s so fixated on me though. kinda creepy really.
now the next question is, when will he or one of his creepy like minded lunatics call my house or come by like some of the other creepy lunatics have?
it might be time to get that restraining order i’ve been thinking about.
He does seem to have something for you, Dr. West, and yes, very creepy. Maybe your lack of attention to him has irritated him? I would be worried if the you started hearing Misty played over and over again and yes, a ‘restangment’ order might be needed.
Joel,
Is it true that you censored the comment that is now on the Debunking Christianity site?
My feeling is that you are somewhat biased. Jim West isn’t exactly mr nice guy when it comes to atheists. I don’t visit his site anymore. Why bother if my comments are just going to be censored.
Bill, as you should remember, all first time commentators are moderated. Its a thing that I’ve had since the very beginning of the blog to insure that spam doesn’t get through or the various moronic commentators do not leave vulgar messages. I’ve had a meeting today, and was not able, until now to get back to the blog.
To claim that I am censoring John’s comments – which is what he is doing – further proves that he is little more than a liar and an ill sort of man who’s only virtue is that he has better grammar skills than I.
Thanks for clarifying. I think I’ll stay out of this one. It’s getting a bit to hostile for my taste on all sides.
Not a problem, Bill. Further, just for future references, I don’t moderate comments except for people generally who have a special revelation and thus no sound reason can reach them, etc… or one who continuously uses vulgar language or if they wage personal attacks against other commentators. I like fair and free communication and feel that I can best learn from such.
joel i’ve never actually paid any serious attention to loftus. i’m fascinated that he’s so fixated on me though. kinda creepy really.
now the next question is, when will he or one of his creepy like minded lunatics call my house or come by like some of the other creepy lunatics have?
it might be time to get that restraining order i’ve been thinking about.
He does seem to have something for you, Dr. West, and yes, very creepy. Maybe your lack of attention to him has irritated him? I would be worried if the you started hearing Misty played over and over again and yes, a ‘restangment’ order might be needed.
Joel,
Is it true that you censored the comment that is now on the Debunking Christianity site?
My feeling is that you are somewhat biased. Jim West isn’t exactly mr nice guy when it comes to atheists. I don’t visit his site anymore. Why bother if my comments are just going to be censored.
Bill, as you should remember, all first time commentators are moderated. Its a thing that I’ve had since the very beginning of the blog to insure that spam doesn’t get through or the various moronic commentators do not leave vulgar messages. I’ve had a meeting today, and was not able, until now to get back to the blog.
To claim that I am censoring John’s comments – which is what he is doing – further proves that he is little more than a liar and an ill sort of man who’s only virtue is that he has better grammar skills than I.
Thanks for clarifying. I think I’ll stay out of this one. It’s getting a bit to hostile for my taste on all sides.
Not a problem, Bill. Further, just for future references, I don’t moderate comments except for people generally who have a special revelation and thus no sound reason can reach them, etc… or one who continuously uses vulgar language or if they wage personal attacks against other commentators. I like fair and free communication and feel that I can best learn from such.
Well as a non-Biblioblogger on the Biblioblogger list who blogs about the Bible how can I defy such logic as yours? If as a Biblioblogger I attack the credentials or arguments of another Biblioblogger then since an attack on one of us is an attack on us all, did I just attack myself? Such logic.
Nice to meet you BTW. I haven’t been here before. Glad to add to your stats.
Points of clarification: I never whined to be on the list. I asked one time before November. I have spoken this year on a panel at the annual SBL meeting in November too. I have a published book on the Bible and theology which has received high praise from both sides of the fence. Don’t believe me? Then read these recommendations. And I have another one coming at the end of April. Advanced Blurbs can be found here.
I don’t censor respectable comments and that’s all the kind of comments I make on other Blogs, unless provoked. Jim West does not want to hear from me. And he really thinks that as an atheist I’m crazy as a loon like all atheists, including Jim Linville. Yes, that’s what he really thinks of Jim, if what he said is true of all atheists and why shouldn’t it? BTW: Did you read Jim Linville’s blurb for my book?
Listen, I’m a good person with people who treat me like a human being. Jim West does not. And from what I can tell you don’t either. See, that’s what I’m talking about. You guys really are annoyed that I bested nearly all, but not all, Bibliobloggers last month. That’s not my problem, but Jim West and now you have chimed in, which only reinforces what I think.
Cheers.
Well, John, considering your latest impotent attempt at notoriety, which is, for all intents and purposes, and ill-conceived lie, why should I treat you with any sort of respect?
No, you didn’t attack yourself…. You would have to be somebody first.
Wow. Recommendations and all. How cool is that. Blurbs. Oh my. What ever shall I do.
Actually, I have good friends that are atheists, but you? You are the worse sort. No, I shouldn’t judge you as an atheist, because many have contributed significantly to the world as a whole. I’ll just keep my judgments to your, shall we say, humanity?
“Bested” Really, John, that’s just stupid. No, wait, I mean Stupid. Its a fun list, and frankly, something you and others have failed to realize. And as Jim said, you are so far the top tier in ranking that its almost silly to count you. Others, sure.
Well as a non-Biblioblogger on the Biblioblogger list who blogs about the Bible how can I defy such logic as yours? If as a Biblioblogger I attack the credentials or arguments of another Biblioblogger then since an attack on one of us is an attack on us all, did I just attack myself? Such logic.
Nice to meet you BTW. I haven’t been here before. Glad to add to your stats.
Points of clarification: I never whined to be on the list. I asked one time before November. I have spoken this year on a panel at the annual SBL meeting in November too. I have a published book on the Bible and theology which has received high praise from both sides of the fence. Don’t believe me? Then read these recommendations. And I have another one coming at the end of April. Advanced Blurbs can be found here.
I don’t censor respectable comments and that’s all the kind of comments I make on other Blogs, unless provoked. Jim West does not want to hear from me. And he really thinks that as an atheist I’m crazy as a loon like all atheists, including Jim Linville. Yes, that’s what he really thinks of Jim, if what he said is true of all atheists and why shouldn’t it? BTW: Did you read Jim Linville’s blurb for my book?
Listen, I’m a good person with people who treat me like a human being. Jim West does not. And from what I can tell you don’t either. See, that’s what I’m talking about. You guys really are annoyed that I bested nearly all, but not all, Bibliobloggers last month. That’s not my problem, but Jim West and now you have chimed in, which only reinforces what I think.
Cheers.
Well, John, considering your latest impotent attempt at notoriety, which is, for all intents and purposes, and ill-conceived lie, why should I treat you with any sort of respect?
No, you didn’t attack yourself…. You would have to be somebody first.
Wow. Recommendations and all. How cool is that. Blurbs. Oh my. What ever shall I do.
Actually, I have good friends that are atheists, but you? You are the worse sort. No, I shouldn’t judge you as an atheist, because many have contributed significantly to the world as a whole. I’ll just keep my judgments to your, shall we say, humanity?
“Bested” Really, John, that’s just stupid. No, wait, I mean Stupid. Its a fun list, and frankly, something you and others have failed to realize. And as Jim said, you are so far the top tier in ranking that its almost silly to count you. Others, sure.
Well, I can hardly object to your encouraging people to visit my blog. But I do object strongly to having an apostrophe inserted in the midst of the letters of my name!
On a more serious note, though, I don’t see how one can deny John the category of “biblioblogger” unless we are going to start requiring some sort of credentials or terminal degree in Biblical studies – in which case he won’t be the only one to leave the list!
We tolerate Jim West’s rants, so what makes John Loftus’ so irritating to you? Is it just that he’s an atheist with a high ranking?
Perhaps I myself am motivated by self interest. If we limit bibliobloggers to “believers”, how long before someone tries to limit it to the “right sort of believers”?
John Loftus doesn’t engage in the kind of mythicist pseudo-historical junk that many atheist blogs do, and he’s had Hector Avalos post there as a guest, and Hector’s credentials are solid. So I’m not sure what the objection is…
Nope, I don’t think we limit bibliobloggers to believers – as I said, I have no problem with Dr. Linville. Or, we would then have ‘what sort of believers’ should we have.
I have no problem with John’s credentials, or anyone else’s – but I do have a problem with his methods of discourse and personal attacks. Further, while we all have agenda’s, John seems to be to destroy and undermine in a very ugly way anything he is opposed to.
Rants, I don’t mind, but personal attacks, such as the one which Loftus did is beyond the pale.
And, I’m still trying to figure out the apostrophe thing.
Until such time as you remove the inappropriate apostrophe I shall refer to you as Joe’l Watt’s or as Polycar’p. Your choice.
OH – I see it now!
I generally prefer Right Reverend, Apostle and Prophet, the One, the Only, Joel, but Polycar’p looks a little Syfy
T’polycarp might be even more SyFy…
Indeed! Sorry about, but it is fixed now. Took me a while. I still believe that I am infallible…
Be careful about believing yourself infallible – that’s what gets John Loftus and Jim West in trouble!
Ha!
Well, I can hardly object to your encouraging people to visit my blog. But I do object strongly to having an apostrophe inserted in the midst of the letters of my name!
On a more serious note, though, I don’t see how one can deny John the category of “biblioblogger” unless we are going to start requiring some sort of credentials or terminal degree in Biblical studies – in which case he won’t be the only one to leave the list!
We tolerate Jim West’s rants, so what makes John Loftus’ so irritating to you? Is it just that he’s an atheist with a high ranking?
Perhaps I myself am motivated by self interest. If we limit bibliobloggers to “believers”, how long before someone tries to limit it to the “right sort of believers”?
John Loftus doesn’t engage in the kind of mythicist pseudo-historical junk that many atheist blogs do, and he’s had Hector Avalos post there as a guest, and Hector’s credentials are solid. So I’m not sure what the objection is…
Nope, I don’t think we limit bibliobloggers to believers – as I said, I have no problem with Dr. Linville. Or, we would then have ‘what sort of believers’ should we have.
I have no problem with John’s credentials, or anyone else’s – but I do have a problem with his methods of discourse and personal attacks. Further, while we all have agenda’s, John seems to be to destroy and undermine in a very ugly way anything he is opposed to.
Rants, I don’t mind, but personal attacks, such as the one which Loftus did is beyond the pale.
And, I’m still trying to figure out the apostrophe thing.
Until such time as you remove the inappropriate apostrophe I shall refer to you as Joe’l Watt’s or as Polycar’p. Your choice.
OH – I see it now!
I generally prefer Right Reverend, Apostle and Prophet, the One, the Only, Joel, but Polycar’p looks a little Syfy
T’polycarp might be even more SyFy…
Indeed! Sorry about, but it is fixed now. Took me a while. I still believe that I am infallible…
Be careful about believing yourself infallible – that’s what gets John Loftus and Jim West in trouble!
Ha!
As an atheist, agnostic, humanist, unidentified independent or whatever, (I change my mind every day depending on the weather, who I’ve been talking to, what I’ve been reading, editing or writing), I have never had a problem with Jim – he’s been a friend for a long time now and we appreciate the support he has given both secular and Christian scholarship over the years. He has many non believing friends. Sure he’s biased and blinkered and controversial and censors comments – gasp – but most of the time he’s either stirring the pot or tongue and cheek and he’s got a blinking sense of humour.
Loftus on the other hand is just plain nasty. A blog devoted to avenge for his own regrettable experience with the church, with which he has constructed a general crusade against religious people and religion, frequently flinging in regular insults such as ‘deluded’ and ‘stupid’. And now this crusade against Jim West is just vicious, pathetic, defamatory, dangerously libellous and demonstrates a complete lack of humour. How can someone use a post about his love for his wife as an opportunity to attack Christian marriages? He takes himself far too seriously.
Steph so your opinion is many religious people are not often deluded or stupid ?
If religious people are deluded or stupid Pete, then so are atheists. I don’t think religious people are deluded or stupid.
Steph you might be a scholar.But if that hasnt been able to teach you about the ignorance and delusion involved and connected to faith belief.Maybe some personal experience might be in order and appropriate in helping your education a little.
Ever thought about furthering your knowledge , how about joining Destiny Church,Exclusive Brethren,Cooperite Community,Jehovah’s Witnesses .Try a few out and get a decent dose of family division ,male domination etc into your bloodsteam.
Experience can teach people what books often cannot.
What an horrible description of people of faith, fundamentalist to be sure, Pete. That’s the problem with so many – they see all Christians by the worse examples of Christianity. Simply because someone says ‘I’m a Christian’ doesn’t mean that they are. What if we judged all atheists the same way? Or Mulsims or Jews? It’s a silly way of proceeding through life, and hardly scholarly.
Horrible it is but never the less its an example of what we do get from humans having religious faith.Not scholarly maybe not, but ive just finished explaining that books and a academic outlook cannot provide what experience can.Its a bit like reading everything up about climbing mountains,without ever practicing climbing mountains.Would you suggest taking a scholarly mountain climber without absolutely no climbing practice of climbing mountain,as a leaders word to show you how to climb Mount Everest.
Steph is right there is delusion and stupidity amongst non believers,but that fact does not do anything to disprove the stupidity and delusion connected to faith.Maybe two wrongs still dont do anything to make one right either.
Pete, I will not argue that people of faith do not have stupid and delusional moments, movements and belief systems, but you generalize all of them as such and in doing so the whole of human history in regards to religion. We can only surmise, in a generalizing term, what the world would look like in under a non-religious rule and well, it ain’t pretty.
If their is no need to show the other side respect on the issue, perhaps we should allow the extremists on each side lead us and see which one wins?
Or, we can both endeavor to stop the name calling – delusional, evil, barbaric, etc… as a knee jerk reaction – and actually practice civil discourse. Or not.
Polycarp says “What an horrible description of people of faith”
If i thought lead was a poison.Would it be inteligently smart to only suggest people who happened to get a little bit sick from lead poisoning, as my example of lead poisoning ?.
Well, considering lead has other, vital uses, to label all lead poison would be poisonous in of itself.
Thats true but most often we make sure we no longer consume lead,because we know its poison to Humans.
As humans we have become more educated about lead.We make use of it where we can where we know it wont cause harm,but humans no longer have any faith in it whenever people start thinking its something they can safely consume.
Polycarp im sorry if my words used when being quite frank and honest happened to seem a little upsetting.But do you think there might be some good reason for you feeling this feeling?.Speaking for myself i dont often tend to let peoples lies and complete false accusations effect me to much.
It wasn’t upsetting, Pete, just wrong, silly, and a little off the mark. I figure that you do and say things to get a rise out of people, and that for some reason, you have an issue with religion. So what?
First, drawing on the analogy, if we use lead properly, it aids in our civilization – it is only when we abuse it through miseducation or uneducation which it becomes dangerous. If we use religion as a battering ram for ideologies completely foreign to the religion itself, then it is poisonous; however, if as a Christian, I use my faith for those things which I believe it to be intended, which I believe was the original instance of the religion, then it is useful and edifying. Further, like lead, it has provided many great things to civilization, but when used improperly, it becomes poisonous. I intend to worship my God and to follow my faith for the edification of others and then myself.
“First, drawing on the analogy, if we use lead properly, it aids in our civilization ”
Yes we no longer swallow lead do we and we try not to let its poisons get into our blood steam either.We only use it how we have scientifically proven it can be safely used.
Im sure Humanity will find other uses for religion such as culture,but we will slowly learn that its just not safe to be swallowed like a fish hook line and sinker .
Sorry, Pete, but you can’t see the forest for the trees with your analogy. You only see the negative, or rather you only allow the negative in your analogy when in reality, lead when properly used, serves to support civilization in many ways. So too religion, but you will not bring yourself to see it.
Polycarp says: “You only see the negative, or rather you only allow the negative in your analogy ”
Quote Pete had sai”Yes we no longer swallow lead do we and we try not to let its poisons get into our blood steam either.We only use it how we have scientifically proven it can be safely used.
Im sure Humanity will find other uses for religion such as culture”
Honest?
Honest.
What a silly comment Pete. And why would I want to ‘join’ these churches when I don’t believe and never have?. I’ve been to many churches of different denominations over the years, not to participate but to observe. I did MA studies of Destiny Church about 12 years ago and spent far too much time in one particular Destiny church called The Rock. I’ve spent time in mosques, temples, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, with the Hare Krishnas, Ratana Church, Brethren, Baptist, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian. I spent two years studying Islam and went around alot in a veil. I’ve met lots of people of many religious faiths and perspectives. And I’ve met some pretty nasty atheists. And some nice ones too. I have certain moral standards you see. Like ‘be nice to people’. I’m interested in understanding what people believe, why they believe, where belief comes from, the evolution of spirituality. I’m also interested because I think it is a good idea for human beings to understand each other in order to get on with each other. I think you need to learn some manners, Pete.
To be honest you comments seem quite stupid too Steph.Specially seeing you seemed to suggest proving atheist are deluded or stupid might do anything to change whether religious folk are deluded or stupid.
Now i see that you have had the experience you suggest you have as well as being a scholar,and you still seem to be arguing whether the fact some atheists might be deluded or stupid might have an effect on whether there is delusion and stupidity actually connected to faith.Seem well stupid .
My original question was “Steph so your opinion is many religious people are not often deluded or stupid ?”
One has to wonder if we sent you over to Palestine and a bomb happened to land right smack bang on your head,if that would even help in educating you a little about the stupidity and delusion connected to faith and religion.
Pete, I think that your comments to Steph are uncalled for and unbecoming.
It doesn’t bother me. I think he’s deluded.
As an atheist, agnostic, humanist, unidentified independent or whatever, (I change my mind every day depending on the weather, who I’ve been talking to, what I’ve been reading, editing or writing), I have never had a problem with Jim – he’s been a friend for a long time now and we appreciate the support he has given both secular and Christian scholarship over the years. He has many non believing friends. Sure he’s biased and blinkered and controversial and censors comments – gasp – but most of the time he’s either stirring the pot or tongue and cheek and he’s got a blinking sense of humour.
Loftus on the other hand is just plain nasty. A blog devoted to avenge for his own regrettable experience with the church, with which he has constructed a general crusade against religious people and religion, frequently flinging in regular insults such as ‘deluded’ and ‘stupid’. And now this crusade against Jim West is just vicious, pathetic, defamatory, dangerously libellous and demonstrates a complete lack of humour. How can someone use a post about his love for his wife as an opportunity to attack Christian marriages? He takes himself far too seriously.
Steph so your opinion is many religious people are not often deluded or stupid ?
If religious people are deluded or stupid Pete, then so are atheists. I don’t think religious people are deluded or stupid.
Steph you might be a scholar.But if that hasnt been able to teach you about the ignorance and delusion involved and connected to faith belief.Maybe some personal experience might be in order and appropriate in helping your education a little.
Ever thought about furthering your knowledge , how about joining Destiny Church,Exclusive Brethren,Cooperite Community,Jehovah’s Witnesses .Try a few out and get a decent dose of family division ,male domination etc into your bloodsteam.
Experience can teach people what books often cannot.
What an horrible description of people of faith, fundamentalist to be sure, Pete. That’s the problem with so many – they see all Christians by the worse examples of Christianity. Simply because someone says ‘I’m a Christian’ doesn’t mean that they are. What if we judged all atheists the same way? Or Mulsims or Jews? It’s a silly way of proceeding through life, and hardly scholarly.
Horrible it is but never the less its an example of what we do get from humans having religious faith.Not scholarly maybe not, but ive just finished explaining that books and a academic outlook cannot provide what experience can.Its a bit like reading everything up about climbing mountains,without ever practicing climbing mountains.Would you suggest taking a scholarly mountain climber without absolutely no climbing practice of climbing mountain,as a leaders word to show you how to climb Mount Everest.
Steph is right there is delusion and stupidity amongst non believers,but that fact does not do anything to disprove the stupidity and delusion connected to faith.Maybe two wrongs still dont do anything to make one right either.
Pete, I will not argue that people of faith do not have stupid and delusional moments, movements and belief systems, but you generalize all of them as such and in doing so the whole of human history in regards to religion. We can only surmise, in a generalizing term, what the world would look like in under a non-religious rule and well, it ain’t pretty.
If their is no need to show the other side respect on the issue, perhaps we should allow the extremists on each side lead us and see which one wins?
Or, we can both endeavor to stop the name calling – delusional, evil, barbaric, etc… as a knee jerk reaction – and actually practice civil discourse. Or not.
Polycarp says “What an horrible description of people of faith”
If i thought lead was a poison.Would it be inteligently smart to only suggest people who happened to get a little bit sick from lead poisoning, as my example of lead poisoning ?.
Well, considering lead has other, vital uses, to label all lead poison would be poisonous in of itself.
Thats true but most often we make sure we no longer consume lead,because we know its poison to Humans.
As humans we have become more educated about lead.We make use of it where we can where we know it wont cause harm,but humans no longer have any faith in it whenever people start thinking its something they can safely consume.
Polycarp im sorry if my words used when being quite frank and honest happened to seem a little upsetting.But do you think there might be some good reason for you feeling this feeling?.Speaking for myself i dont often tend to let peoples lies and complete false accusations effect me to much.
It wasn’t upsetting, Pete, just wrong, silly, and a little off the mark. I figure that you do and say things to get a rise out of people, and that for some reason, you have an issue with religion. So what?
First, drawing on the analogy, if we use lead properly, it aids in our civilization – it is only when we abuse it through miseducation or uneducation which it becomes dangerous. If we use religion as a battering ram for ideologies completely foreign to the religion itself, then it is poisonous; however, if as a Christian, I use my faith for those things which I believe it to be intended, which I believe was the original instance of the religion, then it is useful and edifying. Further, like lead, it has provided many great things to civilization, but when used improperly, it becomes poisonous. I intend to worship my God and to follow my faith for the edification of others and then myself.
“First, drawing on the analogy, if we use lead properly, it aids in our civilization ”
Yes we no longer swallow lead do we and we try not to let its poisons get into our blood steam either.We only use it how we have scientifically proven it can be safely used.
Im sure Humanity will find other uses for religion such as culture,but we will slowly learn that its just not safe to be swallowed like a fish hook line and sinker .
Sorry, Pete, but you can’t see the forest for the trees with your analogy. You only see the negative, or rather you only allow the negative in your analogy when in reality, lead when properly used, serves to support civilization in many ways. So too religion, but you will not bring yourself to see it.
Polycarp says: “You only see the negative, or rather you only allow the negative in your analogy ”
Quote Pete had sai”Yes we no longer swallow lead do we and we try not to let its poisons get into our blood steam either.We only use it how we have scientifically proven it can be safely used.
Im sure Humanity will find other uses for religion such as culture”
Honest?
Honest.
What a silly comment Pete. And why would I want to ‘join’ these churches when I don’t believe and never have?. I’ve been to many churches of different denominations over the years, not to participate but to observe. I did MA studies of Destiny Church about 12 years ago and spent far too much time in one particular Destiny church called The Rock. I’ve spent time in mosques, temples, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, with the Hare Krishnas, Ratana Church, Brethren, Baptist, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian. I spent two years studying Islam and went around alot in a veil. I’ve met lots of people of many religious faiths and perspectives. And I’ve met some pretty nasty atheists. And some nice ones too. I have certain moral standards you see. Like ‘be nice to people’. I’m interested in understanding what people believe, why they believe, where belief comes from, the evolution of spirituality. I’m also interested because I think it is a good idea for human beings to understand each other in order to get on with each other. I think you need to learn some manners, Pete.
To be honest you comments seem quite stupid too Steph.Specially seeing you seemed to suggest proving atheist are deluded or stupid might do anything to change whether religious folk are deluded or stupid.
Now i see that you have had the experience you suggest you have as well as being a scholar,and you still seem to be arguing whether the fact some atheists might be deluded or stupid might have an effect on whether there is delusion and stupidity actually connected to faith.Seem well stupid .
My original question was “Steph so your opinion is many religious people are not often deluded or stupid ?”
One has to wonder if we sent you over to Palestine and a bomb happened to land right smack bang on your head,if that would even help in educating you a little about the stupidity and delusion connected to faith and religion.
Pete, I think that your comments to Steph are uncalled for and unbecoming.
It doesn’t bother me. I think he’s deluded.
John Loftus is not a Biblioblogger #atheist #atheism #god- http://tinyurl.com/y8uvmb3
RT @PolycarpTCOJC: John Loftus is not a Biblioblogger #atheist #atheism #god- http://tinyurl.com/y8uvmb3
I defy someone to show where I was ever uncivil or unkind to someone who did not already treat me as a non-human.
And that’s the problem.
Cheers.
So, retaliation is your method? And not only retaliation, but to up the ante, so to speak? Yeah, that’s mature.
You attack alot of people on your blog who probably don’t even know you. And Jim never treated you as ‘non human’. He pokes fun at all of us. And we poke fun at him.
I defy someone to show where I was ever uncivil or unkind to someone who did not already treat me as a non-human.
And that’s the problem.
Cheers.
So, retaliation is your method? And not only retaliation, but to up the ante, so to speak? Yeah, that’s mature.
You attack alot of people on your blog who probably don’t even know you. And Jim never treated you as ‘non human’. He pokes fun at all of us. And we poke fun at him.
And I have heard so many times before that the blurbs for my books are, well, rubbish. If that’s what you think of the authors of those blurbs then maybe you ought to tell them to their faces. For surely, they were not forced to write them. I think you ought to be informed of what I’m doing before you embarrass yourself.
Dr. James McGrath is writing one too. Want to tell him to his face he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Sheesh.
Wow, John, you sure do read into things, don’t you? How embarrassing for you. Blurbs don’t make a man or a book, John. You sure do have a lot of ego about you, don’t you. Further, I never said anything about those who are writing such things for you, that they don’t know what they are talking about. I made my comments in response to you using them as if I should be impressed.
Normally, if I found Dr. McGrath had endorsed a book, I would consider it wholeheartedly, as I have found said Doctor a man of good repetition and frankly, a bit challenging which for me is the best way to find someone; however, regardless of who endorses your book, I doubt seriously I’ll consider it much more of a work of ego.
Now, try to take things in context next time, shall we?
McGrath’s publications are a quite different genre … but Joel, it’s not much of a tribute to James to say he’s a “man of good repitition” is it??? Poor James, how dull! Reputation you bad bad boy!!!
Well, I thought I was being tributary, at least, and if Dr. McGrath takes it any other way, I’ll humbly apologize and come up with a better word to show my respect for him
Let’s see..
I think that his rather short work on The One True God was dense, compact, well written, and generally challenged me a good bit. His blogging, while I may not agree on every subject, is admirable, and I respect his view points.
Duh! it’s supposed to be reputation! Dang using Microsoft Word for a decade!
And I have heard so many times before that the blurbs for my books are, well, rubbish. If that’s what you think of the authors of those blurbs then maybe you ought to tell them to their faces. For surely, they were not forced to write them. I think you ought to be informed of what I’m doing before you embarrass yourself.
Dr. James McGrath is writing one too. Want to tell him to his face he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Sheesh.
Wow, John, you sure do read into things, don’t you? How embarrassing for you. Blurbs don’t make a man or a book, John. You sure do have a lot of ego about you, don’t you. Further, I never said anything about those who are writing such things for you, that they don’t know what they are talking about. I made my comments in response to you using them as if I should be impressed.
Normally, if I found Dr. McGrath had endorsed a book, I would consider it wholeheartedly, as I have found said Doctor a man of good repetition and frankly, a bit challenging which for me is the best way to find someone; however, regardless of who endorses your book, I doubt seriously I’ll consider it much more of a work of ego.
Now, try to take things in context next time, shall we?
McGrath’s publications are a quite different genre … but Joel, it’s not much of a tribute to James to say he’s a “man of good repitition” is it??? Poor James, how dull! Reputation you bad bad boy!!!
Well, I thought I was being tributary, at least, and if Dr. McGrath takes it any other way, I’ll humbly apologize and come up with a better word to show my respect for him
Let’s see..
I think that his rather short work on The One True God was dense, compact, well written, and generally challenged me a good bit. His blogging, while I may not agree on every subject, is admirable, and I respect his view points.
Duh! it’s supposed to be reputation! Dang using Microsoft Word for a decade!
I have the respect of many Christian scholars. Wait till tomorrow and I’ll show you.
You are embarrassing yourselves.
Yes, John, I’m sure we are. Tomorrow, we will wake up and find that you have posted on Christian scholars, because, after all, that is what this post is about right?
For all, this is a comment from another blog from the illustrious John Loftus:
Notice the misinformed opinion, the attack and the belief that he can control my blog and thus me.
You’re funny. Fess up. You just don’t like the fact that unlike other atheists I know how to argue against you.
Stop embarrassing yourself, okay? And become informed. Read through some of my stuff while you wait. I’m not all that, but I do know what I’m talking about.
The blog name I chose is an attention getter, that’s all. It draws in people like you who think I’m ignorant.
That’s what I like best about it.
I’ve been embarrassing people like you for four years because of it.
Cheers.
John, the only person you are embarrassing is yourself. You have misspoken numerous times, on here and other blogs, taken things way out of context, threatened and otherwise acted the part as I have described in this blog post. Sorry, John, but regardless of your ‘credentials’ and academic circle, you have embarrassed yourself but not first understanding the point of the post.
I realize that you have something to prove, I know not what, but so what. Your attitude and demeanor is the concern here. Your immature attacks on others and the voluminous ego of yours. That is what this post is about. I have no doubt that you are a capable biblical scholar. You are, however, lacking in the maturity level.
I’m no Nietzsche or Marx or Freud mind you, but keep in mind Christians didn’t like them either. Personal attacks do not matter to me.
You just do not know me anyway.
Cheers.
Wait, what’s wrong with Marx?
Plenty of Christians do like Marx, and Freud and Nietzsche
Won’t YOU be surprised. I’ll make you a wager that you do not have the same respect that I do, okay?
Again, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Oh, yes, John, I’m the one embarrassing myself.
You seem to have a bit of an ego problem and you seem to be a control freak.
No more than you if personally attacked.
No, not really. I get emails all the time, blogging, personal and professional, attacking me. Sometimes, you just have to let them go. Besides, if you are confident in yourself, you would have no need to act the way you are.
I am confident. In fact I’m in-your-face confident. You are a deluded person and my aim is to show you that you are. Of course you are repelled by this. I expect it. But it doesn’t change anything. Did you read my friend Dr. Mark Linville’s blurb? Surely he knows nothing, right? Do you respect his opinion? Then you have work to do. Do you respect Dale Allison’s opinion or my friends James Sennett or Norman Geisler’s opinions? Then you have work to do. Do you respect Jim Linville or Hector Avalos’s opinons? Then you have work to do. Do you respect James McGrath’s opinion as a fellow blogger with me?
Instead, you want to attack me for telling you that they recommend my work. Okay, I guess. In the meantime my work is changing lives. I guess you’re just not up to helping the people who read it then because of some ego problem you have about not liking me.
That’s fine with me. I’ll just carry on doing what I’m doing without any interference from someone like you who could easily dismantle my case, but who refuses to do so.
Cheers.
I’m not in this to be liked. I never expected it.
Wow, John. I have serious doubts as to your ability to comprehend written material.
No, John, I don’t think you are confident. More often than not, those with your type of attitude are those who are the least confident about themselves, and so, must over engage on every issue when they feel threatened. For some reason, you feel the need to reinterpret what others, myself in this case, write or say in a way which suits you but is a misimpression of the original. Your viewpoint is obviously clouded by some experience in your past or issue in your present. I know not what it is – I can make an educated guess.
That’s fine, we all have them, but you seem to want to bring in a lot of other people to your side, when frankly, it is not needed. You alone have proven yourself a childish individual with little hope of actual dialogue. I am not sure how to get something across to someone like you, who blindly refuses to see what the reality of the situation is. Yes, I understand that often times, perception is reality, but John, I suggest that you slow down and take time to digest what is being said here, on this forum. So far, you have jumped the gun several times, and when proved wrong, you have failed to either apologize or in the very least acknowledge that you are in error. Your ego is one which is creating an alternative reality where you, the atheist, argues against me, the Christian. Instead, my post here was not about your atheism, but about your agenda – which is to disprove and destroy anything which you don’t like.
Regarding the names you are dropping. Let me as clear and concise as possible. My comments regarding your blurbs have nothing to do with the people are who are writing them, as I suspect that I would respect many if not all of them. My comments regarding your blurbs are dealing with the fact that in regards to you thinking that in a post dealing with your attitude and demeanor against others, you feel that blurbs about your upcoming book will sway opinion that your hostility is well founded. Wrong. If this was about your credentials, then academic support would matter – but as I have not attacked your credentials, only your personality, demeanor, and open hostility to others who challenge your or question you (so well exhibited here), then academic support doesn’t hold sway. I hope that I have made myself clear. The problems which you have within yourself rest on you and your alone. I have not doubt as your academic ability, but to your ability to function in a civil society, well, I have yet to see proof.
An inflated ego is often times filled with little more than hot air.
Tell ya what. I’ll let readers judge for themselves on what you just wrote. In any case I already said I do not care what deluded people think of me, but I prefer to be friends.
I don’t think anyone is ‘embarrassed’ and why does it matter to you that they are? And I don’t know anyone who is impressed with ‘name dropping’. It generally just reflects a lack of confidence in one’s ability. Which is sad.
I’m an ‘atheist’ scholar in early christianity and biblical texts. I’m not obsessive about my ‘atheism’ (such a negative and ugly word with such a bad reputation!), it’s just my perspective. I’m a historian, not a ‘theologian’. While there are probably far less secular scholars in my field than Christian scholars, I don’t have a problem with either. However some have more bias than others, and atheists are just as biased as some Christian scholars. While John’s blog is not academic, it is biased, very biased. Why does he need to ‘prove’ himself so badly? Why does he have such a victim complex? Why does he take himself so seriously? Isn’t it a bit like the schoolyard? To understand why, you need to read his book, a personal account. It’s sad and regrettable but there is no justification for the sort of crusade he has created and quite frankly I don’t see why other people should think the way I do any more than I should think like them. So why should everyone think like John? And why would they want to when he calls them deluded? And who in the end really cares?
steph said: “To understand why, you need to read his book, a personal account.”
If that’s all you think about my book, and I don’t know this for a fact, then you have not read it.
Carry on, I’ve got to go for now.
Oh I’ve read it. Brand spanking new copy. And to be fair, it’s quite different from anything else I’ve read.
Well, Steph, don’t spoil the ending! I might actually get me a copy soon enough
I can’t remember how much it cost – it was through Amazon I think and not my credit card
but I know it was cheap which is why we got it.
btw – it’s only the first chapter, a few pages which provides his conversion and deconversion experience. This is useful because atheists don’t normally do this (and neither do Christians!) and it gives a frame of reference to understand the approach and reason behind his arguments – which are against God, doctrines, miracles etc. Being a colourful person, a black book tends to flavour my initial reaction
but still having overcome that (haha) I didn’t find the book terribly helpful or useful but then I’m never that impressed by any arguments for or against God – they generally make me agnostic for the day – and the writing style was almost conversational, interjected with dollops of sarcasm, so a bit long winded. That’s just my personal impression. I’m more interested in the history we can reconstruct rather than stories and ideas we can debunk.
and it’s published by Prometheus Books and was either 9 pounds or 9 US dollars which is cheap compared with what we pay for ‘academic’ publications especially resource material… James Edwards arrived today, ‘The Hebrew Gospel’ and it’s worse than anticipated even knowing his previous work. He assumes the ‘Aramaic Hypothesis’ is assumed and not argued for and completely ignores (doesn’t know) Casey’s work which argues for it extensively. And his impression of the so called ‘Aramaic Hypothesis’ is way out of date. He’s an apologist… It just gets worse. Very depressing. I’ll probably have to mention it so I’m going to have to read the whole thing…
Actually his hypothesis (that Luke used a Hebrew Gospel for his special sources) isn’t inherently implausible and his ‘mistakes’ don’t effect his underlying thesis. However he seems unaware of the relationship between Aramaic and Hebrew and other things too.
On Loftus – astonishing. Who cares who knows who? Why this need to ‘prove’ himself and drop names on his latest post? And credit himself with so much importance? Really, that the Bib500 or whatever it’s called was ‘closed down’ at all, and ‘closed down’ because of him, is just bizarre. Who cares really? There are plenty of secular bibliobloggers and as far as I can tell he just takes himself far too seriously and hasn’t got a sense of humour. The best scholars I know are the most humble people. And quite frankly, they don’t crave the publicity of blogging. And they don’t interrupt conversations to tell us all about themselves on the street.
I have the respect of many Christian scholars. Wait till tomorrow and I’ll show you.
You are embarrassing yourselves.
Yes, John, I’m sure we are. Tomorrow, we will wake up and find that you have posted on Christian scholars, because, after all, that is what this post is about right?
For all, this is a comment from another blog from the illustrious John Loftus:
Notice the misinformed opinion, the attack and the belief that he can control my blog and thus me.
You’re funny. Fess up. You just don’t like the fact that unlike other atheists I know how to argue against you.
Stop embarrassing yourself, okay? And become informed. Read through some of my stuff while you wait. I’m not all that, but I do know what I’m talking about.
The blog name I chose is an attention getter, that’s all. It draws in people like you who think I’m ignorant.
That’s what I like best about it.
I’ve been embarrassing people like you for four years because of it.
Cheers.
John, the only person you are embarrassing is yourself. You have misspoken numerous times, on here and other blogs, taken things way out of context, threatened and otherwise acted the part as I have described in this blog post. Sorry, John, but regardless of your ‘credentials’ and academic circle, you have embarrassed yourself but not first understanding the point of the post.
I realize that you have something to prove, I know not what, but so what. Your attitude and demeanor is the concern here. Your immature attacks on others and the voluminous ego of yours. That is what this post is about. I have no doubt that you are a capable biblical scholar. You are, however, lacking in the maturity level.
I’m no Nietzsche or Marx or Freud mind you, but keep in mind Christians didn’t like them either. Personal attacks do not matter to me.
You just do not know me anyway.
Cheers.
Wait, what’s wrong with Marx?
Plenty of Christians do like Marx, and Freud and Nietzsche
Won’t YOU be surprised. I’ll make you a wager that you do not have the same respect that I do, okay?
Again, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Oh, yes, John, I’m the one embarrassing myself.
You seem to have a bit of an ego problem and you seem to be a control freak.
No more than you if personally attacked.
No, not really. I get emails all the time, blogging, personal and professional, attacking me. Sometimes, you just have to let them go. Besides, if you are confident in yourself, you would have no need to act the way you are.
I am confident. In fact I’m in-your-face confident. You are a deluded person and my aim is to show you that you are. Of course you are repelled by this. I expect it. But it doesn’t change anything. Did you read my friend Dr. Mark Linville’s blurb? Surely he knows nothing, right? Do you respect his opinion? Then you have work to do. Do you respect Dale Allison’s opinion or my friends James Sennett or Norman Geisler’s opinions? Then you have work to do. Do you respect Jim Linville or Hector Avalos’s opinons? Then you have work to do. Do you respect James McGrath’s opinion as a fellow blogger with me?
Instead, you want to attack me for telling you that they recommend my work. Okay, I guess. In the meantime my work is changing lives. I guess you’re just not up to helping the people who read it then because of some ego problem you have about not liking me.
That’s fine with me. I’ll just carry on doing what I’m doing without any interference from someone like you who could easily dismantle my case, but who refuses to do so.
Cheers.
I’m not in this to be liked. I never expected it.
Wow, John. I have serious doubts as to your ability to comprehend written material.
No, John, I don’t think you are confident. More often than not, those with your type of attitude are those who are the least confident about themselves, and so, must over engage on every issue when they feel threatened. For some reason, you feel the need to reinterpret what others, myself in this case, write or say in a way which suits you but is a misimpression of the original. Your viewpoint is obviously clouded by some experience in your past or issue in your present. I know not what it is – I can make an educated guess.
That’s fine, we all have them, but you seem to want to bring in a lot of other people to your side, when frankly, it is not needed. You alone have proven yourself a childish individual with little hope of actual dialogue. I am not sure how to get something across to someone like you, who blindly refuses to see what the reality of the situation is. Yes, I understand that often times, perception is reality, but John, I suggest that you slow down and take time to digest what is being said here, on this forum. So far, you have jumped the gun several times, and when proved wrong, you have failed to either apologize or in the very least acknowledge that you are in error. Your ego is one which is creating an alternative reality where you, the atheist, argues against me, the Christian. Instead, my post here was not about your atheism, but about your agenda – which is to disprove and destroy anything which you don’t like.
Regarding the names you are dropping. Let me as clear and concise as possible. My comments regarding your blurbs have nothing to do with the people are who are writing them, as I suspect that I would respect many if not all of them. My comments regarding your blurbs are dealing with the fact that in regards to you thinking that in a post dealing with your attitude and demeanor against others, you feel that blurbs about your upcoming book will sway opinion that your hostility is well founded. Wrong. If this was about your credentials, then academic support would matter – but as I have not attacked your credentials, only your personality, demeanor, and open hostility to others who challenge your or question you (so well exhibited here), then academic support doesn’t hold sway. I hope that I have made myself clear. The problems which you have within yourself rest on you and your alone. I have not doubt as your academic ability, but to your ability to function in a civil society, well, I have yet to see proof.
An inflated ego is often times filled with little more than hot air.
Tell ya what. I’ll let readers judge for themselves on what you just wrote. In any case I already said I do not care what deluded people think of me, but I prefer to be friends.
I don’t think anyone is ‘embarrassed’ and why does it matter to you that they are? And I don’t know anyone who is impressed with ‘name dropping’. It generally just reflects a lack of confidence in one’s ability. Which is sad.
I’m an ‘atheist’ scholar in early christianity and biblical texts. I’m not obsessive about my ‘atheism’ (such a negative and ugly word with such a bad reputation!), it’s just my perspective. I’m a historian, not a ‘theologian’. While there are probably far less secular scholars in my field than Christian scholars, I don’t have a problem with either. However some have more bias than others, and atheists are just as biased as some Christian scholars. While John’s blog is not academic, it is biased, very biased. Why does he need to ‘prove’ himself so badly? Why does he have such a victim complex? Why does he take himself so seriously? Isn’t it a bit like the schoolyard? To understand why, you need to read his book, a personal account. It’s sad and regrettable but there is no justification for the sort of crusade he has created and quite frankly I don’t see why other people should think the way I do any more than I should think like them. So why should everyone think like John? And why would they want to when he calls them deluded? And who in the end really cares?
steph said: “To understand why, you need to read his book, a personal account.”
If that’s all you think about my book, and I don’t know this for a fact, then you have not read it.
Carry on, I’ve got to go for now.
Oh I’ve read it. Brand spanking new copy. And to be fair, it’s quite different from anything else I’ve read.
Well, Steph, don’t spoil the ending! I might actually get me a copy soon enough
I can’t remember how much it cost – it was through Amazon I think and not my credit card
but I know it was cheap which is why we got it.
btw – it’s only the first chapter, a few pages which provides his conversion and deconversion experience. This is useful because atheists don’t normally do this (and neither do Christians!) and it gives a frame of reference to understand the approach and reason behind his arguments – which are against God, doctrines, miracles etc. Being a colourful person, a black book tends to flavour my initial reaction
but still having overcome that (haha) I didn’t find the book terribly helpful or useful but then I’m never that impressed by any arguments for or against God – they generally make me agnostic for the day – and the writing style was almost conversational, interjected with dollops of sarcasm, so a bit long winded. That’s just my personal impression. I’m more interested in the history we can reconstruct rather than stories and ideas we can debunk.
and it’s published by Prometheus Books and was either 9 pounds or 9 US dollars which is cheap compared with what we pay for ‘academic’ publications especially resource material… James Edwards arrived today, ‘The Hebrew Gospel’ and it’s worse than anticipated even knowing his previous work. He assumes the ‘Aramaic Hypothesis’ is assumed and not argued for and completely ignores (doesn’t know) Casey’s work which argues for it extensively. And his impression of the so called ‘Aramaic Hypothesis’ is way out of date. He’s an apologist… It just gets worse. Very depressing. I’ll probably have to mention it so I’m going to have to read the whole thing…
Actually his hypothesis (that Luke used a Hebrew Gospel for his special sources) isn’t inherently implausible and his ‘mistakes’ don’t effect his underlying thesis. However he seems unaware of the relationship between Aramaic and Hebrew and other things too.
On Loftus – astonishing. Who cares who knows who? Why this need to ‘prove’ himself and drop names on his latest post? And credit himself with so much importance? Really, that the Bib500 or whatever it’s called was ‘closed down’ at all, and ‘closed down’ because of him, is just bizarre. Who cares really? There are plenty of secular bibliobloggers and as far as I can tell he just takes himself far too seriously and hasn’t got a sense of humour. The best scholars I know are the most humble people. And quite frankly, they don’t crave the publicity of blogging. And they don’t interrupt conversations to tell us all about themselves on the street.
[...] is a Biblioblogger?: See the dispute here and here. Labels and rankings don’t really matter to me (but that may be just sour grapes as [...]
John Loftus is not a Biblioblogger | The Church of Jesus Christ: Obviously, Loftus is not content with 'debunking C… http://bit.ly/6XGR44
The whole crusading secular flavour does nothing for me, and is just religious zealotry in a thin disguise that I suspect fools no one (even if we give it a big nose and a fake moustache). But I’m not sure that should preclude him from the title “biblioblogger.”
Of course, I’m not sure that the title serves much purpose anyway, beyond finding blogs of a similar interest.
The title was as afterthought, but the post was more to his demeanor.
I never took the title seriously – it was tongue and cheek I think. There are alot of over sensitive souls out there. The whole bib500 thing is supposed to be a joke I think. But people get upset over that too. I never take much notice. It doesn’t really suggest much to me other than perhaps that other people must read stuff I can’t be bothered with.
I completely agree, Steph.
The whole crusading secular flavour does nothing for me, and is just religious zealotry in a thin disguise that I suspect fools no one (even if we give it a big nose and a fake moustache). But I’m not sure that should preclude him from the title “biblioblogger.”
Of course, I’m not sure that the title serves much purpose anyway, beyond finding blogs of a similar interest.
The title was as afterthought, but the post was more to his demeanor.
I never took the title seriously – it was tongue and cheek I think. There are alot of over sensitive souls out there. The whole bib500 thing is supposed to be a joke I think. But people get upset over that too. I never take much notice. It doesn’t really suggest much to me other than perhaps that other people must read stuff I can’t be bothered with.
I completely agree, Steph.
I’m a secular humanist who found this through “Debunking Christianity,” a site that I only discovered this week, so I have very little invested in this debate but, having read all these comments and all the blog posts linked, I have to say that “polycarp” is completely lacking in self-awareness and incredibly hypocritical. You can’t condemn someone for being cruel, (which Loftus wasn’t, and all his questions seemed fair to me) and pretend to take the high road in the same sentence that you make ad hominem attacks on his character. How transparently childish.
Um…taking the high road accusation, seems like I just saw that somewhere just recently.
Taylor, I believe you are the one who brought up the word ‘cruel.’ Loftus was hardly posting questions, but attacking in a very childish manner.
Character?
As the person that left that comment on DC, I think that comment stands. However, having just read John’s comments here, I think it is probably an appropriate comment for both of you. John, the name dropping is over the top, and I think you’re being overly aggressive and defensive by engaging in it. It’s one thing to maintain a position and argue it passionately and vigorously, but it’s another thing to berate people about your work based on what someone else says about it, then demand that they have to respond or else you’ll accuse them of trying to evade the issues you bring up. Maybe people like Joel are trying to evade the questions you raise, but I can’t say that that is true. But even if it is true, I don’t think going on the war path is going to change that.
I think your work does raise a whole boat load of questions that people like Joel should address, and it is obvious that you want to engage these folks and get their responses. So a little harmless baiting like these biblioblogger rankings is understandable and can potentially help that along, even though there are those that are dismissive of it. But this has degenerated from some half serious chiding, to the point where nobody is looking particularly good.
I’m a secular humanist who found this through “Debunking Christianity,” a site that I only discovered this week, so I have very little invested in this debate but, having read all these comments and all the blog posts linked, I have to say that “polycarp” is completely lacking in self-awareness and incredibly hypocritical. You can’t condemn someone for being cruel, (which Loftus wasn’t, and all his questions seemed fair to me) and pretend to take the high road in the same sentence that you make ad hominem attacks on his character. How transparently childish.
Um…taking the high road accusation, seems like I just saw that somewhere just recently.
Taylor, I believe you are the one who brought up the word ‘cruel.’ Loftus was hardly posting questions, but attacking in a very childish manner.
Character?
As the person that left that comment on DC, I think that comment stands. However, having just read John’s comments here, I think it is probably an appropriate comment for both of you. John, the name dropping is over the top, and I think you’re being overly aggressive and defensive by engaging in it. It’s one thing to maintain a position and argue it passionately and vigorously, but it’s another thing to berate people about your work based on what someone else says about it, then demand that they have to respond or else you’ll accuse them of trying to evade the issues you bring up. Maybe people like Joel are trying to evade the questions you raise, but I can’t say that that is true. But even if it is true, I don’t think going on the war path is going to change that.
I think your work does raise a whole boat load of questions that people like Joel should address, and it is obvious that you want to engage these folks and get their responses. So a little harmless baiting like these biblioblogger rankings is understandable and can potentially help that along, even though there are those that are dismissive of it. But this has degenerated from some half serious chiding, to the point where nobody is looking particularly good.
[...] the third hand, Joel Watts, the true Mind behind the Church of Jesus Christ, jumped into the fray on the 29th, declaring that Loftus is not a biblioblogger and really [...]
All, as another point of John’s incivility, let me note that after someone had taken upon themselves to spend unknown hours putting the rankings together, John makes libelous statements first here and then here. He accuses all of Christianity of making some horrible crime against him, because someone choose a different day to look at rankings instead of this morning. John didn’t bother to notice that the post was done yesterday while Loftus is using today’s stats. I believe that my general points have been proven. Again.
Oh, and the man is completely unhinged: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/12/censoring-my-comments-again-and-on.html
Hey, it’s a trivial thing as I said. But it is as I say.
Hey, when the personal attacks are over will you actually engage my arguments? I’ll be waiting. In my opinion Christians attack me personally when they cannot or will not answer my arguments. Go ahead and personally attack me if this is all you can do. As I’ve said I do not care what deluded people think of me, but I prefer to be friends.
Cheers.
John, when you can stop your moronic attacks against everyone, if you present arguments, I’ll engage you. What you have done this morning, by accusing someone of thing which clearly did not happen (example. I numbers are wrong in the Nov. 08 Top 50 because today, I am 69000 and number 2), and then labeling Christianity as such, proves my point that you have no civility in you, maturity, and that you thrive on conspiracy. It is shameful the attacks, very personal again, that you have leveled this morning. Shame on you.
BTW, I was satisfied with that guys answers to me so I took both posts down. Is that reasonable enough?
I treat people with respect so long as they treat me according to the Golden Rule. You do know what it says, don’t you? But like the Pharisees in the NT who chose to limit it to Jews of their sect you probably exclude atheists as “neighbors” in Jesus 2nd greatest commandment too. That’s what irks me and I have a right to be irked. Just consider this from my perspective for a nanosecond if you can, which you can’t. All I have seen you do here is level personal attacks on my character.
In any case I really do not care what you think of me, as I said. Besides, I could be the most vile person in the world and you still could not dismiss my arguments.
And I did post an argument this morning implicit in some questions. Respond to it, okay? Let’s have go shall we?
John, as my atheists friends can attest, and those of different theological differences, and I hope other bloggers can, I try to treat others with respect. Note, not so much those who would use and abuse others, but sincere people I can.
Well, John, I’m glad to see you remove those posts this morning. If you wish to engage, email me and we can maybe do a week or a month of it. What say ye?
Looks like we cross-posted here. That’s fine with me, shall I say, friend?
Of course, John.
That’s what I prefer.
Thanks.
Care to comment on today’s argument at DC?
All, as another point of John’s incivility, let me note that after someone had taken upon themselves to spend unknown hours putting the rankings together, John makes libelous statements first here and then here. He accuses all of Christianity of making some horrible crime against him, because someone choose a different day to look at rankings instead of this morning. John didn’t bother to notice that the post was done yesterday while Loftus is using today’s stats. I believe that my general points have been proven. Again.
Oh, and the man is completely unhinged: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/12/censoring-my-comments-again-and-on.html
Hey, it’s a trivial thing as I said. But it is as I say.
Hey, when the personal attacks are over will you actually engage my arguments? I’ll be waiting. In my opinion Christians attack me personally when they cannot or will not answer my arguments. Go ahead and personally attack me if this is all you can do. As I’ve said I do not care what deluded people think of me, but I prefer to be friends.
Cheers.
John, when you can stop your moronic attacks against everyone, if you present arguments, I’ll engage you. What you have done this morning, by accusing someone of thing which clearly did not happen (example. I numbers are wrong in the Nov. 08 Top 50 because today, I am 69000 and number 2), and then labeling Christianity as such, proves my point that you have no civility in you, maturity, and that you thrive on conspiracy. It is shameful the attacks, very personal again, that you have leveled this morning. Shame on you.
BTW, I was satisfied with that guys answers to me so I took both posts down. Is that reasonable enough?
I treat people with respect so long as they treat me according to the Golden Rule. You do know what it says, don’t you? But like the Pharisees in the NT who chose to limit it to Jews of their sect you probably exclude atheists as “neighbors” in Jesus 2nd greatest commandment too. That’s what irks me and I have a right to be irked. Just consider this from my perspective for a nanosecond if you can, which you can’t. All I have seen you do here is level personal attacks on my character.
In any case I really do not care what you think of me, as I said. Besides, I could be the most vile person in the world and you still could not dismiss my arguments.
And I did post an argument this morning implicit in some questions. Respond to it, okay? Let’s have go shall we?
John, as my atheists friends can attest, and those of different theological differences, and I hope other bloggers can, I try to treat others with respect. Note, not so much those who would use and abuse others, but sincere people I can.
Well, John, I’m glad to see you remove those posts this morning. If you wish to engage, email me and we can maybe do a week or a month of it. What say ye?
Looks like we cross-posted here. That’s fine with me, shall I say, friend?
Of course, John.
That’s what I prefer.
Thanks.
Care to comment on today’s argument at DC?
[...] recommended that my blog get ranked, despite his penchant for trying to get people thrown off this list. With friends like that…well, I’ll take any friends I can [...]