Dr. James McGrath, again, on the Resemblance Between Mythicism And Creationism

In responding to a rather juvenile post by Neil G., Dr. McGrath again steps into the water and wades out a little bit deeper. This is Neils bailiwick, in which he insults someone who he disagrees with, and then proceeds to spit out nothing by lies, misinformation, and logical fallacies about them and their positions along with the notion that Christ is nothing more than a myth. I would encourage you to read the posts in the series (click the tags at the bottom of this post, or the labels at Dr. McGrath’s site) for a better understanding of the issues and how it is academically handled.

This is, in my opinion, a non-issue based on the historical facts, but from time to time, someone wishing to make his or her mark, decides to take this up.

And to note, a commentator there writes,

I am a scientist, and I also believe in Jesus as my savior. I do not see any conflict between my religion and my science. I think the main problem is that creationists take the bible as “word for word” literally. But then do they take even prophetic writing like the beasts in Revelation literally? The bible is not a science book. Would God try to explain to a rather limited scientific person like Moses basic physics, chemistry, or biology? I view Genesis as an allegory given to a “science-challenged” group of people. Maybe that is still true today. If God could use Babylonians and Romans as His instrument to carry out justice upon an unrighteous Israel (in 600 BC and again in 70 AD), He could certainly use evolution to carry out His plan for creation. To the people who take the bible “word for word” literally correct – could you please tell me about Leviticus 14. Does an animal’s blood on you right ear, right thumb, and right big toe, help you in your cleansing? Can I mention “priestly source” without being barbecued?

(I kinda had to throw that in)

But, read the posts in question.

You Might Also Like

19 Replies to “Dr. James McGrath, again, on the Resemblance Between Mythicism And Creationism”

  1. Following those arguments is so painful, the sheer stupidity from these self-proclaimed “experts.” Of course, I am talking about those stupid well educated scholars and historians who are ignorant enough to believe that the overwhelming evidence for Jesus means that he most probably existed. The fools!

  2. Nice to see your Christian and scholarly ethics at work, Joel. Perhaps you would be honest enough to actually cite one instance of any of the following in my post:

    a lie


    a logical fallacy

    an argument for Jesus mythicism

    As for the insult, I suggest your readers consult my response to this nonsense and read my original discussion in the post you address.

  3. Neil, I haven't seen much on your posts that is a lie, misinformation, logical fallacy or otherwise. Further, you sent my comments to spam because I refused to take you seriously, ranking you somewhere between Curious George and Blue's Clues.

  4. Oh, and Neil – the reason that you were moderated in the first place is because you shared a link. To prevent spam, I have it moderated that all posts which include at least one link be moderated. I don't like censorship, and will do so, only in the case of profanity and vulgarity.

  5. “Much”? So you are saying you have seen SOME lies, misinformation, logical fallacies etc.? Do inform me of these instances so that I can take remedial action!

  6. I should add, as I recently did on McGrath's blog, that I am serious in my request for you to alert me to any instances of misinformation etc on my blog. Thus when R. Joseph Hoffmann alerted me to where I had misrepresented a claim of his, I immediately corrected it prominently and publicly.

  7. blah blah blah.

    See, I don't have a post-graduate degree, so I don't have to waste time being nice.

    Pick a post, look at the comments section where either myself, irishanglican or Steph have attempted to interact with you and there is your answer.

  8. I would think someone accusing another person of lying could produce at least one instance, if they were older than 5 years old.

  9. So I see Joel, because you don't have a degree you don't have to waste time being honest and making truthful claims about another person.

  10. No, Neil, again with the taking things and twisting them. As I told you, I don't care about wasting time on you. Pick a post, where either I, IA or Steph have interacted with you, or James McGrath for that matter, and that should stand as proof enough.

  11. Curious that you can take time to post at some length about me when you accuse me of lying etc, but when I ask you to quote me one example to prove your point, you suddenly don't have time to waste. How about, instead of taking the time to type a single sentence in response (as you had had time to do in the past) you simply type out one quote of mine that is a lie. Should be easy, shouldn't it, if my posts are “nothing but” lies?

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.