Thread: John W. Loftus

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Loftus. He sounds like an Enigma to me.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...istianity.html


http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/view-i...45338-31415aaa

In his words:

There are three major experiences that happened in my life that changed my thinking. They all happened in the space of about five years, from 1991-1996. They are: 1) A major crisis, 2) plus information, 3) minus a sense of a loving, caring, Christian community. For me it was an assault of major proportions that if I still believed in the devil would say it was orchestrated by the legions of hell.




[Edited on 4-27-2006 by caddy]

e·nig·ma n. One that is puzzling, ambiguous, or inexplicable.

Loftus is as puzzling to me as any other deluded unbeliever.

I actually benefit greatly hearing reports of apostates. God has ordained that false teachers and the like would be mixed in with the genuine.

So to learn that a man can be privy to the *best* and highest levels of Christian education and STILL be an unbeliever lends support to the biblical teaching that we are saved by God's grace and His grace A L O N E.

The words of the Bible to the unregenerate are just words. To the one whose eyes have been divinely opened they are God breathed revelation.

And his education hasn't served him well as you might expect. Paul Manata's blog demonstrates this in an embarrassing fashion:

http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.c...deflating.html

Hey thanks Paul

I listened to the Audio of the Atheist hour where you responded to him...and I am catching up on your blog.

I have actually emailed him and discussed a couple of things with him. It is just disappointing and sad, but just as God turned Pharoah's heart and hardened it, it would seem that he has turned and hardened Loftus' heart as well.

I have just finished reading J.Frame's book "Apologetics to the Glory of God." I am somewhat new to presupppsitionalism and Reformed theology, but the more I read, the more it makes sense. This is why I mention how puzzling things like this can be to me at times. Of course we have all wandered, either in our own Christian walk or before God Called us and Graciously saved us, so, NOT knowing what God has in store for people like Loftus, you try to be stern and corrective, but also gracious and kind. I try to be balanced when I discuss my faith and worldviews that are in obvious error. I appreciate your blog and the skill which you bring to the "verbal" table to defend the faith. Most of us are not so adept at it in person. I'm just a slow thinker. I'm gona blame it on my advanced age of almost 45!

Yea...that's what I'll do....

:bigsmile:

Originally posted by paul manata
actually, I've written quite a bit on Loftus:

http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.c...debunking.html

http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.c...-w-loftus.html

http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.c...ones-self.html

http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.c...stian-you.html

Absolutely !

Loftus posits that arguments, ideas, and scientific discoveries have served to debunk the faith. Far from it, I say. As I spoke with him, I know and stated that his wandering has absolutely nothing to do with intellect and everything to do with God's providence, timing and good pleasure. Just because we can't see how He's weaving the tapestry of our lives--believer and unbeliever alike, doesn't mean He's not at work and not in control! How marvelous a thing is that.

Originally posted by paul manata
Steven, as Chris said, this just proves that we're saved by grace, not brains.

I mean, look at Demas, Hymenaeus, Ananias, et al.

I'm sure if we lived back then we'd say that Demas was the man. he hung with Paul.

Loftus should cause us to pray and more earnestly "make our calling an election sure."

See, God uses Loftus even in his apostasy.

God works all things together for those who love Him.

God could be using Loftus to give some lackluster Christians the needed boost to get them back "on the Way."

[Edited on 4-28-2006 by caddy]

Originally posted by mangum

So to learn that a man can be privy to the *best* and highest levels of Christian education and STILL be an unbeliever lends support to the biblical teaching that we are saved by God's grace and His grace A L O N E.

Though I stand with you in agreement that we are saved by God's grace and His grace alone, I don't see how this man lends support to that teaching. An Arminian could just say the guy changed his mind of his own free will. That he was saved and then he was lost.

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk

Originally posted by mangum

So to learn that a man can be privy to the *best* and highest levels of Christian education and STILL be an unbeliever lends support to the biblical teaching that we are saved by God's grace and His grace A L O N E.

Though I stand with you in agreement that we are saved by God's grace and His grace alone, I don't see how this man lends support to that teaching. An Arminian could just say the guy changed his mind of his own free will. That he was saved and then he was lost.

Yes, an Arminian could say that. But would he be right? No.

Just like I could say that a 1 legged-pink-unicorn-headed octupus tricked him into believing he descended from apes.

[Edited on 4-28-2006 by mangum]

Originally posted by mangum

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk

Originally posted by mangum

So to learn that a man can be privy to the *best* and highest levels of Christian education and STILL be an unbeliever lends support to the biblical teaching that we are saved by God's grace and His grace A L O N E.

Though I stand with you in agreement that we are saved by God's grace and His grace alone, I don't see how this man lends support to that teaching. An Arminian could just say the guy changed his mind of his own free will. That he was saved and then he was lost.

Yes, an Arminian could say that. But would he be right? No.

Just like I could say that a 1 legged-pink-unicorn-headed octupus tricked him into believing he descended from apes.

[Edited on 4-28-2006 by mangum]

You could say that. But it wouldn't lend any support to the theory of evolution. Please read again more closely what I was saying.

Originally posted by paul manata
Some people have argued that some people are not saved due to a lack of information.

That is, if only they would see the "facts," then they'd believe.

Loftus shows that even being educated by factmaster par excellence, William Lane Criag, that doesn't necessarly imply that one will believe.

Why not?

We're saved by grace.

Thus I read magnum's comments as arguing against those who think man's problem is mainly intellectual and not moral.

Depending on how you look at it, his comments did lend "support" to the teaching that we're saved by grace.

So, there is an idea that many have. Many say, "if I could just show them the evidence, they'd believe."

This is refuted not only by Loftus, but by Jesus' resurrection when we read in Matthew 28:17 "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted."

Thus in the above context we can see that magnum's point was correct.


As far as the Arminian thing goes, magnum didn't use the word "Arminian" and, furthermore, I don't know of to many Arminians (in the modern sense) who would outright, self-consciously, deny that we are "saved by grace A L O N E."

Indeed, many Arminians would agree that Loftus lends support to the idea that we're saved only by grace, not by brains.

Lastly, your counter does not serve as a valid rebuttal to magnum's claim.

Magnum spoke of how one is saved, your counter spoke of how one might *lose* his salvation.

In theory, an Arminian can agree that we are saved by grace alone but that we can loose that salvation by our own deeds.

Thus we read about a common Arminian response to Jesus' teaching on perserverance when he tells us that "no one can snatch you out of my hand" and the sly Arminian says, "Ah, but that doesn;t say that *we* cannot get up and walk out on our own."

Upon analysis, I think magnum's context was not given its due consideration as well as I think that the debate shifted terms, i.e., slavation vs. what happens *after* salvation.

Paul, I don't think you got what I was trying to say. That's ok though. I'm used to my opinions/arguments being discounted because I'm not in the "in" crowd. Carry on.

"I don't think I "discounted" your opinions."
Well, the tone of your scholarly "put down" (as it seemed) sure did seem like it. Maybe you weren't aware how you came across and that's fine.

The "in" crowd meant exactly that. I shouldn't have implied that my opinions are treated as worthless as that has not been the case. I guess I meant by "in" crowd those who have been here for a long while. There basically is an in crowd wherever you go; even in churches and indeed, on message boards.

You showed why you could say what you said, insofar as you thought you knew what I was trying to say. I apologize for not counter-analyzing your analysis. That is hard to do when angry. I know what you mean about taknig the time to interact with what I wrote and not receiving much back in the form of discourse.

No, I can't u2u you with a list of an "in"crowd. I never claimed to know who they were so how could I do that? And even if I did, it would be in the order I wish it to be in. If I wish it in alphabetical order, it would be in alphabetical order. :bigsmile:

Originally posted by paul manata
Some people have argued that some people are not saved due to a lack of information.

I'm familiar with that argument.

That is, if only they would see the "facts," then they'd believe.

On this I agree with them. Nobody is saved without knowing whom they believe on.

Loftus shows that even being educated by factmaster par excellence, William Lane Criag, that doesn't necessarly imply that one will believe.

True, it doesn't. But without knowing the facts, nobody will get saved.

Why not?

We're saved by grace.

True. By grace through faith. Faith requires knowing whom you have faith in.

Thus I read magnum's comments as arguing against those who think man's problem is mainly intellectual and not moral.

I believe that as well.

Depending on how you look at it, his comments did lend "support" to the teaching that we're saved by grace.

That is where we disagree, and the whole point I was trying to make. He said, "So to learn that a man can be privy to the *best* and highest levels of Christian education and STILL be an unbeliever lends support to the biblical teaching that we are saved by God's grace and His grace A L O N E." My point is, while true that we are saved by God's grace alone, through faith; that doesn't necessarily support the point he was making. I'll change words here. Loftus (not Arminians) could say that he did believe at one time and now doesn't of his own free will, thus contradicting his point and not supporting it. Now, I know I am wrong as far as truth goes but I think my point is consistent logically.

So, there is an idea that many have. Many say, "if I could just show them the evidence, they'd believe."

This is refuted not only by Loftus, but by Jesus' resurrection when we read in Matthew 28:17 "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted."

Yes, I agree.

Thus in the above context we can see that magnum's point was correct.

Then I must be stupid because I'm seeing something else.

As far as the Arminian thing goes, magnum didn't use the word "Arminian" and, furthermore, I don't know of to many Arminians (in the modern sense) who would outright, self-consciously, deny that we are "saved by grace A L O N E."

I never claimed that he used the word Arminian. I used it to try to make a point. I think every Arminian, and every Calvinist, should deny that we are saved by grace alone. Let me qualify that. We are saved by grace alone but it is THROUGH faith.

Indeed, many Arminians would agree that Loftus lends support to the idea that we're saved only by grace, not by brains.

Lastly, your counter does not serve as a valid rebuttal to magnum's claim.

You're entitled to an opinion.

Magnum spoke of how one is saved, your counter spoke of how one might *lose* his salvation.

Actually I didn't speak of how one might lose his salvation. His view on how one is saved is not what I was disagreeing with. My only point was that I did not believe the event in question supported the fact that we are saved by grace alone, at least in a consistently logical sense. Which is why I said what I said. However, I know that you still won't agree with me and I still won't agree with you because I don't think we will ever be able to straighten this out in this medium. I should learn to keep my mouth shut and not have an opinion as it always gets me in trouble. You're smart and I hope to be.

In theory, an Arminian can agree that we are saved by grace alone but that we can loose that salvation by our own deeds.

Thus we read about a common Arminian response to Jesus' teaching on perserverance when he tells us that "no one can snatch you out of my hand" and the sly Arminian says, "Ah, but that doesn;t say that *we* cannot get up and walk out on our own."

Upon analysis, I think magnum's context was not given its due consideration as well as I think that the debate shifted terms, i.e., slavation vs. what happens *after* salvation.

I apologize. I know what it's like when something I say is not given due consideration. I should have known better.

[Edited on 4-28-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

[Edited on 4-28-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by paul manata
Some people have argued that some people are not saved due to a lack of information.

That is, if only they would see the "facts," then they'd believe.

Loftus shows that even being educated by factmaster par excellence, William Lane Criag, that doesn't necessarly imply that one will believe.

Why not?

We're saved by grace.

Thus I read magnum's comments as arguing against those who think man's problem is mainly intellectual and not moral.

Depending on how you look at it, his comments did lend "support" to the teaching that we're saved by grace.

So, there is an idea that many have. Many say, "if I could just show them the evidence, they'd believe."

This is refuted not only by Loftus, but by Jesus' resurrection when we read in Matthew 28:17 "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted."

Thus in the above context we can see that magnum's point was correct.


As far as the Arminian thing goes, magnum didn't use the word "Arminian" and, furthermore, I don't know of to many Arminians (in the modern sense) who would outright, self-consciously, deny that we are "saved by grace A L O N E."

Indeed, many Arminians would agree that Loftus lends support to the idea that we're saved only by grace, not by brains.

Lastly, your counter does not serve as a valid rebuttal to magnum's claim.

Magnum spoke of how one is saved, your counter spoke of how one might *lose* his salvation.

In theory, an Arminian can agree that we are saved by grace alone but that we can loose that salvation by our own deeds.

Thus we read about a common Arminian response to Jesus' teaching on perserverance when he tells us that "no one can snatch you out of my hand" and the sly Arminian says, "Ah, but that doesn;t say that *we* cannot get up and walk out on our own."

Upon analysis, I think magnum's context was not given its due consideration as well as I think that the debate shifted terms, i.e., slavation vs. what happens *after* salvation.

Exactly right. Thank you for saving me some needed time, brother. And for giving me the benefit of the doubt if my language was unclear.

By the way, the name is mangum not magnum. It is my last name so I have heard this my entire life.

Which is why I incorporated it into my blog's name: .357 Mangum

Paul, I understand that's not what you meant.

I completely agree that it is not easier for someone that has been taught and has learned all the facts to be saved. What I was saying was that nobody can be saved unless they are taught the facts.

You said, "And, the instance of a person who learned all the facts, was exposed to some of the best and most rigerous argumentation for historic Christianity, the origen of the universe, God being the cause of it, becomming apostate serves only to "support" the idea that man is saved by grace alone."

On this, I still disagree. I will grant that it COULD support that idea, however, this instance also supports the idea that man has free will. So we'd be right back at the beginning. It would depend on how someone perceives it.

"And for giving me the benefit of the doubt if my language was unclear."

There was nothing to give you the benefit of the doubt for. You're language was quite clear. I just disagreed. I didn't think the man lent support to the Calvinist position of salvation. And I said that "an Arminian could just say the guy changed his mind of his own free will. That he was saved and then he was lost."

Then you said, "Yes, an Arminian could say that. But would he be right? No." Well, the issue wasn't who would be right. The issue was, does the man's action lend support to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, and I said no, it doesn't.

Then you made light of my point by saying, "Just like I could say that a 1 legged-pink-unicorn-headed octupus tricked him into believing he descended from apes." I'm not mad though...I thought it was funny.

Let me get this straight. The Bible, and Jesus, teach that faith is necessary for salvation. Faith involves KNOWING who you have faith in. I say that nobody can be saved unless they are taught the facts and you say "not true"? There are two gospels now?

As for number 2, it is clear that you either don't get what I am saying or you are pretending that you don't get what I am saying. I'm not going to repeat myself again so I guess we'll leave it at that.

As for contemporary Arminians not denying that we are saved by grace, well...I never said they did.

Brian,
Can babies who die go to heaven? If so, how so?

You aren't using the same terms in both posts. First you said being "taught the facts" (presumably in order to believe them) is necessary in all cases for salvation. Then when Paul countered with a claim regarding the salvation of infants (who could even be still-born) you responded with what sounds like an accusation that Paul is promoting something other that Sola Fide, that he is suggesting there might be another way of salvation.

That is gratuitous, and you never even addressed the issue of babies. Can they "know the facts" or not? Can they be saved or not, zero to two years old? The issues are connected. If you can't explain babies with recourse to "being taught the facts," then some people are being left out of the equation, Yes? Maybe there is a consistent way to account for everyone's salvation (whether infant or adult) the same way that hasn't been explicitly mentioned yet?

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Brian,
Can babies who die go to heaven? If so, how so?

You aren't using the same terms in both posts. First you said being "taught the facts" (presumably in order to believe them) is necessary in all cases for salvation. Then when Paul countered with a claim regarding the salvation of infants (who could even be still-born) you responded with what sounds like an accusation that Paul is promoting something other that Sola Fide, that he is suggesting there might be another way of salvation.

That is gratuitous, and you never even addressed the issue of babies. Can they "know the facts" or not? Can they be saved or not, zero to two years old? The issues are connected. If you can't explain babies with recourse to "being taught the facts," then some people are being left out of the equation, Yes? Maybe there is a consistent way to account for everyone's salvation (whether infant or adult) the same way that hasn't been explicitly mentioned yet?

Bruce, I don't know what you mean brother. I know there is only one way of salvation, that being by grace through faith. The Bible says that. Now, it is not up to me if God chooses to save babies solely by His grace but it wouldn't be because they have faith. They don't know anything in order to have faith.

When I mention "the facts" I am talking about the Gospel. That man is a sinner and Christ is the Saviour. He died for sinners and if they believe that they will be saved. That is what I mean by facts, and I don't know how babies can meet that qualification. God would have to save them in a different way. My response to Paul was based on the biblical teaching of salvation, that being we are saved by grace through faith. That is the only Gospel that I know. I would never teach/preach a different Gospel.

Originally posted by paul manata

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
As for contemporary Arminians not denying that we are saved by grace, well...I never said they did.

Okay, then why would they deny that the above was evidence for salvation by faith alone?

This is an odd thread?

Paul, they wouldn't. I even conceded to you that this case could lend support to the position that we believe (salvation by grace through faith). But I also said that the other case could be true. That the man was saved and lost his salvation through giving up his faith. Then I said this puts us right back at the beginning. And it would depend on what perspective one has. I don't know how else to say what I am trying to say. Sorry.

Originally posted by paul manata
The man was saved by grace alone and then lost his salvation by his own free will.

No, I was saying according to some people he was saved by grace THROUGH faith and when he no longer had faith he was no longer saved. Therefore the event in question did not ONLY lend support to our (Calvinist) position on the gospel and I proved it. In the spirit of your question, there is ONE Gospel in Scripture but now there are two? The Bible says we are saved by grace through faith and I explained that one has to KNOW whom they have faith in in order for it to be "faith" and you said I was wrong.

Okay, but that has nothing to do with being saved by grace alone.

Actually, I don't know what has to do with what anymore. You seem to be misrepresenting what I said. Either that or you truly don't understand what I said.

Loosing your salvation (if a thing can even happen) is not the same as salvation.

I never said I believed it could happen. However I did explain myself. It should have been clear.

You seem to not understand this point.

Actually I do.

You're arguing for something totally different.

Whatever you say.

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere and so I'll just bow out, unless you offer something interesting to respond to.

I'm sorry that nothing I had said "interested" you. I could offer something interesting to respond to but I won't. Why risk the fallout? Maybe I should stick with reading posts. I have no business saying anything. God bless.

[Edited on 4-29-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
My response to Paul was based on the biblical teaching of salvation, that being we are saved by grace through faith. That is the only Gospel that I know. I would never teach/preach a different Gospel.

What does the doctrine of salvation have to do with the Gospel? Do you know what the Gospel is? The Gospel is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. The Gospel has nothing to do with how we are saved.

Originally posted by Vytautas

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
My response to Paul was based on the biblical teaching of salvation, that being we are saved by grace through faith. That is the only Gospel that I know. I would never teach/preach a different Gospel.

What does the doctrine of salvation have to do with the Gospel? Do you know what the Gospel is? The Gospel is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. The Gospel has nothing to do with how we are saved.

Huh???

BaptistCanuk "“
You said that the Gospel is the doctrine of salvation, particularly that we are saved by grace through faith. However, St. Paul describes the Gospel as the life and work of Christ. There is a difference between the Gospel and the doctrine of salvation. The former is about the history of Jesus, and the latter describes how a man is saved. We are not saved by believing that salvation is by grace through faith which is apart of the teaching of salvation. We are saved by trusting Christ.

Originally posted by Vytautas
BaptistCanuk "“
You said that the Gospel is the doctrine of salvation, particularly that we are saved by grace through faith. However, St. Paul describes the Gospel as the life and work of Christ. There is a difference between the Gospel and the doctrine of salvation. The former is about the history of Jesus, and the latter describes how a man is saved. We are not saved by believing that salvation is by grace through faith which is apart of the teaching of salvation. We are saved by trusting Christ.

When did I say that? You're preaching to the choir brother. I already know we are saved by trusting Christ. I think you must have misunderstood me somewhere. I don't have the energy right now to go back and read through everything but I'm sure you misunderstood me somewhere. I know this because I completely agree with your last post as far as how we are saved.

I first ran into J.Loftus over at TheologyWeb maybe a year or so ago.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/member.php?u=7289

i bought his book,
From Minister to Honest Doubter: Why I Changed My Mind
by John W. Loftus

it is better than the usual deconversion stories that Edward Babinski champions in Leaving the Fold. J.Loftus is an interesting and often stimulating poster over at TWeb.
I don't get much out of the http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
blog and only read it rarely, it is a lot less polished then the book and overly strident.

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk

Originally posted by Vytautas

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
My response to Paul was based on the biblical teaching of salvation, that being we are saved by grace through faith. That is the only Gospel that I know. I would never teach/preach a different Gospel.

What does the doctrine of salvation have to do with the Gospel? Do you know what the Gospel is? The Gospel is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. The Gospel has nothing to do with how we are saved.

Huh???

Well, Gospel does mean "Good News", and maybe what he is trying to say is that the good news is that we are saved because of what Christ did for us. How we are saved is not the Gospel.

And FWIW, time doesn't determine the "in" crowd. I've been here for 2 years and I'm still out of it!

from: http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.c...us-part-n.html

Our friend, John, John-boy Loftus,
...
You know John-boy, if you'd like me to arrange a radio debate between you and my 6 yr. old I'd be happy to do it.

the problem with online dialogues is that people forgot who they are actually talking to.
The lurkers, those who just google in and drop by to read a few pages.
The choir, for all the various sides, is not really the audience, those who are just curious, just testing the waters, they are the audience.
To tease, to call names, to belittle-all debate techniques and argument tactics-are not only awkward online, but extremely self defeating. The reason is that online all we have are words and arguments to make our points. No body language, no emotions on your faces, nothing but words. And people are hyper sensitive to nastiness in all forms online, they react strongly against it and associate the viewpoints of the authors with their ways of talking.

if you doubt this, look at JPHolding and the various threads about his tactics at TheologyWeb. His acerbic personality causes people to associate his defense of Christianity with his nastiness and say that all Christians are into putdowns and name calling.

So even if you are right with your arguments with J.Loftus, no one is going to hear them through the name calling and demeaning demeanor.

Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr
from: http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.c...us-part-n.html

Our friend, John, John-boy Loftus,
...
You know John-boy, if you'd like me to arrange a radio debate between you and my 6 yr. old I'd be happy to do it.

the problem with online dialogues is that people forgot who they are actually talking to.
The lurkers, those who just google in and drop by to read a few pages.
The choir, for all the various sides, is not really the audience, those who are just curious, just testing the waters, they are the audience.
To tease, to call names, to belittle-all debate techniques and argument tactics-are not only awkward online, but extremely self defeating. The reason is that online all we have are words and arguments to make our points. No body language, no emotions on your faces, nothing but words. And people are hyper sensitive to nastiness in all forms online, they react strongly against it and associate the viewpoints of the authors with their ways of talking.

if you doubt this, look at JPHolding and the various threads about his tactics at TheologyWeb. His acerbic personality causes people to associate his defense of Christianity with his nastiness and say that all Christians are into putdowns and name calling.

So even if you are right with your arguments with J.Loftus, no one is going to hear them through the name calling and demeaning demeanor.

You are assuming that Paul wants people (unbelievers) to *hear* him. Maybe he employs such language to publicly rebuke God's enemies so the Church body may benefit and prosper. Is that wrong? I don't think so.

Maybe Paul's use of sarcasm is employed in the same way the Prophets, Apostles, and Christ Himself used it.

I'd like to add a few examples but I'm sure you have heard them. Do you reject Paul's use of sarcasm in his polemics because he is not an Apostle or Prophet?

Or is it that you believe a *Christian* should never raise his voice or come across as "mean"?

I'll add one example just in case you don't believe it is ever Biblical to use sarcasm.

When Elijah confronted the priests of Baal, as recorded in 1 Kings 18:20-29:

So Ahab sent to all the people of Israel and gathered the prophets together at Mount Carmel. And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "œHow long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him."� And the people did not answer him a word. Then Elijah said to the people, "œI, even I only, am left a prophet of the Lord, but Baal's prophets are 450 men. Let two bulls be given to us, and let them choose one bull for themselves and cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. And I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood and put no fire to it. And you call upon the name of your god, and I will call upon the name of the Lord, and the God who answers by fire, he is God."� And all the people answered, "œIt is well spoken."� Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "œChoose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and call upon the name of your god, but put no fire to it."� And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, "œO Baal, answer us!"� But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "œCry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."� And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention.

Elijah was straight up mocking them to their faces for such foolishness. I believe Elijah in modern day street English was saying, "Hey, maybe you're god is taking a pi**!" All the while uncontrollably laughing.

There is a time and place for things. Some times call for gentleness others call for harshness. Still others call for old fashioned mockery!

My point remains the same. Face to face communication is very different than is online. Factors that make sarcasm workable in real life, for example the contradiction between facial features or body language and the words, are all missing in online computer mediated communication. That is why people insert smiles or other visual signals into their messages, they act as non-verbal clues to meaning and how to parse the words of the message.

What is happening, as CMC becomes a significant part of cultural communication patterns, that some pieces of the older F-2-F patterns can be retained in part, other pieces can not adapt to the newer forms and will be lost in the new media.

Look at the quoted section of 1Kings18 above. It is the visual that is so impressive. it is jolly good street theatre. The problem is that this doesn't translate into plain text at all well. It is drama, CMC is all about words. but more importantly all about getting people to read and reflect upon your words. To actually have someone read your blog or webpage is a huge hurdle in the media, people scan and skim, they don't in general read online in the manner of books.

But that is fine, i read probably 250+ blogs on a weekly basis, and i can tell you, the attitude and the way http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/ writes causes that blog to drift lower and lower in my bloglines list until eventually it will drop off the list. I've better places to read the same ideas without the nastiness. if it is true that form and function work together synergistically, then the form there is overriding the content.

Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr
My point remains the same. Face to face communication is very different than is online. Factors that make sarcasm workable in real life, for example the contradiction between facial features or body language and the words, are all missing in online computer mediated communication. That is why people insert smiles or other visual signals into their messages, they act as non-verbal clues to meaning and how to parse the words of the message.

A good reason for more smilies and such, although the head banger is getting overused lately. I wish I could create one with the blood dripping down.

I know that my brand of humor gets lost here on the PB. Eventually I will learn how to take the images in my brain and put them into suitable words.

Originally posted by gwine

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk

Originally posted by Vytautas

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
My response to Paul was based on the biblical teaching of salvation, that being we are saved by grace through faith. That is the only Gospel that I know. I would never teach/preach a different Gospel.

What does the doctrine of salvation have to do with the Gospel? Do you know what the Gospel is? The Gospel is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. The Gospel has nothing to do with how we are saved.

Huh???

Well, Gospel does mean "Good News", and maybe what he is trying to say is that the good news is that we are saved because of what Christ did for us. How we are saved is not the Gospel.

And FWIW, time doesn't determine the "in" crowd. I've been here for 2 years and I'm still out of it!

I don't know Gerry...I'm totally lost now. Regarding the Gospel, I agree with you. I don't know...something I said must have been misunderstood out there. I'm lost.

Originally posted by mangum

Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr
from: http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.c...us-part-n.html

Our friend, John, John-boy Loftus,
...
You know John-boy, if you'd like me to arrange a radio debate between you and my 6 yr. old I'd be happy to do it.

the problem with online dialogues is that people forgot who they are actually talking to.
The lurkers, those who just google in and drop by to read a few pages.
The choir, for all the various sides, is not really the audience, those who are just curious, just testing the waters, they are the audience.
To tease, to call names, to belittle-all debate techniques and argument tactics-are not only awkward online, but extremely self defeating. The reason is that online all we have are words and arguments to make our points. No body language, no emotions on your faces, nothing but words. And people are hyper sensitive to nastiness in all forms online, they react strongly against it and associate the viewpoints of the authors with their ways of talking.

if you doubt this, look at JPHolding and the various threads about his tactics at TheologyWeb. His acerbic personality causes people to associate his defense of Christianity with his nastiness and say that all Christians are into putdowns and name calling.

So even if you are right with your arguments with J.Loftus, no one is going to hear them through the name calling and demeaning demeanor.

You are assuming that Paul wants people (unbelievers) to *hear* him. Maybe he employs such language to publicly rebuke God's enemies so the Church body may benefit and prosper. Is that wrong? I don't think so.

Maybe Paul's use of sarcasm is employed in the same way the Prophets, Apostles, and Christ Himself used it.

I'd like to add a few examples but I'm sure you have heard them. Do you reject Paul's use of sarcasm in his polemics because he is not an Apostle or Prophet?

Or is it that you believe a *Christian* should never raise his voice or come across as "mean"?

I'll add one example just in case you don't believe it is ever Biblical to use sarcasm.

When Elijah confronted the priests of Baal, as recorded in 1 Kings 18:20-29:

So Ahab sent to all the people of Israel and gathered the prophets together at Mount Carmel. And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "œHow long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him."� And the people did not answer him a word. Then Elijah said to the people, "œI, even I only, am left a prophet of the Lord, but Baal's prophets are 450 men. Let two bulls be given to us, and let them choose one bull for themselves and cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. And I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood and put no fire to it. And you call upon the name of your god, and I will call upon the name of the Lord, and the God who answers by fire, he is God."� And all the people answered, "œIt is well spoken."� Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "œChoose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and call upon the name of your god, but put no fire to it."� And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, "œO Baal, answer us!"� But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "œCry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."� And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention.

Elijah was straight up mocking them to their faces for such foolishness. I believe Elijah in modern day street English was saying, "Hey, maybe you're god is taking a pi**!" All the while uncontrollably laughing.

There is a time and place for things. Some times call for gentleness others call for harshness. Still others call for old fashioned mockery!

Anyone notice how Elijah wasn't a Christian but a Prophet? If it's ok to be sarcastic and mean...remember that if at some time in the future you accuse me of doing the same.

In all honesty, I can't believe some of the rudeness I've read on there. I used to want to be "smart" and "philosophical" but if it causes us to act like that, I'll pass. I'd rather get wisdom, through life, prayer, and reading the Word.

[Edited on 5-2-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Anyone notice how Elijah wasn't a Christian but a Prophet?

Why would you not think Elijah wasn't a Christian? Granted, the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch after Christ was crucified, but anyone in the Old Testament era who looked forward to the Messiah would be a Christian in my book. Hebrews chapter 11 writes of all the O.T. saints who looked forward to Christ's redemption.

13These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

Just my . If you disagree, then maybe this would be good fodder for another thread.

I don't know Gerry, I just don't think of the Prophets as Christians at least in the sense that we are. I could be wrong. I think of them more in light of what they were, Prophets to the nation of Israel.

By nature of their calling as Prophets they sometimes did say sarcastic or mean things. But we as Christians aren't supposed to do that, especially in a "philosophical" discussion. In fact, to be sarcastic or mean in philosophy is disrespectful to it and the person you are discussing with. That is why I am trying not to be like that anymore. It is why I have the Scripture verse in my signature that I do.

I forgot...we could make it a separate thread if you like.

[Edited on 5-3-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

Paul, I don't know who you're addressing. If it's me, I don't know what "attitude" I have.

I respect your willingness to fight the good fight out there. If you think your manner of sarcasm is warranted the same way as the Prophets, Jesus, and Paul, more power to you. I can be sarcastic too, unfortunately it's ok and excusable for you on here but when I do it there is a problem and I have to "slow down".

As for the guy in question, what he said about you and your family was even more wrong. But that's just my opinion which, according to Bob, stinks and nobody wants to hear. So you can get back to your discussion. I'm done.

I hear you. Thanks.

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
I don't know Gerry, I just don't think of the Prophets as Christians at least in the sense that we are. I could be wrong. I think of them more in light of what they were, Prophets to the nation of Israel.

By nature of their calling as Prophets they sometimes did say sarcastic or mean things. But we as Christians aren't supposed to do that, especially in a "philosophical" discussion. In fact, to be sarcastic or mean in philosophy is disrespectful to it and the person you are discussing with. That is why I am trying not to be like that anymore. It is why I have the Scripture verse in my signature that I do.

I forgot...we could make it a separate thread if you like.

[Edited on 5-3-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

In that you are correct - our modern day thinking of what a Christian is would not be someone like Elijah. I was writing more that he was a Christian in the eschatological sense.

And certainly the prophets did not use sarcasm all the time. Jeremiah is known as the weeping prophet, and much of his prophecy and Isaiah's is more about Israel's fate. A sad story at that.

But I would disagree that we as Christian's should never use sarcasm, even when we debate. It's just that on the internet it so often gets misunderstood. Paul Manata makes a good point - those to whom much has been given, much will be expected. His debate with John is case in point. Here is someone who has tasted the heavenly gifts and now rejects it. It is not as though he were a new Christian struggling with his guilt and trying to understand Christ's atoning work.

Peace be with you, my brother.

[Edited on 5-3-2006 by gwine]

I understand what you're saying Gerry. My thinking has changed somewhat. Thanks and God bless you.

Yo Paul

I think your doing a wonderful job Brother. I believe your dead on ...on how to deal with apostates. I spoke kindly but firmly to John as well in email, telling him that not only was Dr Craig embarrased by him but I was as well. I also told him I would pray for him and have, but I have serious doubts about God being gracious to someone who is actively trying to lead those in the flock away. This is as serious as it gets. He needs to be dealt with firmly.

Originally posted by paul manata
Sometimes harsh language and sarcasm is warranted, even by the Bible.

We read many of the passages through the eyes of modern American sensitivities.

The prophets mocked people, Jesus mocked people, the Apostle Paul mocked people, Martin Luther mocked people, John Calvin mocked people, and the list goes on.

I, for one, try to make it a practice to not be more holy than Jesus.

I do not treat al unbelievers the way I treat Loftus. That thread on my discussion with people at earth day should suffice to support that claim (cf. my discussion with the college girl).

John's not an honest doubter. John is not "seeking the truth." Loftus makes much of his intellect and his training under Dr. William L. Craig.

John is an apostate. Rules for dealing with apostates are different then people with honest questions.

For people like John, embarrassment is what's needed.

My comment about setting up a debate with my 6 yr. old was a pefectly biblicaly responsible use of sarcasm to get at the truth.

John was educated at seminary. He brags about how he got a M. Phil. Religion under Bill Craig. He braggs that he pastored churches for 2o some odd years. He braggs about his knowledge of the Bible. he then asks me to explain the atonement. So, I explained it in *childrens* terms. Showing that even my 6 yr. old doesn;t need to have the "atonement" explained. To say that he should debate my 6 yr. old serves to shed doubt on his knowledge of the Christian religion. This, in turn, attacks a main weapon in his arisnal. Loftus uses his past and his knowlegde to deconvert others.

Anyway, if you choose to not read my blog anymore, that's no skin off of my nose. If you want to monday morning quaterback, fine. As for me, I'll continue to fight in the trenches, on the front line, where we get a little dirty sometimes.

Lastly, I do not return evil for evil. Loftus has made it publicly known that I will beat my wife in the future, he has taken direct shots at my wife and my family. I don't respond this way to him. I aim to make him look intellectually foolsih. I am thankful that not all have your attitiude, though. Many people have thanked me (as well as the traiblogue team) for how we've taken on Loftus.

So, I guess I'd just say: Condemn me, fin. Condemn Jesus, Paul, Luther, Calvin along with me.

"Those who read Loftus' blog entry, as well as read the counters by Engwer, Hays, and myself, will be impressed with Loftus' amazing inability to comprehend the arguments of other´s."
LOL