More than a year ago my kiss kiss buddy John Locust commented on the Christian eschatology of Preterism by arguing such a view is an admission that Jesus failed to return. Earlier than that John (kiss kiss) had posted the same thing on a forum and was told this by the owner: "that has to be one of the most ignorant critiques of preterism I have seen."
Well, my buddy John says he got a Christian over at the Preterist Heresy blog to say that his critiques of preterism were BRILLIANT! This proves that this Christian is knowledgeable and that the forum owner is an idiot!
As we say here all the time, no one needs to be an expert on anything we talk about here, one only needs to decide that special pleading for religions sake doesn't cut it, and look for reasonable answers to reasonable questions! Being a freethinker automatically makes us smarter -- so THERE!
8 comments:
This is so spot on!!!
I read the entire exchange.
That "owner" claimed to have answered all of Locust's questions in other places.
Who has time to research all that down. And there really is no need. After all the owner of a real website, the Preterist Heresy blog, agrees with Locust, so the case is settled. If a self proclaimed expert in preterism is enough to convince Locust that he was right after all, that is good enough for me.
I was going to write an intelligent response until I realised that I had already been beaten to it on your sister site. Here are the highlights (thanks to my best mate John):
I argue here daily about a host of topics and cannot always be scholarly on every single topic I write about.
People who disagree just have a tendency to say that others are ignorant, that's all. In fact, many people think others are ignorant just because they don't agree. But that does not follow very often.
Such an ignorant simpleton. You might as well try to diagnose me psychologically from what I write too. Sheesh. There are records, you know. There are people who know me, ya know. Check out the evidence. Evidence. That's what's lacking in your beliefs.
I want an intelligent discussion or none at all. And I will not waste any more time on your drivel.
Now some people are bound to claim that John is being hypocritical here by claiming he is allowed to make ignorant statements whilst others can't. To them I can simply say stop being so ignorant and expecting me to think up well informed stuff.
Blimy - who lets ignorance get in the way of having an opinion. I thought that my mate Graeme Jones had already explained this to them over at Tweb
Next they'll be telling me that youtube and Wikipedia are not an alternative to serious scholarship. If we had to stick to subjects we know something about I'd be confined to writing about being a jerk and stupidity. Then who would buy my book.
Thanks once again to my fellow colleague Mattchu. Now, I fully understand that myself and others will be receiving some heavy criticism from Christians over what is said here. My critics should come in time to realize that I do not tolerate any unintelligent criticism or questioning of my credentials; those are ad-hominen attacks. I recently had to address a fellow preterist on the sister site:
"...you are no longer permitted to comment on anything that I say. If you do, incuding this one, it will be deleted. That's how I roll here. You may comment on anything else you like, but you have royally pissed me off. If you violate this you will be banned from DC.
I want an intelligent discussion or none at all. And I will not waste any more time on your drivel."
I would expect that all of my critics will in time come to recognize this in full, realizing that intelligent discussion is a matter of attacking the arguments, not the person themselves.
John, you seem to be surpassing yourself every time you speak
I particularly like your latest one, regarding William Lane Criag, on your sister's blog:
How can a smart man just not get these two rudimentary points?
You know, the more I though about it the more I realised that:
1)either Dr William Lane Craig has made a point too intelligent for John Locust to understand, or John Locust and his friends have an argument to intelligent for Dr William Lane Craig to get his head around
2) Well John Locust can't be wrong, can he?
3) Therefore Dr William Lane Craig is thick
4) Therefore Dr William Lane Craig was an idiot not to co write a book with you.
John, brilliant as usual. Let's just hope the stupid deluded Christians don't figure out that the site you relied upon is talking about "full preterism" and not the preterism you claim to have refuted. Mums the word.
Oh crap, that "site owner" already figured it out. Time to go write another glowing review of my own book
You should update this blog more often - particularly now that, looking at your other blog, a solution to this age old problem has been found. Just find an entry you wrote a couple of months ago, write: 'If you want to read my insert previous entry here. It's here.'
John - I've just worked it out:
1)Jesus had a beard & so do you
2)Jesus' name began with the letter J, so does John
3)Jesus was seen as a great teacher by his followers, so are you.
4)Jesus had 12 disciples, so do you (bart willruth, Evan, Harry McCall, Jason Long, Former Fundy, Shygetz, Joe E. Holman, Valerie Tarico, Edward T. Babinski, Escapologist, marlene winell, Lee Randolf)
5)Jeusus taught in parables - John does to (for example the robinson Crusoe one in his last entry)
6)John is seen as a god my many of his followers (well I think he is)
It all fits - Jesus was plagiarised from John Loftus! I better go off and inform the makers of Zeitgeist the Movie at once.
Post a Comment