Dr. Steve Freud

This is a reply to Steve Hay's response to what I wrote in my rebuttal to Jason Engwer. As one can see, Steve likes to play psychologist there. Either that or he's trying to impress readers with a bad impersonation of Sigmund Freud. And hence, the title of my article here. (Warning for the humor impaired: this response contains some friendly sarcasm and satirical humor). Here we go:

"Matthew Green has posted a long, bitter, self-pitying hit-piece on Jason Engwer:http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/09/green-vs-engwer-defending-visions.html"

Steve doesn't understand why I posted my rebuttal. First of all, it's a very long piece because Jason Engwer complains that I am always too vauge and I never give enough details. I wanted to give him a run for his money this time. As for self-pitying, where am I feeling sorry for myself? The fact of the matter is that, for the most part, I am a very joyous person, except when rubbed the wrong way by self-righteous blow-hards like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Robert Turkel. Secondly, my very long response wasn't meant to be bitter but I wanted the tone of the rebuttal to suggest that I felt that Engwer had rubbed me the wrong way. In fact, throughout my post, I repeatedly offer to debate Engwer in very civil, respectful, and friendly terms. Would someone who is angry and bitter do this? I think not Steve. Personally, I get the impression that you're reading your misconceptions into my post here, Steve.

Steve: This is one of those unintentionally revealing pieces which tells you a lot about the critic and nothing about the target.In particular, we see that Green’s opposition to the Christian faith is essentially emotional rather than intellectual.

Well, yeah, sure, if you like pretending you're a modern version of Sigmund Freud, Steve. As for my opposition to the Christian faith essentially emotional rather than intellectual- that's not very accurate. I do have strong intellectual skepticism towards the Christian faith, especially given that I have good reasons to believe that some of its core and vital doctrines have been refuted, such as inerrancy and creationism. I do have a stong emotional loathing of Christianity, particularly of Christian fundamentalism because I believe that it's very harmful to human beings. My opinion is simply that fundamentalism is the most authentic type of Christianity that exists today and I deeply loathe fundamentalism.

"For example:"I am pretty sure that Jason just looks down his nose at me personally, thinking what a waste my life is as an atheist, when I could be as high and holy as he is in the arms of Jesus! Please. The last thing I can think I would possibly want is to spend eternity with Mr. Engwer. I loathe arrogant, self-righteous, and judgmental people and if Mr. Engwer is offended that I loathe him, too damn bad! He needs to get over himself!

Steve: Needless to say, this bears no resemblance to Jason.

Steve, I am pretty sure that you would agree with me that context always helps in these cases. I mentioned this after having cited an example of an article that Jason wrote. It's after having read this article that I have kissed my initial hopes of a pleasant, friendly, and well-meaning exchange with Jason good-bye. I could very well be wrong this and I have even offered the opportunity to debate Jason on more pleasant and friendlier terms. You should know this Steve; I know you read my article.

Steve: Rather, Jason is merely a stand-in for MG’s father-complex. As a renegade P.K., MG is taking his arrested teenage rebellion at his old man, and redirecting it at the next available target.—which happens to be Jason

I am? Would it surprise you, Steve, that I actually get along great with my dad these days? My father and I have come to have quite a lot of respect for each other. Sure, we disagree with each others' beliefs but I don't hate my dad. Oh, I get it Steve, you're playing Freud here. I also was never into any kind of teenage rebellion. In fact, I was very shy and quite as a teenager. My mother once told me that she thought I was a little "too" shy at times. Why would I be going through a period of "arrested teeange rebellion" right now at my father? My father isn't the same kind of man he was all those years in the ministry as I was growing up. My "old man" has really mellowed out although he can still be stubborn at times- then, again, so can I.

I want to ask Steve something. Steve, if I am engaging in a late form of teenage rebellion, do you think I am doing drugs, having sex, and listening to rock and roll? If so, I hate to disappoint you but that is not the case. I am still very much a virgin and I am waiting until I fall in love with a woman, I don't ever plan on doing drugs, and I don't particularly care for rock'n'roll. The only music which I imagine might come close, that I like is "Magic Carpet Ride". Does that count, Steve? Besides, apart from Steve's silly stabs at pretending he's Freud ( I hope he doens't actually do this at parties- I'd hate to imagine people throwing popcorn at a sucky impersonation of the good, late doctor) if I was redirecting it at the "next available target", um, wouldn't that be Robert Turkel since I knew him long before I ever encountered Jason Engwer? Come on, Steve, you don't even really know me. You're reading stereotypical motives into what I wrote as something that an P.K. atheist "must be like". After all, without the Christian Savior in our hearts, we have no choice but to be angry and miserable, right? I don't think so!

Steve quoting me:
"Continuing:"I have no problem with that. In my opinion, Jason has long arrived at this point and I see him as little more than another spin-doctor out to fleece the world of faith."

Steve: Yep, that’s what Jason is up to, all right. Jason is a prosperity preacher, out to fleece the flock in order to subsidize his grand mansion in Malibu, Lamborghini, Lear Jet, superyacht, and other accoutrements of his lavish lifestyle."

Jason Engwer repeatedly linked to Robert Turkel and that's why I concluded that he was a spin-doctor. I thought that by putting himself in the same league as Turkel that he was, in effect, endorsing him uncritically, perhaps even hero-worshipping Turkel. I hope he doesn't. If I am wrong about him being a fleecing spin-doctor, then I will apologize for it. But the day that comes is when he stops linking and endorsing Robert Turkel.

Steve: Continuing:"I want to make it clear that while I have no problem accepting that the resurrection of Christ did, in fact, occur, and that it validates the claims made by the Christian gospel of the New Testament, I would never willingly and gladly accept the Christian gospel. On the contrary, I find the Christian gospel to be horribly repugnant but that doesn't mean that I won't be intellectually dishonest. If I came to believe that the resurrection happened, I wouldn't embrace such a conclusion gladly. Contrarily, I would only, ever, accept it extremely grudgingly, and I would have to be violently dragged kicking and screaming into the Christian faith. Since I have no desire to spend eternity with the Christian god, or his followers like Mr. Engwer himself, if I came to conclude that the Christian faith is valid, I would most likely take my own life. I mean, seriously, if I lived, knowing that Jesus Christ was alive and that the gospel claims about him were true, what would I be accomplishing by living as though he wasn't risen and alive and trying to avoid the implications of the gospel? If I found the Christian faith to be that repugnant, wouldn't it make much more sense to take my own life sense I am accomplishing nothing by delaying the inevitability of Hell itself? Oh, what? Mr. Engwer doesn't like that decision of mine? Pity I don't care. If he doesn’t like it, all I feel I can say to him is: drop dead!!!""

I said this after I got the strong impression that Jason was condescending towards the retired couple. I got a strong impression that Jason was just another arrogant apologist right up there with Robert Turkel and Jonathan Sarfati. And yes, I was bitter when I wrote this because I felt offended by what Jason wrote! I mean, who wouldn't?

Steve quoting me: "Even if my hypothesis proved invalid and there are good reasons, further, to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and the Christian gospel is true, then I would admit to such a thing, and then proceed to overdose on medication so I can take my own life and get judgment over with. Seriously. If Jason has a problem with this, then screw Jason!!"

Again, keeping with the context. I got a strong impression that Jason was very condescending towards the couple and was being so, even towards me. I even offered to debate Jason, Steve. Let's not forget that here.

Steve quoting me: Let me state that if the Christian gospel was true and I concluded such, I would not avoid the inevitability of Hell. I would take my rightful place there. I promise Jason this and if he doesn't like the fact that I don't want to be his "brother in the Lord", that I don't want to hug him and thank him for saving me, be his buddy, go to Church, adore those arrogant bastards in the Church, too damned bad! Jason can drop dead!"

Steve: So, by his own emphatic admission, MG’s rejection of the Christian faith is motivated by pure emotionalism.

Steve, I do have a strong emotional loathing of the Christian faith. And I am serious about what I said. If it was to prove true, I would take my own life. Period. I am not certain that my intellectual skepticsim is justified and I am hoping to enroll in graduate school to test my intellectual skepticism to see if it holds water. If it doesn't, and my skepticism proves flawed and the Christian faith is true, I really don't see the point in delaying the inevitability of Hell. But, Steve, you can read whatever you want into my statements. Your suggestion of "pure emotionalism" is far from accurate.

Steve: The evidence for or against the faith is irrelevant. He hates Christians and he hates the Christian God. That’s his bottom line.

No, any evidence for or against the faith is not irrelevant, Steve. It's highly relevant. I do not hate Christians Steve. I have Christian friends, believe it or not. I have Christian family members and I do not hate them. So it's not the bottom line here; you are grossly mistaken Steve. This isn't true so please do not repeat this or else this is libel. You have only your own integrity to damage here, Steve. As for hating the Christian God, I do find the Christian god to be a loathesome species of deity after some of the things I have read about him. Let me ask you something, Steve? How do you claim to know so much about what's going on in my mind? How do you know, Steve?

Steve quoting me:Continuing:"My personal loathing of Jason aside, I have to say that although I have attempted a response here, I freely leave it to readers to judge for themselves.

Steve: Thanks. MG. We’ve taken you up on the offer and judged you accordingly.

Steve, don't be facetious here. I was asking readers to judge my arguments here and you know this.

Steve: Continuing:"I agree with Till. I find it bizarre that Jason would want to link to someone who is so idiotic such as this. If this is the quality and caliber of apologetics that Jason wants to associate himself with, I freely leave it to him, since by linking to and (in effect) endorsing Robert Turkel without qualification, Jason is only making himself look foolish.

Steve: Yet another example of his raw emotionalism. Just a few months ago, MG was defending Turkel against Steven Carr.

Raw emotionalism? I confess to a very failed attempt at diplomacy with a fellow who I now regard as a spin-doctor! I came to finally see the light about Turkel. I really wanted to believe that there was a lot of good in him but there wasn't and there isn't. If I hated Christians, would I have attempted a friendly diplomacy with Turkel and some of his readers in the first place? Well, Steve, your bluff has been called. You just shot your own criticism there to pieces.

Steve: Now, however, he’s turned against Turkel. And having turned against him, if Turkel is evil, then Jason is evil for linking to Turkel’s website.

Well, John Loftus was right: he predicted to Turkel that Turkel would turn me against him. Needless to say, Loftus was right on the money. My post on the subject makes it clear why I turned against him. While "evil" would be a very strong word to describe Turkel, I didn't say that I thought Jason was evil at all for linking to Turkel's website. Foolish and idiotic, yes. But that is forgivable and we can learn from our foolishness. I have done many foolish things in my life and have acted idiotically, and guess what Steve? I have learned from those mistakes of mine. Still to this day I make stupid mistakes and act foolishly. Let me ask you something: where did I say Jason was "evil"? If not, can you stop pretending to be Freud here? Please by all means, continue your day job!

Steve quoting me: Continuing:"As for his appeal to Glenn Miller and the Christian CADRE, I wouldn't exactly put much stock in what these folks have to say in terms of a rebuttal. If Jason links to Turkel, I cannot reasonably expect the work of Miller or the CADRE to be of any higher quality. Neither should any other rational, carefully thinking adults."

Steve quoting me: I haven't read Mr. Price's discussion but being that Jason had linked to Robert Turkel, I am not expecting to be impressed with Price's discussion. I have seen what quality and level of caliber that Jason thinks is good apologetics.

Steve: This is, of course, completely irrational. Even if Turkel were inept, that does not prejudge Glenn Miller or Christopher Price. To dismiss them unread based on guilt-by-association is yet another example of MG’s undiluted emotionalism.

No, it's not another example of my "undiluted emotionalism". If Jason has never linked to Miller or Price, then I would gladly go over them and debate the issue further with Jason. I have actually read Miller's material and while I think he makes some good points here and there, I am not all that impressed with Mr. Miller's arguments, although he is definitely above the sarcasm, insults, and arrogance of Turkel. As for Price, Jason has advised me not to be so quick to dismiss Price and I admit that I am willing to give his arguments a fair shake. I would've done that anyway, had I not seen Turkel linked to with Price. So, if there's any guilt-by-association, it's only because Jason is disgracing Miller and Price by putting them in the same league as Turkel.

Steve: BTW, I assume that Jason links to various websites for the simple reason that anyone who is reading Triablogue has access to the Internet. But many people who have access to the Internet do not have access to a good research library.

But does Jason have no concern for quality, here? Jason links to many websites for the reason that anyone reading your website, Steve, has access to the Internet and not always good research libraries; I do think that even Jason could do better than link to Turkel. Besides, Steve, do you deny the examples that I cited against Turkel? My sarcasm- that Jason cannot do better because he linked to Turkel was actually intended to shame him somewhat and make him think about who he was linking to. In all seriousness- I hope that Jason will do better than to link to Turkel in the future. Turkel is an utter disgrace to Christian apologetics. Lastly, my offer to have a friendly, courteous, and respectful debate with Jason still stands, believe it or not, I just didn't want Jason to give me what I thought was a condescending and arrogant attitude, which I got the serious impression that he was trying to dish out at me in his rebuttals to what I have written.

Steve: Therefore, Jason refers them to online resources when he can for their convenience.

Steve, at this point, I simply ask Jason to seriously reconsider who he is linking to. Perhaps Jason doesn't know Turkel that well. Perhaps he hasn't seen what Turkel has done in the past. If he hasn't, I am willing to apologize and retract my sarcasm and my attempts at shaming him, provided that Jason get to know what kind of person he is linking to better and why I consider Turkel to be a slimeball these days. My offer to debate Jason on friendlier, respectful, and courteous terms still stands, you know? Heck, I'd be willing to debate you, too, Steve. We can have a friendly, good-natured, and respectful debate or even a discussion if you like. I only responded to Jason the way that he did because I honestly felt as thought he threw the first stone at me like I thought he did at that one retired couple.

Steve: Of course, Jason’s sources are by no means limited to the Internet. He often quotes from scholarly works. But there’s a limit to how much you can manually transcribe.

Good! Jason should use the Internet for sources if they prove to be well-informed and scholarly, even if written by nonscholars such as Glenn Miller (or has he gotten an advanced degree since I last read something from him?) Jason quotes from scholarly works- good. I am glad that he does and I think that shows that Jason is seriously interested in discussing these issues on a scholarly level. I just wish he would think twice before linking to someone whose lack of professionalism and personal ethics, his critics (myself included) have challenged.

Steve quoting me: Continuing:"I wouldn't trust Christian apologists to effectively rebut Carrier and Price.

Steve: Just another example of MG’s reactionary hysteria.

My reactionary hysteria? Um, Steve, no offense here, but you're not good at impersonating Freud. Sorry to tell you this. There need not be any reactionary hysteria in me and I am really bewildered that you would make this out to be a case of it on my part. Yes, I wrote in a really sarcastic and I was even a bit nasty but I only did so because I thought that Jason had thrown the first stone. Let's not forget here that I did offer to debate Jason on friendlier, repectful, and more civil terms. The offer is even open to you if you are interested, Steve.

Steve: What does "trust" have to do with it? You don’t have to take what they say on faith. Rather, you judge them by the quality of their argumentation.

Um, I have seen the quality of some of their arguments, Steve, and there is no faith here involved. I am not using "trust" in terms of faith, religious or otherwise. I don't trust them to do a good job for the same reason I don't trust certain politicians to make good on their campaign promises once they're elected to power. I distrust Christian apologists for the similar reasons I distrust many politicians.

Steve: "Continuing:"The fact that my ‘treatment’ of the issues was not as detailed and as extensive as Jason would like and that he feels the need to suggest that I am ignorant of New Testament scholarship and critical history in general is just meant as an insult to me personally."

""Apologists like Jason want more than anything to prove that their critics are uninformed, careless, stupid, ignorant- or else we would be Christians like him and just adore him!"

Steve: Other issues aside, MG is several years younger that Jason. MG is also a fairly recent apostate.

Jason may well be older than me but I fail to see what difference an age-difference makes here. As for my "fairly recent" apostacy- how long would Steve imagine is "fairly recent"? I deconverted from Christianity four years ago. I evolved from Christianity, to Deism, to agnosticism, and finally atheism.

Steve: By contrast, Jason has been doing this sort of thing for quite a few years now. So, as a matter of fact, Jason does know a whole lot more about the subject than MG.

That may well be the case, Steve. You know as well as I do that it doesn't make Jason right or me wrong nor does it discredit my arguments and vindicate his. Jason may know more about the subject than I do. I have never denied that I am still learning and I do not for one second claim that I "have arrived". Jason may know a lot more about the subject than me. I am curious as to Jason's plans are for the future. If he working on an M.A. or Ph.D. degree? I will be this next year, working on my M.A.

Steve: "But that’s not all. Consider some of MG’s own disclaimers in the course of this very post:

"I just lack the expertise to decide one way or another. The simple truth of the matter is that I would love to embrace Carrier's theory, in all its details."And:"Both Richard Carrier and Robert Price seem to endorse the Radical Criticism school of New Testament thought. Although I find such an approach fascinating, Jason is right in that I don't necessarily commit myself to their views because I lack the scholarly expertise to make that kind of a judgment, although I would love to embrace the school of the Radical Critics; I'm just not sure if it's necessary or not. It all boils down to scholarly expertise."

Steve quoting me: And:"But the fact of the matter is that I am still undecided on the question of the genre of the gospels.

Steve: So, by his own admission, MG is quite ignorant and uninformed.

Um, the folks I have cited are scholars. If I need to be a scholar to be considered informed, then of course, I plead to being ignorant and informed. If by "ignorant and uninformed" and I am not well-studied as you or Jason are, Steve, that may well be the case. I am not claiming I am super-informed or even expertly so. I'd like to know what your point is?

Steve quoting me: Moving along:

"In each of these passages, Herodotus names his sources and how he got a hold of this information he finds worthy to pass on. Now I ask Jason: where do the synoptic gospels identify their sources? Where does John do so? Herodotus writes what he hears from the Egyptians, Carthaginians, and Persians. Does Luke say how he knows what women went to the tomb, or how he knows where Joseph took Mary and the baby Jesus after the dedication of Jesus? Does Mark say how he knows that Jesus cursed the fig tree? Does Matthew say how he knows about the story of the wise men and Herod? No. Does John's author say how he knows that Jesus cleansed the temple and overturned tables? or how he knows that Jesus supposedly raised Lazarus from the dead? No."

"No names, methods, weighing of evidence, competing claims, or anything like that in the gospels.

Steve: The problem here is that MG is comparing the incomparable. Herodotus is writing about events from the distant past.This is quite different from contemporary history.

How am I comparing the incomparable here? What difference does it make that Herodotus is writing about many events from the distant past? My point is one of critical intent. And I do believe that if some authors are claiming to narrate the greatest event in human history in terms of soiterology, then they should be very critical in what they intend to write. Does Steve believe that if authors are writing events that are contemporaneous with their lives, they need not be critical-minded? Even about extraordinary claims?

Steve: Suppose Peter Lawford wrote a biography of Frank Sinatra. Would we ask, where did he get his information? What was his methodology? Did he weigh the evidence? Sift through competing claims?That would all be irrelevant. Since Lawford was a member of the Rat Pack, we know that he would be either getting his information from first-hand observation or from the testimony of other Rat Pack alumni.MG is simply assuming, without benefit of argument, that the canonical gospels are either anonymous or pseudonymous.

Well, in the case of Lawford writing a biography of Sinatra, we would have enough background information to determine whether or not Lawford was in a position to narrate Sinatra's life events with great accuracy. Let's also bear in mind that we are talking about two different cultures here. We are talking about a pride-guilt culture in which the comparsion is futile because of our high-technology, information mediums, means of recording history, and journalism standards, that was simply unavailable to people back then. Most people in the time of Christian origins, lived in a time where this was not the case, not to mention that there was a general lack of concern for precision in honor-shame cultures, especially in the 1st century Mediterranean. I have tried to document this in an essay I have written by which I plan to post on Loftus' blog in the near future. I invite you and Jason to take a look.

Steve: Moving along:"For many people ‘extraordinary evidence’ is indeed vague and often allows for critics to move the goal posts in terms of what the bar when it comes to evidence that will be enough to convince them. I, however, will tell people what it is that it takes to convince me that such ‘extraordinary events’ have occurred."And:"I am committed to naturalism, philosophically, but this need not exclude an empty tomb by any means. I am committed to a naturalistic paradigm of Christian origins, something Jason cannot brook.

Steve: The Resurrection is only extraordinary given his naturalistic presumption. And it demands extraordinary evidence given his naturalistic presumption.

Oh, I see, so anything goes with you, Steve? So do you accept the sightings of the Virgin Mary at Fatima, the various sightings of Bigfoot, all the alleged stories of UFO/alien abudction, of various psychics who claim to predict future events? The resurrection is not only extraordinary given my "naturalistic presumption". I could be a Deist and believe that a supernatural Creator exists and still not believe that the resurrection happened due to a lack of extraordinary evidence, any other reasons or criticisms (like bibical inerrancy aside). I was even willing to qualify my remarks to: supernatural claims require supernatural forms of evidence. So, Steve, I guess you believe all the claims made about UFOs, Virgin Mary sightings, psychics, the lost civilization of Atlantis, astral projections, and all of that? I guess if you watch Most Haunted on the Travel Channel, then you really do believe that Derek Acorah really gets possessed by the "spirits" that supposedly haunt a given place?

Steve, my sarcasm aside here, how do you go about differentiating between any claims you're willing to accept and those you reject?

Steve: Assuming naturalism, then any alternative explanation is more likely than a miraculous event like Resurrection.

Not necessarily. Natural explanations require naturalistic forms of evidence. Supernaturalist explanations require supernaturalist forms of evidence. That's the epistemological axiom I work with. Naturalism need not be presupposed or assumed from the get-go.

Steve: All that MG has done is to beg the question in favor of naturalism. It’s not the evidence for or against the Resurrection that’s setting the bar, but metaphysical naturalism.

I have? I wasn't even defending naturalism. Being committed to philosophical naturalism isn't the same thing as defending it and even Steve knows that. I have just told Jason that I am committed to philosophical naturalism and naturalism is my conclusion thus far. I am willing to believe that the resurrection happened if supernatural forms of evidence were given to me, such as the risen Jesus appearing to me like he allegedly did to Paul on the road to Damascus or to doubting Thomas. That would be a step in the right direction. Of course, such a Being would have to help me confirm that I am not hallucinating the whole thing.

Steve: And where’s his argument for naturalism?

Oh, good grief! Where did I say I was giving one? I was only defending my hypothesis of visions, which a Deist, a pantheist, or other religionists can accept. Heck, even Muslims can accept my hypothesis. No naturalistic presuppositions are necessary here. Steve, I'm sorry, did I burn your straw man there? (I'm teasing Steve; just teasing you there)

Steve: Continuing:"Price points out well what is the problem with critics like Jason. He points out parallels between gospels like Mark and legendary accounts of immortals and suggests that Talbert’s research points to the gospel resurrection narratives as being legendary in nature.

Steve: MG would do well to read David Aune’s detailed and devastating review of Talbert.

I have also read Talbert's response to Aune; have you?

"Continuing:Robert M Price (who Jason will probably arrogantly scoff at if I know him like I know the back of my hand) has the following to say about critics like Jason:"The research done by Talbert and others makes the set of alternatives proposed by the apologists (i.e., ‘’hoax or history’) a false one. It is considerations like this which make works like Andersons' The Evidence for the Resurrection hopelessly out of date. In this book, and a large number of others like it, the apologists manage to effect a resurrection of their own-- they bring back the deists and rationalists of the eighteenth century as their opponents in debate…New Testament scholarship has long since left both Anderson and Venturini behind, since it has shown at least that the facticity of the resurrection narratives cannot be simply taken for granted. Granted they are not lies, they may yet be legendary." ("Guarding an Empty Tomb" in Beyond Born Again)"[Jason] just assumes that folks like me or just like the critics of old. Sorry buddy, the shoes do not fit and no amount of shoe-horning on your part is going to change that, Jason. Price is right; New Testament scholarship has left the likes of Anderon and Venturini behind and I agree with Price that scholarship has shown that the facticity of the narratives cannot be taken for granted. Jason is simply wearing the old, warn out shoes of Anderson and McDowell in this case. It is sadly, Jason, and not me, who is stabbing at a foe long since dead.

Steve: This criticism is about to boomerang on MG’s head, especially when he proceeds to issue a laundry list of Bible contradictions.

We'll see about that!

Steve: The funny fact of the matter is that MG is the one who’s operating with a precritical, 18C paradigm of what inerrancy should like look.

Oh, really? And what would a modern paradigm of inerrancy look like? (I have read books on biblical inerrancy you know, Steve. I have, for instance, read a lot of Norman Geisler's book Inerrancy)

Steve: 18C literature acted as if the Gospel writers were mere stenographers, recording speeches verbatim and reporting events in minute, chronological detail.

You think I view inerrancy as being a "mechanical-dictation" process? Bzzzzzzz! Wrong Steve!

Steve: But the litany "contradictions" which MG regurgitates from the lips of traditional literature of infidelity dissolves under the lens of genre criticism, narrative criticism, redaction criticism, and the like as we make allowance for the literary conventions and historiographical techniques of the 1C AD.

Oh Steve, come on, man! If it makes any difference, I haven't even read the traditional literature of infidelity such as Robert Ingersoll or David Strauss, if that's who you have in mind.

Steve: MG is the one who’s stuck in a time-warp.

Hmmm..I guess then that Norman Geisler and the late Gleason Archer are/were stuck in the same time warp as me. I have been reading some social-science commentaries on the gospels as well as a book by Abraham Rihbany on the world of the Oriental and their attitudes towards precision.

Steve: By contrast, Jason can readily defend inerrancy by appealing to contemporary NT scholarship.

Guess what, Steve? I can readily refute inerrancy by appealing to contemporary scholarship. In fact, I'd appreciate it if you told me what "taditional literature of infidelity" I am regurgitating from the lips of? Care to cite any examples?

Steve: MG likes to cite socio-rhetorical scholars. Well, what about Craig Keener and Ben Witherington, to name a few?

I am quite fond of Ben Witherington. He's a refreshingly honest scholar and I really enjoyed reading his material in The Christology of Jesus. As for Craig Keener, I am not to keen on him (dare I pun?)

"Finally:At 10:19 AM, September 03, 2006, John W. Loftus said..."If anyone believes what the people at Triablogue say then we are all totally ignorant about everything here at DC. And yet they betray themselves by dealing with what we write on a daily basis. Why spend so much time dealing with the arguments of a stupid site, if DC is one? They cannot have it both ways, for if they regularly argue against us, then they think we are intellectually worthy of their time.

Steve: A non sequitur. DC is simply a convenient repository for stupid arguments against the faith. Since the only objections are stupid objections, DC will do as well as anyone else.

Steve, maybe my criticisms of Jason were misplaced. Maybe you're the one with intellectual arrogance here. But, I have definitely proposed a friendlier, more civil, and respectful debate offer? Will you take it up if Jason declines here?
Nice try, Steve. But I cannot really give you a good mark for your Freud impersonation here. I have seen better. But let me know when you get your degree in psychology!

Matthew