I'm Co-Writing a Book With A Christian Scholar

Yep, that's right, well, at least we're going to be putting together some things to propose in hopes of publication. I'll let you know who it is later. It'll be a discussion/dialogue where we share why we disagree with each other. He's an expert on a few issues that I'll have to read up on, which means getting some expensive books. I don't even have any of his published books. That's why I recently put a "ChipIn" link in the sidebar for interested people to donate so I can get them. Thanks in advance for anything you can do. Co-writing this book helps introduce me to more Christian readers, and that can't be bad. They are my target audience.

34 comments:

Russ said...

John,

I'll throw in fifty bucks. e-mail me a P. O. box or other mailing address, or if you'll be in my neck of the woods anytime soon let me know where where we can meet.

All the best,

Russ

John W. Loftus said...

Hey my friend, thanks as always. I really appreciate it along with all the comments you make at DC. They are all thoughtful and well said.

Lvka said...

LOL! And what's the title? "Good cop, bad cop" ? :-)

Winston Smith said...

John, you slip up when you say Christians are your TARGET audience.

Exactly.

They are your TARGET, not people you want real discussion with.

As you admitted in your "reflections" book, you would not follow Christianity even if you were to admit it were true.

GearHedEd said...

@Winston:

What do you care what John believes?

And if your theology can't stand up to investigation, then it should rightfully perish from the earth.

Winston Smith said...

I care about what John beleives, for the same reason he cares about what I believe.

And you people are big on Theology "Perishing", but many brilliant men have tried to destroy Christianity.

Voltaire, Paine, Marx, Ingersoll, Nietzsche, Russell, Sartre, Lenin, Trotsky, et al.

They all failed.

So will John, and he is not nearly as intelligent as the ones I have named.

GearHedEd said...

The intelligence of the attackers isn't what keeps religion going; it's the gullibility and LACK of intelligence among the sheeple that sustains it.

GearHedEd said...

Or rather, it isn't the truth of religion that resists attack; it's the gullibility and LACK of intelligence among the sheeple that sustains it.

Winston Smith said...

Yeah, its always the other guy.

Nothing you failed at!

shane said...

Winston.

Christianity survives because it keeps reinventing itself to fit the facts of life!

Take for instance the churches insistence of a flat earth, until they could no longer hold that belief.
Then they try to say that the bible depicted a round earth all along.

It also keeps reinventing itself to meet the criteria of democratic society.

shane said...

Winston.

How can those you mentioned possibly succeed, when christianity keeps reinventing itself every time new discoveries are made that put it in peril?

Also, christianity has failed as well in its attempts to convince the world.
Its been almost 2000 years, and there are still more non christians in this world then there are christians.

Winston Smith said...

On the one hand, atheists claim Christianity reinvents itself.

On the other, they say Christianity is stuck in ancient ways and won't change.

It is the atheists who change their arguments to fit the situation, by equivocation, misrepresentation, and outright false assertions.

shane said...

Winston.

No one has to be an atheist to see the reinvention of christianity.

Yes, christianity has changed its outlooks on truth every time a field of science makes a new discovery.
It was held that the days spoken of in Genesis were literal 24 hour days (rightly so because thats what Genesis does says).

Then when there was tantamount evidence that the earth was very ancient, some christians changed their theology to the "epoch" theory, that the days is Genesis were actually long peroids of time.
But this theory has to real grounds to stand on scripturally, or otherwise.

This is yet another example of the churches ingenious reinvention to stay alive.

And yes, christians do hold to old world superstitious views, in which the bases of their theology will probably not change.

Chuck O'Connor said...

World governments consider Christian Theocracies a bad form of social organization resigning the ANE superstition to not much more than a tax exempt social club moderated by secular values. Yeah, secular minded people have utterly failed in the face of religionists. Not.

shane said...

Chuck.

Lol..yeah no doubt, tax exempt social clubs that make their money off the working class.

GearHedEd said...

Where has atheism ever changed it's views?

atheism = no belief in god(s).

Simple, direct, no nonsense.

Who could ask for more?

GearHedEd said...

Winston said,

"It is the atheists who change their arguments..."

If y'all would quit shifting the goalposts, we wouldn't need to develop new arguments.

Gandolf said...

Winston Smith said... "I care about what John beleives, for the same reason he cares about what I believe.

And you people are big on Theology "Perishing", but many brilliant men have tried to destroy Christianity.

Voltaire, Paine, Marx, Ingersoll, Nietzsche, Russell, Sartre, Lenin, Trotsky, et al.

They all failed.

So will John, and he is not nearly as intelligent as the ones I have named."

No body ever suggested it was ever likely going to be that easy to talk faith people into seeing the danger involved in allowing humans the rights to freedoms to run "unregulated" faith clubs that are often also tax exempt.

Specially when in countrys, that are mostly over-run by such a "unruly" mixed bag of faith jockeys.What you expect of atheists Winston, is like trying to suggest to the Suprano Family ,hey Don how about you and the rest of the gang folk getting involved in voting for more lawmakers , itsa good lurk

It was just never really gonna be so very easy ,was it Winston.

Raul said...

Winston Smith wrote:
"many brilliant men have tried to destroy Christianity.

Voltaire, Paine, Marx, Ingersoll, Nietzsche, Russell, Sartre, Lenin, Trotsky, et al."
I wonder,what "destroying christianity" means? Especially taken the fact,that vast majority of christians doesn't read the works of the mentioned authors anyway.

Marcus McElhaney said...

I'm glad John Loftus is writing a book with a Christian scholar. Maybe the truth will rub off on him.

PhilosophyFan said...

So you're co-writing a popular book for "popular" people, right? I have a question for you, Dr. Loftus: If you want to "get at" (my way of putting it) Dr. Craig so badly or feel such a burning desire to do so, why do you not get on his own "level" (my way of putting it) and meet him where he stands in high places (ie, in academic journals?). If you can give me an honest answer why not, and not just attack more Christian "fundies" (your way of putting it) then I might gain some more respect for you. Make no mistake, I respect you, but I am losing it somewhat because your attitude seems to me as militant as the fundies, and make no mistake I am not ignorant of philosophy, psychology, sociology, nor theology. If you want to have more influence in the world of this so-called culture war then I suggest you step it up.

Joshua Jung said...

Winston's comment is quite interesting.

From my perspective, Christianity survives because evolution is true. It has died a thousand deaths (think of all the millions of various doctrinal positions that have died away), but always rises again after adapting itself to the culture and prevalent thinking.

John W. Loftus said...

PhilosophyFan, I'm not interested in writing scholarly works for scholars, although I could. They talk to themselves for the most part and I can listen in. My place in this world is to take what the scholars say and explain them so more people can understand them. My goal is to change the religious landscape and I can do this best by writing on the college level. That's my niche.

Cheers.

PhilosophyFan said...

That's admirable and I suppose you follow in James Moreland's footsteps but on the other side of the fence. Still, shall you complain moreso about not being able to debate Craig who follows his own "mission"? Remember what the Bible says? "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" and just go ahead that mash that one up with John 14:15. Then myabe you could just throw the golden rule at me but I guess your heart wouldn't be with me then, would it (haha you'll have to search the proverbs for that reference..try Proverbs 23:6-7


Btw, I am just a student like all others I suppose. Just graduated with my Philosophy BA and know a lot of theology and sociology from reading as many textbooks, and other non-fiction genre, for as long as I could stand it.

John W. Loftus said...

PhilosophyFan, welcome to DC. Enjoy the discussion.

If Craig won't debate me because I don't write scholarly works then why did he debate Hitchens or Eddie Tabash? He debates influential people and I hope I can be influential enough to force him to debate me.

Cheers.

PhilosophyFan said...

Thank you for the warm welcome. Shall I suggest it won't work because, as you have said, he's simply scared of you? I do not believe that is so, though, I simply believe he thinks he has to fight with the best he's got, and that can only be done in a journal.

Gandolf said...

PhilosophyFan said..."Make no mistake, I respect you, but I am losing it somewhat because your attitude seems to me as militant as the fundies, and make no mistake I am not ignorant of philosophy, psychology, sociology, nor theology. If you want to have more influence in the world of this so-called culture war then I suggest you step it up."

Hey PhilosophyFan .

When slaves took action themselves in the revolution of slavery, do you also considder them to have been Slave masters?.

And do you also considder any cloured folk getting involved in any revolution of racism practices , to also be the racists?.

PhilosophyFan i suggest we folks could wait around for another two thousand years or so while you scholarly types all have such joyful fun discussing you philosophys back and forth.Making sure all your "levels" are so "correct" etc, and the writing is of the academic "journal standards" rah rah.

And thats all well and good,and im not knocking its has its excellent worth at all.

But to be honest i find myself somewhat losing my respect too for certain folks who it seems tend to think the only room left in the ship, belongs only to those people who can write scholarly works.

Dont you yourself find this uppity type attitude a little bit somewhat untasteful?

PhilosophyFan said...

Gandalf: I stand with Blaise Pascal, that Jansenist heretic of heretics who "merely" stood on the rock of St. Augustine, when he stands with God and mocks the wisdom of the world and "Philosophers." Oh vanity of vanities...I agree with you in a sense. Still, therefore let us learn to be scholars and see if we cannot talk with scholars??? Maybe we can end up like Socrates, not dead but wise (as serpents even....).

Bronxboy47 said...

When you come right down to it, philosophy amounts to nothing more than endless mental masturbation marathons, the preferred method for achieving orgasm by those too fastidious to pull their peckers.

I believe I read that somewhere.

PhilosophyFan said...

Ok Bronxboy, what do you believe you are engaged in RIGHT NOW then? LOL!! Science???? Gossip??? Small Talk??? I think it IS philosophy and you just don't know it.

Bronxboy47 said...

Philosophy Fan:

I question your ability to grasp philosophical subtleties when you don't recognize a tongue-in-cheek quip when you see one.

PhilosophyFan said...

And so they shall be questioned; alas, why even mention it then? Shall I not defend philosophy even if the sentiment is not your own. I shall attack ideas and not people 'til the day I die and no less.

Bronxboy47 said...

Philosophy Fan,

That's the spirit! I am suitably chastened. I sincerely wish you bona fortuna in all your noble endeavors.

Please pardon a bit of advice from an old man: In your pursuit of eternal verities, don't forget to enjoy your youth.

Gandolf said...

PhilosophyFan said... "Still, therefore let us learn to be scholars and see if we cannot talk with scholars??? Maybe we can end up like Socrates, not dead but wise (as serpents even....)."

Sure PhilosophyFan, philosophy is really fine and dandy,yet can still be "very dead"!!, without being sure! to be also accompanied by the the "most important essence of all!!, some real action".

Thats why revolutions happen.Folks get "caught up" in their endless "philosophy" .And in the end it becomes lots like a blood clot.Philosophy.Philosopy,philosop.But still deadness! ,because nothing else comes alone with it.

For some slaves, maybe it could be said it might have even really been a bit more "wise", had they towwed the line.Specially if so happens they actually later went and got themselves killed, during "action" and their involvement in the process of revolution.

But no "wisdom" doesnt always bring us life. Not at all...Because a slaves life! could still even feel just as dead as dead can be,even though using the "wisdom" of remembering to be subjected! and fearful! and oppressed of any involvement in any revolution.

Slavery is not really what anyone would honestly call a life.Because it is actually slavery.Yes maybe you breath and work/slave and bleed! and get beat and abused and old and finally die...But its not really honestly called living is it....You "exist"! is about all we could honestly call it

And it might have been "wise" not to revolt if you wanted to stay "breathing".

But really though "wise" you are still really dead!, because i dont agree that simply breathing air is either enough or all that it takes for us, to be honestly able to ever claim to be really living.

1,"Living" i think includes both breathing! and enjoying! life.

2,Breathing air and working etc, is merely but the ability for us to be claiming an "existence".

No PhilosophyFan, in my opinion, i dont nessarily agree that "wisdom" can always save us from a type of (certain death).

For we can use this "wisdom" thing, and yet simply still be also commiting our very own suicide! by the very act of using this "wisdom".

Do you think?