tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post4818220082182110678..comments2023-03-24T16:44:31.630+03:00Comments on More Than Words: A rationalist repliesDavid Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-21338230124215015882009-11-27T21:25:00.274+03:002009-11-27T21:25:00.274+03:00Dear Mahmut,
Please stop sending in new comments....Dear Mahmut,<br /><br />Please stop sending in new comments. If you choose to send comments accusing me of criminal offences, under the courageous cover of anonymity, then you can either:<br /><br />1) Prove you're not full of hot air by reporting in to the police and then telling me the case number.<br /><br />or<br /><br />2) Not be surprised if I treat you like someone full of hot air and delete your comments from the moderation queue.<br /><br />DavidDavid Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-75693376875222257212009-11-25T20:31:27.648+03:002009-11-25T20:31:27.648+03:00Dissenter,
I'm not convinced that the links a...Dissenter,<br /><br />I'm not convinced that the links are any more than superficial.<br />I don't really agree with Lewis either if that's what he thought, the excellence of Aslan notwithstanding. Paul never said "and he rose again, as hinted out in all the old mythologies" - he just grounded the whole thing in the Scriptures. That's particularly interesting as I'm thinking of 1 Corinthians 15 - if Paul had thought that appeal to Greek ideas had value then that would have been exactly the time to do it, when writing to the Corinthians who loved their Greek wisdom so much (but which Paul rubbishes). Same goes for Mars Hill in Acts 17 - Paul just shows no sympathy for rescuing Greek ideas (though he does quote one Greek poet - but gives it a meaning quite out of context from the original Greek poem), and that's why Mahmut's idea is totally off the wall.<br /><br />The Bible contains the story of Isaac and his sacrifice/"resurrection" (Hebrews 11 takes it as a kind of resurrection) as early as Genesis 22 - so I'd argue that actually the Hebrews and their Scriptures are the original sources and these others things, if they are related, are the derivatives (and corruptions) - not vice versa.<br /><br />DavidDavid Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-35179938465159546442009-11-25T20:24:20.233+03:002009-11-25T20:24:20.233+03:00Hello Mahmut,
Your other two comments got eaten b...Hello Mahmut,<br /><br />Your other two comments got eaten by the Mothwo cat. Argumentum ad insultum and Argumentum ad Wikipedia are not allowed here. Feel free to repost them in a different form.<br /><br />Don't bother running after a new story after the old one's debunked - I won't take you seriously. To have a worthy debate you need to show how you respond when a serious error in your thinking is pointed out, not just offer to go and fish for another idea instead.<br /><br />DavidDavid Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-54882028021421874402009-11-25T14:52:00.265+03:002009-11-25T14:52:00.265+03:00I'll get back to you soon Mr. Anderson with da...I'll get back to you soon Mr. Anderson with dates of civilisations and penal sub that predate your old testament. My sources weren't Pullman thaey were Frenke. I enjoyed the dawkins delusion post, mad but quite clever. It fails logically on a number of levels. You've been described as an English Dembski, he too refused to argue coherently when in a court of law defending ID. I realise I digress, maybe a future discussion.<br /><br />MahmutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-576275781219598112009-11-25T13:39:53.742+03:002009-11-25T13:39:53.742+03:00Thanks for this simple and efective refutation, bu...Thanks for this simple and efective refutation, but there is more to be said.<br /><br />This assertion about penal substitution occuring in various mythologies, and one might add a god who suffers and dies and rises again to save the world existing in various pre-Christian and pagan cultures is one of the oldest of old chestnuts.<br /><br />C S Lewis was persuaded to some extent of the truth of Christianity partly because of all there pre-Christian examples of the suffering and redeeming saviour myths. He called them 'good dreams' which God had sent to various peoples to prepare them for the coming of the One who was to fulfil them. Many of these peoples also revered pre-marital chastity, beleived in an afterlife and judgment also. Could this be because 'The light of the world has lightened every man' as per John's Gospel?<br /><br />Of course, Dionysus, Atys, Odin, Osiris and all the rest of them are somewhat lacking in specific fulfilled prophecies, dates and paces of birth, or contemporary follwers.<br /><br />Its a tragedy that this sort of atheist hand me down mythology masquerading as scholarship is allowed to go unchalleged to the extent that is is. We need an army of Chrsitian activists bloggers of letter writers to point out the fallacious thinking and develop and broadcast better apologetics. Dear old C S Lewis with his background in ancient myth and then coming to Christs from atheism via deism had all these angles covered, perhaps its time for us to rediscover his work and 'translate' it into 21st century media.Dissenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00074838966097417821noreply@blogger.com