Monday, June 18, 2007

Yet more ad hominem

The blessed faithful one at Triablog shares his extremely critical opinions about my recent posts on inerrancy, calling me in the process, among other nasty things, a 'faithless demagogue'!

I found his acidic rant really quite sad, actually, but I won't reply in like manner as that would be sinking to his level.

12 Comments:

At 6/18/2007 3:04 AM, Anonymous Jim said...

Hi Chris,

I wouldn't worry about the ill thoughts of others. If I let the wolves howling get to me I'd be as insane as Joe Cathey. ;-)

You do useful, meaningful work whilst your opponents only claim to fame is that they denigrate you. If they have to find their place on your back and can't stand on their own contributions, that should tell you how seriously you should take their abuse.

Anyway, I'm the only one allowed to abuse you.... Great Satan....

 
At 6/18/2007 3:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh well being an Aussie I have no problem calling a spade a spade.

;-)
js

 
At 6/18/2007 4:08 AM, Anonymous J. B. Hood said...

CT,

Since you have the gift of rising above the fray, I've got a task for you. Here in USA we have an amazing war going on of auto magnets (little metal magnetized pendants people put on their cars). It started with an IXTHUS. Then there was a turtle, with DARWIN written in it (the way we write ICHTHUS in the fish), shown EATING the fish. Now there is an even bigger fish, now with "TRUTH" written in it rather than IXTHUS, shown eating the turtle that says "DARWIN" on it.

I was behind one such vehicle the other day and thought to myself, "It's been a while since anyone upped the ante in this war of autos. What if CTRVHM could come up with a fish-with-ixthus KISSING a turtle with DARWIN in it?!?" Is there a market for this? Would it sell? Could it fund your ministry/another year at Tubingen?

 
At 6/18/2007 4:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you ever read Robert Countess's objection to the Chicago Statement? As I understand it, he was present during the work on the Statement, but in the end could not in good conscience sign the Statement: A Case In Point

A follow-up note.

 
At 6/18/2007 5:14 AM, Anonymous Looney said...

Regarding early church father's statements, we have Irenaeus (~180AD):

"When, however, the Gnostics are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures as if they were not correct, nor of authority. They say that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition...But again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, ... they object to tradition."

Chris, you might prefer to stick to the modern ad hominem rather than check the early church fathers!

 
At 6/18/2007 5:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I tried what that guy Steve suggested–as a subsacrament–while I was subscribing to your new statement on inerrancy: "his conception of the appropriate posture involves the liberal use of the middle finger towards whatever portions of Scripture he can’t bring himself to believe." Was that the correct way of subscribing to your statement?

 
At 6/18/2007 2:14 PM, Anonymous Dem Glauben Worte geben said...

Hi Chris,
in my quest for a proper (biblical) understanding of Scripture I found N.T. Wright's book The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture very helpful.

Steffen

 
At 6/18/2007 6:55 PM, Anonymous Ryan Jones said...

Chris, I can't tell you how tempting it is to make an ad hominem attack on you just because we know you will link to it.

(It's too bad I agree with you so dang much.)

 
At 6/18/2007 10:48 PM, Anonymous Exiled Preacher said...

Chris,

You know that I don't agree with you on inerrancy, but it's a shame when a disagreement over ideas (even important ones) becomes the occasion for personal abuse. Triablog ain't helping his own cause at all. Like you are going to be convinced by his diatribe!

 
At 6/19/2007 12:46 AM, Anonymous Chris Tilling said...

Jim-beelzebub-West, thanks for your kind words.
JS, I thought about calling a spade a spade, but I thought it would only reinforce the wall he puts around his thought world. I was real tempted though!
JB, you are a genius. I was thinking, we could have the fish snogging the turtle, just to drive home the point.

Looney, I am always amazed at how loose some of those guys could be with their tongues!

Steffen, thanks so much for your book recommendation. I too found that book helpful. However, Goldingay’s Models for Scripture was my favourite.

RT, I’m sure you can find something to disagree with! Then just go nuts and you be linked to!
Or be real nice, then you’ll certainly get linked to!

Guy, I thought our dialogue during the inerrancy series was helpful and respectful. I recanted of my ‘anti-intellectual’ slam because of your words as well. But I suspect the problems with this chap go deeper than merely the manner of his argumentation

 
At 6/19/2007 6:53 PM, Anonymous El Bryan Libre said...

Speaking of Goldingay's Models for Scripture and Wright's book, my favorite so far on this issue that has changed my thinking the most has been Paul Achtemeier's book "Inspiration and Authority". That book was great and after it there was no turning back for me.
Blessings,
Bryan L

 
At 6/19/2007 10:57 PM, Anonymous Chris Tilling said...

Thanks, I need to get that from the library.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home