Well, Davey, I see you didn't stay away from Usenet after all.
I see you have weighed in on the controversy with Jason's CD - and
I'll be doing that myself here shortly - but, of course, you couldn't
know, could you, unless you've been reading the newsgroups.
Or perhaps Jason decided to go whining to you in private. That's
fine, of course, but your "review" of Jason's CD is nothing short of
worthless.
Now, since I know both you and Jason are reading, I'll respond to your
"review."
"This book [Jason's "Sketpic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and
Explained"] has stirred up immense amounts of controversy amongst the
denizens of Usenet, as anyone can see by checking the archive."
That's interesting, Davey. How do you define "immense?"
What has stired up controversy, Davey, is not the CD, but Jason's
reaction to criticism of it as posted on Amazon.
Jason has had negative reviews REMOVED from the site. Clearly he
doesn't seem to value "free speech" as much as you pretended to.
But no, Davey, it's not the CD (or, if you prefer, the "book") that
has caused that much controversy. I have a copy now and it's pretty
much a yawner - it's of no real good value, but I'll get to that.
"If the book were as bad as the so-called skeptics claim, then why the
extreme reaction?"
Again, there has been no extreme reaction to the BOOK, but to Jason's
responses to criticism.
"The fact is skepticism is okay, as long as people are gullible in
accepting what the skeptics say. The minute someone, like Jason
Gastrich, turns some of their skepticism back on them, their many
arguments, fluffed up for volume, dissolve in the midday sun."
Do they really, Davey? Then why does Jason try to REMOVE those
arguments and criticisms rather than face them directly and debate
them openly in the newsgroups?
"There has been an answer to this book, which pretty much accepts that
a lot of the original skeptics bible was overdone, and concentrates
argument on the fewer truly difficult issues that people can have with
biblical literalism. Therefore, this work has had a critical role in
the dialectic over what really is an issue with literalism, and what
is just propaganda from the opponents of faith, whatever their motive
for this propaganda may be."
I think you overstate the importance of Jason's "book," Davey. The
fact is that it's had very little effect on the "dialectic."
"It should be on the reading list of every serious Christian and every
theology student. It is an example of what can be done when we take a
body of argument from a so-called skeptic and answer it point for
point."
Except that, as has already been said, it doesn't really do that.
Some of the more obvious examples are the comments about evolution
with respect to Genesis, the SAB, and Jason's responses. For example,
when the criticism is rendered that the 6 literal days in Genesis are
wrong because of the claims of science with respect to the creation
and age of the Universe, Jason's answer is hardly better than "is
not." "God could easily make all things in 6 days," he tells us.
Well, I suppose. But the odds are that he didn't and there is
absolutely no evidence for it.
"There is no reason why we cannot take the Bible as authoritative.
That is what this book shows, and that is why it is so virulently
controversial."
What the book shows me so far, Davey, is the superficial way that
Jason thinks - if you can call it that. I realize that you are under
the impression that Jason is some sort of great intellect. Certainly
HE thinks he is. But let's recall all of the bragging you did about
yourself. Let's remember the lies you told and the threats you made.
All of it simply showed how impotent the two of you truly are.
So I suppose, Davey, that it could be that Jason appears to you to be
some great intellect but then, you don't have much to compare him to.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|