Posted: May 08, 2012 12:50 am
Also, there's this one:
He's effectively accusing those who refuse to accept his assertions uncritically of wilful dishonesty, simply because they don't roll over and genuflect before his assertions. A disingenuous tactic in the light of the previous quote I provided, in which he effectively says "I don't care what reality says, I'm going to regard mythology as fact, even when reality says I'm wrong".
Oh, you could also point out that his assertion about being "agnostic" on evolution means he's being evasive. After all, he's a tenured member of the Talbot School of Theology, which requires all those who are thus tenured to conform to a doctrinal statement containing the following words:
In short, that doctrinal statement requires those who conform to it to be creationists. Now, who is he lying to with his "agnostic on evolution" assertion? Is he lying to the various audiences attending his debates, who are thus lulled into thinking he is not a creationist, whilst adhering to a doctrinal statement requiring him to be a creationist? Or is he lying to his institution, by not holding creationist beliefs that the doctrinal statement I linked to above clearly demands that he should hold, in order to continue holding tenure? Inquiring minds would like to know the answer to this.
Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.
He's effectively accusing those who refuse to accept his assertions uncritically of wilful dishonesty, simply because they don't roll over and genuflect before his assertions. A disingenuous tactic in the light of the previous quote I provided, in which he effectively says "I don't care what reality says, I'm going to regard mythology as fact, even when reality says I'm wrong".
Oh, you could also point out that his assertion about being "agnostic" on evolution means he's being evasive. After all, he's a tenured member of the Talbot School of Theology, which requires all those who are thus tenured to conform to a doctrinal statement containing the following words:
The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power. A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and chance.
In short, that doctrinal statement requires those who conform to it to be creationists. Now, who is he lying to with his "agnostic on evolution" assertion? Is he lying to the various audiences attending his debates, who are thus lulled into thinking he is not a creationist, whilst adhering to a doctrinal statement requiring him to be a creationist? Or is he lying to his institution, by not holding creationist beliefs that the doctrinal statement I linked to above clearly demands that he should hold, in order to continue holding tenure? Inquiring minds would like to know the answer to this.