Thinking Christian
Mehdi Hasan of The Intercept posted an incendiary video accusing Christian leaders (“mullahs” and “caliphs” he calls them) of promoting theocracy and Sharia. The “Christian Taliban,” he calls it. Someone asked me to respond.
This one is by audio.
My criticism of this video is very strongly worded, but nowhere near as strong as Hasan’s vilification of Christian leaders. Another difference: Mine is honest and proportionate. I mean that quite soberly.
"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel
"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell
"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel
"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell
Tom,
That “flooding technique” you mention has actually been given a name. Dr Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries has called it “Elephant Hurling”, & it is defined thus:-
“When the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side.”
This is also a tactic used ad nauseum by online atheists.
It’s interesting if you Google “elephant hurling” you’ll get 543 results, including some about elephants actually hurling things, but when you Google “Gish gallop” you get 28,000 results.
Do Christians use the technique 50 times as often as atheists?
I’ve also called it fragenblitzen, when it comes in the form of questions. It’s not the same thing, though, and “elephant hurling” is much more like what Hasan did in this video. Thanks.
No, John. Do I need to detail the unlikelyassumptions you’re making that would have to be true for your conclusion to make sense?
Tolerance & Society? When tracking history the concept of there being a kind of “lag” in “reaching” fuller and broader contours of “reciprocity” upon the world-stage is fine to “track” but one cannot stop there if one means to define one’s moral ontology. With respect to “Better” and “Worse” one will need to show or delineate the terminus of one’s moral meaning-maker, or one’s paradigm and so on. Is “that”, say, irreducible reciprocity there in this or that Non-Theistic explanatory terminus? It is in the Trinitarian Life, and when all Definition & Meaning stream from, source from, “that” fountainhead……
Is there that sort of “closure” in this or that body of premises? With respect to the world stage, tolerance, and reciprocity:
As in:
a- http://disq.us/p/1hmn9pc
b- http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/tolernce.html
c- http://disq.us/p/1hw0li1
d- http://disq.us/p/1hpm5ct
e- http://disq.us/p/1hpmc07
f- http://disq.us/p/1hn7txf
g- http://disq.us/p/1rumklm
~
“But Christians do evil things…. Christians sin….”
One’s surprise that people sin is a bit bizarre and of course the surprise that Christians sin is merely a slice of that. We arrive here with respect to moral ontology: category error.
But let’s take it to its proverbial extreme or end or terminus as the way it is worded so far (….people do bad things….) is all a bit tame…. Why not go the full distance and claim, oh, say, that Hitler was Christian. The only good reply in a discussion on moral ontology would be this:
So what? As per:
a- http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2017/04/18/so-what-if-hitler-was-a-christian-would-hitlers-christianity-hurt-historic-christianity/#comment-4524
b- the overall thread / comment section there with respect to the world stage and a few Non-Theists rejecting the whole “Religion Causes War” mantra, and so on via: http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2017/04/18/so-what-if-hitler-was-a-christian-would-hitlers-christianity-hurt-historic-christianity/
~
There is a thread from “DO CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS WORSHIP THE SAME GOD?” which is at https://www.str.org/blog/do-christians-and-muslims-worship-same-god#.WzIZ16dKhPZ
A few paragraphs down from here we look briefly at the concept of Metaphysically Necessary Tolerance, but, first, a few key concepts:
With respect to our posture towards God, and of God’s posture towards us, and of our posture towards one another, and when it comes to the fact that God forces none of us (… http://disq.us/p/1rumklm …), a comment from the above thread is at http://disq.us/p/1knyg3u and is as follows:
Also from there on that bit about God forcing no one:
a- http://disq.us/p/1kp6pqm
b- http://disq.us/p/1kp6pyt
Then, from https://www.str.org/blog/always-ask-what-they-mean-god#.WzIcy6dKhPZ which is “Always Ask What They Mean by God” a few more exchanges on the fact that God is not forcing anyone to convert, a premise which our Non-Theist friend did not like, and which had to repeated six-ish times:
1- http://disq.us/p/1hs5kkq
2- http://disq.us/p/1hsd52q
3- http://disq.us/p/1hsxk3i
4- http://disq.us/p/1hubul4
5- http://disq.us/p/1husz31
6- http://disq.us/p/1huccsy
Then: Metaphysically Necessary Tolerance via the following:
a- http://disq.us/p/1hvbgnz
b- http://disq.us/p/1rumklm
c- http://disq.us/p/1hw0vic
~
ISIS = Christianity ?
A few comments with respect to this or that ability to (actually) unpack (actual) divergence amid (actual) worldviews with a proverbial reply which might go something like this:
Why are you spreading falsehoods (…or are you simply uninformed…?) about the Christian metaphysic and the nature of the Offense of Gospel discussed in earlier comments here? Once we arrive at the Outsider, or the Infidel, as the Offense of that Open Door (…from earlier comments here…) presses in upon your fallacious category errors you’ll need to show your work. Sound-bites just won’t do.
Why are you spreading falsehoods (…or are you simply uninformed…?) about the Christian metaphysic with respect to the content of all of us who sin “Daily” being found alive and well “In Christ” (…and found so Daily…). Please be specific with respect to said content. Whence God’s rejection of us therein? Of we who, daily, sin? You need to turn your premise around by 180 degrees as per our informed and in-the-light-of-day rejection of God (…see http://disq.us/p/1rumklm …).
WL Craig discusses First Order Sins and the one Meta Level Sin, and, so, to borrow a bit from that content:
It is not this or that First Order Sin which sums to any Weight/Merit here, as Christ’s Weight/Merit outweighs, outreaches, outperforms the Weight/Merit of our First Order Sins. Therein we find that the ONLY separation from God comes not by His Hand nor by any First Order Sins, but by ours via what WL Criag terms the one possible Meta Level Sin (….see https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/does-the-atonement-imply-universalism/ …).
ISIS = Christ’s Open Arms to All? ISIS = No One Is Refused? ISIS = We Are Free To Love Another – And Live? And so on… and so on…. as per the above discussion(s).
Is it that you do not understand the key divergence between the two paradigms you’re equating? If so then you are merely uninformed, though honest. Or are you trying to falsely portray things? Do you actually “get” / “see” BOTH the hard lines of overlap AND the hard lines of divergence but you just want to spend your time lying about entire people-groups?
Are you content with your performance there?
Are you interested in learning the truth about the people-groups you lie about (…or that you’re simply uninformed on….)?
~
Christianity is a non-totalitarian metanarrative:
ISIS = We Are Free To Love Another And Live?
ISIS = No One Is Compelled/Forced?
ISIS = Christ’s Open Arms to All?
ISIS = No One Is Refused?
And this is where the question of the outsider and/or the infidel becomes in Christianity an offense for the Door Himself Stands open to all of us and forces none of us. In the peculiar syntax of Gospel we, all, discover the only ontic-metric of The Good in the Why and How of the fact that the offensive Door Himself Stands open to all of us and forces none of us.
As per the following:
[1] https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2018/06/no-christian-leaders-are-not-seeking-theocracy/#comment-129174
[2] https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2018/06/no-christian-leaders-are-not-seeking-theocracy/#comment-129175
[3] https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2018/06/no-christian-leaders-are-not-seeking-theocracy/#comment-129176
[4] https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2018/06/no-christian-leaders-are-not-seeking-theocracy/#comment-129177
[5] https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2018/06/no-christian-leaders-are-not-seeking-theocracy/#comment-129181