Blog

Over the course of the debates we have done I have often had to point out the difference between theocentric religion and anthropocentric religion. This normally comes up when encountering someone who reads one of the passages in the Bible that can be read prescriptively (“do this so as to be saved”) or descriptively (“this is what a saved person

Just got back from a most enjoyable morning exercising my 2nd Amendment rights and launching model rockets, all at the same time (ah, the smell of gunpowder in the morning!). When I popped into my office to watch an AVI I shot of one of my old, old rockets CATOing on the launch pad (engine mounts gave way…I’m still laughing

Just a couple of items. First, I tracked down the Dividing Line program where I played the phone call where Akin tried to deal with his claims about inceptive aorists in John 6:44. Here’s the link. Fast forward to 33 minutes in, if you wish to only hear the relevant section. I would love to ask Mr. Akin how he

I took a few hours off of writing tonight to sorta de-compress, came back over to the office to do a little more work on an article, and found it necessary to put on my helmet and dodge a flood of incoming fire, both in channel and then in the “blogosphere.” Though I had commented

I grabbed my copy of Jimmy Akin’s book to write my second response (linked immediately below) and as I thumbed through it again I ran across the following argumentation, which is quite similar to the errors Mr. Akin made in our KIXL debate when he mis-identified the aorists in John 6 as inceptives. He writes, One passage

Last year, right after the Great Debate on Long Island, I got in contact with Jimmy Akin again. We had tried to get him involved in the annual debates on Long Island, twice he had agreed, and twice had pulled out. This had led us to be hesitant to even ask, since it is so hard to “fix” things when

After responding to Jimmy Akin’s blog note, I took a moment to read the comments attached to it. I found them fascinating. Some were your standard “ra-ra” kind of comments from folks who obviously are not big on fairly evaluating apologetic material and logical argumentation. One fellow, Brad Haas, was all excited about Dave Armstrong’s “work.” Sorry, but anyone who

A fairly major Vatican document has been released, Redemptionis Sacramentum. It addresses the ‘proper’ celebration of the sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church. It has a number of interesting statements, many of which would be excellent “blog fodder,” but this one was most interesting:  “The celebration of the Eucharist in the Sacrifice of the Mass is truly the origin

DA continues producing record volumes of verbiage, but, thankfully, did learn that stealing Angel’s images is, well, illegal. So, he pulled the new ones someone had produced for him. I guess he’ll have to find a real artist now. Reading the comments section on his blog is simply entertaining, though somewhat frightening. Thankfully, after the necessary response to my comments

Dave Armstrong, upon realizing it was unwise to post Columbine-style pictures of Reformed apologists on the same blog that talks about how he respects Protestants, pointed to a response he wrote to the comparison of his “exegesis” with an example of my own (found here) as a means of providing cover for his mistake.  I had briefly looked at the

Ah, see? This is called a professional caricature. See how it is accurate to life? How it has a context? A message? Helps you to remember something, makes a point, etc.? So, Dave, in the future: please note that these are copyrighted by Angel (don’t steal them). Find someone on your end of things who actually has the ability to

Dave Armstrong wrote a nearly 4200 word “response” to Angel’s cartoon, and, of course, it is all my fault. See, Wilson was right: it doesn’t matter what you say. UPDATE: Dave then ignored copyright laws, demonstrated he has no one around him who can do original work, took the caricature below, and proved he is beyond all rational discourse yet

Proving that reasoning and refutation are but minor irritations, Dave Armstrong has reposted his mauled graphic of me. However, his rather less than talented artist removed the blood from my face this time (as I said, I’m so thankful and feel so much better now). And he has chosen, in his own inimitable style to post it on one of

Amazingly, after posting his horrific image, Armstrong has tried to turn the tables by accusing me of posting something even worse than his blood-stained Charlie-Mansonesque picture. Remember, Armstrong just posted the picture: no context, no words, no application to any particular issue. Just Rome’s arrow (replete with Papal flag) sticking out of my forehead with blood flowing from the wound.

I’ve taken a great deal of heat for having *any* humor on this blog, and especially for the cartoons Angel was so kind to provide. No matter how accurate his commentary, or how perfectly on-target the satire, there are some who just don’t believe there is any room at all for the use of sarcasm, satire, or humor in apologetics.