tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post3029706528944333581..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Dr. Hector Avalos Comments on his Debate with Dr. William Lane CraigUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14116199272398469672008-01-21T15:30:00.000-05:002008-01-21T15:30:00.000-05:00Hi Stephen,Just watched a debate featuring Lowder ...Hi Stephen,<BR/><BR/>Just watched a debate featuring Lowder on atheism sucks - a flawless opening statement and I haven't thought that about an atheist before.<BR/><BR/>It would certainly be fascinating to see Lowder go up against Dr Craig. Even if Lowder wins that would still be a good thing - the more successful atheists are in gathering support, the more likely God is to counter by blessing us with divine encounters. Theres already good reason to think God might be loosening the boundary between the supernatural and natural world. Scientists are increasingly finding testable and verifiable evidence of the spirit world, I've posted links to the primary scientific literature here:<BR/><BR/>https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14398630&postID=5229584231104600243<BR/><BR/>I know some atheists are as spiritually aware as the rest of us and will never change their views based on evidence, but for folk with an objective scientific outlook this kind of evidence is devastating to faith in atheism.<BR/><BR/>Such is Christ's love for us He wont allow folk like Lowder to win, no matter how good his debating skills.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75702615407859235872008-01-20T14:55:00.000-05:002008-01-20T14:55:00.000-05:00Will William Lane Craig have the courage of his co...Will William Lane Craig have the courage of his convictions and debate Jeffery Jay Lowder, or Doug Krueger of the Internet Infidels?<BR/><BR/>Craig debated Eddie Tabash of II, and guess what? Craig is now most reluctant to debate Tabash again...Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46462597954972824192008-01-20T10:50:00.000-05:002008-01-20T10:50:00.000-05:00Dr Avalos,First respect for providing Dr Craig by...Dr Avalos,<BR/><BR/>First respect for providing Dr Craig by far the strongest opposition of all the debates I’ve seen on the awesome atheism sucks.<BR/><BR/>If only leading atheists like Dawkins, Harris , HItchens & Dennet had the courage of their convictions like you do and would accept Craig’s challenge… Far more of the public would get the chance to see how much more valid the truth of Christianity is compared to atheist propaganda. <BR/><BR/>Anyways Id like to try and answer one of your questions.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B><BR/>Maybe you can explain to me why he won’t call the resurrections in Matthew 27:52-53 “a fact,” but calls the resurrection claim in Mark 16:6 a “fact.” He certainly did not or could not explain the differences.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>It all comes down to corroborating evidence. There’s abundant corroborating evidence, for Mark 16, at least for verse 1 – 8. But there’s not much back up for the mass resurrection hinted at in Mat 27.<BR/><BR/>Also, the best confirmation for biblical truth is the Holy Spirit Herself, who will sometimes guide us about issues we think deeply on.<BR/><BR/>John 16:13<BR/>But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth<BR/><BR/>In my case, I was concerned for years about the possibility of some souls suffering eternally in Hell, and the Holy Ghost has perhaps helped me to see that the correct interpretation of scripture is that Christ’s blood will ultimately cleanse us all of sin, even those who don’t believe, and that Heaven is the final destination for all.<BR/><BR/>Dr Craig is deeply concerned about the historicity of the Gospels and so perhaps the Holy Ghost has helped him with Mark 16 but not Mat 27: 52 – 53.<BR/><BR/>So he is quite right to say he’s unsure about that verse. There doesn’t have to be a yes / no answer to everything. Some times the most honest answer is to say we don’t know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59953641750985883982008-01-19T17:14:00.000-05:002008-01-19T17:14:00.000-05:00Scary Jesus,I saw Frank's comment when it was post...Scary Jesus,<BR/><BR/>I saw Frank's comment when it was posted, but I never saw the comment by "M". I'm not surprised that Frank was lectured though, since his very existence as a Christian apologist does a great disservice to the religion in general and Christian apologetics specifically. I can only hope that he eventually matures, apologizes for all of the stuff he's done in the past, and begins to engage in good, scholarly apologetics.<BR/><BR/>At this point, the other contributors on his blog are infinitely more reasonable and respectable than he is.Landonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18177364027498623841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7807694655898338492008-01-19T15:46:00.000-05:002008-01-19T15:46:00.000-05:00I am said "dumb ass". As a favor to Jesus, I'm tr...I am said "dumb ass". As a favor to Jesus, I'm trying to see if the guys can get Frank to start acting something like a Christian, a good one that is. It seems the least I can do, even for someone I don’t believe was God. I'm pretty damn sure Yeshua didn't believe He was God either, regardless of what "John" says.<BR/><BR/>Hang in there Yesu. I'm workin' on it but don’t look for my name at Atheism Sucks! because you won't find it. I've been left to die on the side of the road by the pious. Has anyone seen a Samaritan around because Frankie Boy has walked right on by, as expected…John Deeringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17314639042602773512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2358987204104967272008-01-19T08:12:00.000-05:002008-01-19T08:12:00.000-05:00It's interesting to note that the other day Frank ...It's interesting to note that the other day Frank Walton posted this comment in response to a frequent atheist poster; <BR/><BR/><B>As always, is it too hard for your dumb ass to actually comment on the nature of the actual blog post? You obviously didn't watch the video clips.</B><BR/><BR/>One of his crew, the guy named M, called him out on it and apologized pretty much by proxy for others who had been similarly abused by Frank. The next day however it was removed along with M, chastisement.<BR/><BR/>That Frank Walton site picked it up in the "comment of the day" balloon(you've got to click to the previous couple of sayings to see it) but unfortunately didn't screen cap it. <BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://frankwaltonchronicle.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">http://frankwaltonchronicle.blogspot.com/</A><BR/><BR/>I'm willing to bet that his new contributers are going to soon tire of his drivel, as they seem to be the only ones posting anything remotely intelligent.<BR/>It's going to be fun to watch.<BR/><BR/>Plus he's completely stopped allowing my posts completely after I praised M for standing on principle.Scary Jesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06326231813656061256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18495737981617597252008-01-16T15:12:00.000-05:002008-01-16T15:12:00.000-05:00Matthew, you're completely within reason in groupi...Matthew, you're completely within reason in grouping Holding, Walton, and Coulter together. As far as I can tell, Walton idolizes Holding, and they both idolize Ann Coulter (though I would even argue that Holding exceeds Coulter's intellect).<BR/><BR/>You're right though, Walton has no credibility complaining that other people are unprofessional (even though he STILL has not shown that Dr. Avalos was acting unprofessionally, he merely asserted it). I've never seen Holding complain about such behavior (perhaps he's bright enough to catch his own hypocrisy).Landonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18177364027498623841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10429987464525843792008-01-16T13:44:00.000-05:002008-01-16T13:44:00.000-05:00Mr. Walton never ceases to amaze me. I have seen s...Mr. Walton never ceases to amaze me. I have seen some of his comments quoted on this blog and I am amazed at Walton's hypocrisy here! It's almost as bad as Holding's hypocrisy! Consider the following statements:<BR/><BR/>"To me, Hector is a complete ass."<BR/><BR/>Dr. Avalos was a complete ass? That doesn't sound like the Dr. Avalos that I know of! But here's the rub: if this criticism is legitimate in <I>any</I> way it would take a Christian critic of Avalos who is a lot more <I>humble</I> and <I>loving</I> than Mr. Walton himself. Don't most atheists who are the subjects of Walton's hit-pieces complain about him? Before Mr. Walton complains about how much of an ass Avalos is, perhaps he should criticize Mr. Holding. But no, because Walton and other folks such as "Darren" seem to utterly adore Mr. Holding. Perhaps Mr. Walton can be convinced to criticize Mr. Holding for being an ass! I doubt it though. I find this amazing! How can folks like Walton and Holding not see the complete hypocrisy of their remarks?<BR/><BR/>"That's just the beginning of Hector's past misconducts and <BR/>unprofessional attitude!"<BR/><BR/> If Avalos was unprofessional and misconducted himself, then only a humble Christian would be in a position to make this criticism. I am utterly amazed that Walton would have the <B>nerve</B> to type this! He reminds me of Ann Coulter. I read Coulter's book <I>Slander</I> a while back and I recall one chapter she spent complaining about the lack of manners and professionalism among political liberals because they resort to name-calling when they tell conservatives that "they're stupid". Then, in her book <I>Treason</I> she makes the remark that liberals are either traitors or idiots! <BR/><BR/> For someone who complains bitterly about unprofessional behavior and the hateful adolescent name-calling of liberals, she apparently has no qualms about dishing this kind of abuse out herself. <BR/><BR/> Like Coulter, I have known Walton to engage in unprofessional behavior and act like a complete ass and yet he has the gall to dish it out to Dr. Avalos. And this is beside the fact that Holding is as unprofessional as they come! <BR/><BR/> The biggest problem of all is that if I complain or criticize Walton or Holding, knowing them as I do the back of my hand, they will just try to redirect the criticism back at me or try and redirect the criticism elsewhere because they apparently think no one is allowed to criticize them. I sincerely wish that folks like Coulter, Walton, and Holding will realize that their shit stinks like the rest of ours.<BR/><BR/> MatthewMatthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03301708892076758582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91907593752191635682008-01-16T10:32:00.000-05:002008-01-16T10:32:00.000-05:00Dr. Avalos,Frank does this kind of thing to all of...Dr. Avalos,<BR/><BR/>Frank does this kind of thing to all of his intellectual superiors (as long as they're non-Christians) and none of his own friends ever call him out on his nonsense. So I just feel like somebody ought to do it.<BR/><BR/>I used to post on his website but he moderates the comments and never allows comments to be posted if they refute what he says. Now over here I have a place to post my comments and I know that Frank reads them.Landonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18177364027498623841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2457480670272182812008-01-16T10:14:00.000-05:002008-01-16T10:14:00.000-05:00For easy access to what Hector just linked to clic...For easy access to what Hector just linked to <A HREF="http://www.iowastatedaily.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=ae7ceaea-a346-1028-a55e-75b0145261f1" REL="nofollow">click here</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88837575999767501822008-01-16T10:06:00.000-05:002008-01-16T10:06:00.000-05:00I don't have the pleasure of kowing him,but Landon...I don't have the pleasure of kowing him,<BR/>but Landon has posted some excellent and<BR/>well-reasoned replies. I could not have<BR/>said it better myself.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Walton might also benefit from Dr.<BR/>Craig's own remarks quoted in the Iowa<BR/>State Daily on the day after the debate (February 6, 2004):<BR/><BR/>Craig said he enjoyed the dialogue with Avalos very much and he thought there was no ill will between them.<BR/><BR/>"Both Avalos and I conducted ourselves with the proper tone and behavior," Craig said.<BR/><BR/>http://www.iowastatedaily.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=ae7ceaea-a346-1028-a55e-75b0145261f1<BR/><BR/>My hat also off to Vinny, whose post on the misuse<BR/>of Sherwin-White deserves more attention,<BR/>and I will post something on this soon.Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07393380077323786976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6325038463287593232008-01-15T17:07:00.000-05:002008-01-15T17:07:00.000-05:00Over at his own blog, Frank has continued to make ...Over at his own blog, Frank has continued to make the same accusations over and over. For example, he simply declares that "What Avalos did was quite unprofessional." He finally tries to give evidence for that claim, writing: "You publicly made him look like an incompetent fool when you knew well he did not have access to the original manuscripts."<BR/><BR/>On the contrary, Avalos pointed out that the picture that he used in the debate was a picture that Shelly should have had easy access to in his studies. If Shelly was making claims about the document, and the picture of the document which is found in easy-to-access textbooks refutes Shelly's claim, then using the picture to disprove Shelly is not unprofessional. Frank just doesn't want to let go of this criticism because he knows it's the only thing he has against Avalos. Avalos *already told him* that the pictures of the manuscripts are not hard to come by, writing:<BR/><BR/>"Copies and photos of these manuscripts are a standard part of almost any handbook on NT textual criticism and in some Bible encyclopedias."<BR/><BR/>If the photos of the manuscripts are as easy to come by as Dr. Avalos claims, then how would he have any idea that Shelly didn't have access to said photos? Frank obviously doesn't prove his claims, he just makes them.<BR/><BR/>When Frank finally gets around to answering the questions that Dr. Avalos asked him, it's really quite humorous. First of all, he still doesn't give a straight answer (like the answers that I already provided for Frank in a previous comment).<BR/><BR/>Instead of simply saying "No, I didn't check the Shelly debate before posting my comment about you being an ass and unscholarly," Frank has to resort to saying things like (paraphrased) "You admitted it already, so there's no need to check the original debate," and "What does this have to do with my opinion that Dr. Craig beat you in your debate with him?"<BR/><BR/>There are two statements here, so let's take them one at a time. First, Dr. Avalos was saying that you should have checked the original debate because you would have gotten an understanding of his purpose in refuting Shelly as he did.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, Frank thinks this is off topic because it doesn't have anything to do with his opinion that Dr. Craig beat Dr. Avalos in the debate. Isn't it strange how earlier Frank wanted to claim that the content of the debate wasn't the point of the original post, and that the original point was just that Dr. Avalos had acted unprofessionally? And that now Frank is avoiding the original Shelly debate and sticking to his guns, so to speak, while declaring that his original point was simply that Dr. Craig beat Dr. Avalos in the debate?<BR/><BR/>If Frank's main point is that Dr. Craig beat Dr. Avalos, as his comments are beginning to suggest, then why did he write in response to Dr. Avalos:<BR/><BR/>"Again, the point of my initial post was your standard of unprofessional conduct in a formal debate, not Dr. Craig's arguments about the manuscripts. You're changing the subject..."<BR/><BR/>Well, Frankie boy, which is it? What *was* your point? And are you going to stand behind any of your claims and back them up?<BR/><BR/>Instead of simply saying "No, I haven't read Shelly's book, so I don't know exactly what he claimed. If I *had* read Shelly's book, perhaps I would understand the context in which you refuted him," Frank essentially says "What does reading Shelly's book have to do with the fact that Dr. Craig beat you in the debate?" Yet since we've seen that Frank's original post had *two* points (one to accuse Avalos of unprofessional tactics, and one to claim that Dr. Craig beat Avalos in their debate), we can see that Frank's comment here is disingenuous. He knows that Avalos was addressing the first point (about whether or not he--Avalos, that is--acted unprofessionally) yet he asks what it has to do with the second point. Frank, I already provided the easy answer for you: "No, I have not read the book."<BR/><BR/>Dr. Avalos asks Frank: "Do you think it is proper for a scholar to represent late or even Medieval Aramaic as first century Galilean Aramaic?" Instead of giving a straight answer, he simply says, again, "What does this have to do with the fact that in my opinion you got stomped in your debate with Dr. Craig?"<BR/><BR/>Indeed, how are these two things related at all? Perhaps Dr. Avalos is pointing out that Dr. Craig misrepresented facts in the debate in an attempt to show that Dr. Craig "clearly winning the debate" is not all it seems. *Perhaps* that's what it has to do with your unscholarly appraisal of the debate, Frank.<BR/><BR/>Essentially, Frank does the same thing as he answers the rest of Dr. Avalos' questions. Instead of just giving a straight answer, he essentially asks "What does that have to do with the fact that I think Dr. Craig pummeled you in the debate?" The connection seems quite clear. If it turns out that Frank doesn't know what the heck he's talking about, then his judgment on the debate is basically worthless. *That's* what it has to do with it Frank.<BR/><BR/>At the end of his comment, Frank admits that he does believe that at the time that Jesus died, "a horde of zombies descended upon Jerusalem," (in the words of Richard Carrier). What historical evidence is there for this claim, I wonder? Frank's reply: he finds the gospels to be historically reliable. Thank you, historian Frank.Landonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18177364027498623841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41590113565540934442008-01-15T16:24:00.000-05:002008-01-15T16:24:00.000-05:00Aha, I see. Someone should suggest to the programm...Aha, I see. Someone should suggest to the programmers that they add a blocking function, then.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05167919397164939103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75006285563606005772008-01-15T15:54:00.000-05:002008-01-15T15:54:00.000-05:00Klas, the only way to do this is to moderate comme...Klas, the only way to do this is to moderate comments, and I want the discussion to flow freely rather than wait for hours while I am away from the computer to do so. He's a prick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6743948945848614642008-01-15T15:39:00.000-05:002008-01-15T15:39:00.000-05:00John, why are you still letting young Frankie boy ...John, why are you still letting young Frankie boy post here? I don't know how blogs work, but isn't it possible to just block him?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05167919397164939103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13780151821488674592008-01-15T08:16:00.000-05:002008-01-15T08:16:00.000-05:00Bertram Cabot, Jr. is "The man who was never born....Bertram Cabot, Jr. is "The man who was never born." Another one of Frank Walton's names I think. And it is YOU who sees things in black and white.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7449215641922498342008-01-15T06:56:00.000-05:002008-01-15T06:56:00.000-05:00Dr Avalos is a fundamentalist. Everything is blac...Dr Avalos is a fundamentalist. Everything is black and white. He was a fundamentalist evangelist, and now he is a fundamentalist atheist.<BR/><BR/>This is demonstrated by his statement in his book Fighting Words, that his goal is the ELIMINATION OF RELIGION in the PUBLIC AND PRIVATE life.<BR/><BR/>Now how could that possibly be achieved without force? There will always be someone who does not see things your way, as John has often, and accurately, pointed out.<BR/><BR/>His mindset is a dangerous as any fundie.<BR/><BR/>And yet the complaint is made that the Atheism Sucks site is offensive.<BR/>Well, with leading atheists saying Christians are Delusional (Dawkins), Child Abusers (Dawkins and Dennet), that they belong in zoos (Dennet), or that people can be killed for their BELIEFS if the beliefs are deemed dangeous (Harris, and deedmed by who, one wonders)I am not sure the athesim movement has any room to make a judgment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33985445237449509542008-01-14T21:00:00.000-05:002008-01-14T21:00:00.000-05:00Re. Paul in heaven:"I knew a man in Christ above f...Re. Paul in heaven:<BR/>"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (2 Corinthians 12:2-4)<BR/>See the Wiki article on Third Heavenpauljhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15119817079262679950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23164695785870364722008-01-14T20:50:00.000-05:002008-01-14T20:50:00.000-05:00Haha! Atheists are in Crank Bolton's head 24/7. I ...Haha! Atheists are in Crank Bolton's head 24/7. I can see his constantly crimson face and steam emitting ears in front of me. <BR/><BR/>BTW, landon, it's not very nice of you to publicly embarass Bolton like that. A simple "Bolton is wrong" would have been much more appropriate.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05167919397164939103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22743105287351345392008-01-14T19:20:00.000-05:002008-01-14T19:20:00.000-05:00In the comments section of his own blog, Frank wro...In the comments section of his own blog, Frank wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Would it have killed Avalos to simply say that Shelly was wrong about the NT manuscripts without spiting Shelly in an embarrassing way? But, no, Avalos had to be an ass about it."<BR/><BR/>Pots and kettles come to mind... And Frank has *still* not shown that Dr. Avalos was acting inappropriately in his debate with Shelly, he is merely asserting it.Landonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18177364027498623841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33153080301820276862008-01-14T18:38:00.000-05:002008-01-14T18:38:00.000-05:00CARR said...Paul also claimed to have gone to Heav...CARR said...<BR/><I>Paul also claimed to have gone to Heaven.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>This is interesting. When did St. Paul ever make such a claim?Tim Eapenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11735806106381972220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29654235128813752322008-01-14T18:16:00.000-05:002008-01-14T18:16:00.000-05:00Walton's response to Avalos is amusing, as expecte...Walton's response to Avalos is amusing, as expected. He writes:<BR/><BR/>"My post wasn't about research or the New Testament manuscripts, but about your conduct of debate. How hard is that for your scholarly mind to figure out?"<BR/><BR/>In actual fact, Walton accused Avalos of "unscholarly research" at the end of the post, so it *is* about research. And since Frank thinks that Dr. Craig demolished Avalos in their debate, he's making a claim about Avalos being wrong in his arguments and Dr. Craig being correct in his. So the post *does* have to do with the manuscripts.<BR/><BR/>In regards to the conduct, Walton shows no sign that he checked the original debate to clarify the issue that he took straight from Dr. Craig's mouth. Then Frank writes to Avalos:<BR/><BR/>"you wanted to prove that Dr. Shelly was incompetent about his research. You were attacking the man and not his argument. You could have simply said that he was wrong with his homework. Instead, you set him up to make him look like a fool. Publicly embarrassing people is your standard of conduct."<BR/><BR/>Actually, Dr. Avalos has attempted to make it clear that he was demonstrating that Shelly didn't know what he was talking about. How this is an "attack on the man" is beyond me. If Dr. Avalos shows that Shelly is incorrect by asking him to identify a source that he is making claims about, there's no attack on the man there at all, just a good clean rebuttal. Frank wanted Avalos to take it easy on Shelly and simply tell him that he's "wrong with his homework," yet that alone would not constitute the rebuttal that Avalos was trying to make.<BR/><BR/>And Frank doesn't have a platform to speak to us about the morality of dialog anyway, given that he trashes virtually every non-Christian that he can on his blog, as is evidenced in his updated response to Avalos when he calls John Loftus all sorts of names. (Yes, when an undergraduate know-it-all gets schooled by an actual scholar, he sometimes lashes out at in anger, as Frank did.)<BR/><BR/>Frank attempts to downplay the importance of Dr. Avalos when he writes: "I never heard of you until Dr. Craig debated you. So much for thriving!" Yet anybody can see that Frank's hearing of a person has no bearing on whether or not that person is engaging in good scholarly work. So much for thriving, Dr. Avalos, because Frank Walton hadn't heard of you until you debated Dr. Craig! You call that thriving! Ha!<BR/><BR/>When Dr. Avalos accused Dr. Craig of "[misrepresenting] the availability of the manuscripts," Frank says in reply:<BR/><BR/>"What you're doing now is venting your frustration on Dr. Craig after he obviously pummeled your arguments into a million little pieces. Again, the point of my initial post was your standard of unprofessional conduct in a formal debate, not Dr. Craig's arguments about the manuscripts. You're changing the subject..."<BR/><BR/>In actual fact, Dr. Avalos is pointing out exactly why he doesn't think Dr. Craig "pummeled his arguments" in the debate. Frank accused Avalos of "unscholarly research" and said that Dr. Avalos lost the debate badly, yet when Dr. Avalos points out that Dr. Craig misrepresented the "facts," all Frank can do is say that this wasn't the issue at all, and that all he (Frank) wanted to comment about was that Dr. Avalos had acted irresponsibly in his debate against Shelly--which Frank has STILL not shown to be true! Frank is the one changing the subject here. If you think Dr. Craig "pummeled the arguments" of Dr. Avalos, perhaps you can just utilize Dr. Craig's arguments and show that Dr. Avalos is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Also, Frank never responded to the questions Dr. Avalos asked. Two in particular stand out:<BR/><BR/>"What specifically constitutes misconduct in my refutation of Dr. Shelly’s knowledge of manuscripts HE CITED AS EVIDENCE?" (All Frank has done is declare that it's an attack on the person.)<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"How would you describe the honesty and integrity of a person, who repeats things others say without checking the primary sources?"<BR/><BR/>Some of the others are easier to answer, and I think I can do it for Frank. <BR/><BR/>(1) No, Frank did not listen to the Shelly debate before posting his comment.<BR/><BR/>(3) No, Frank has not read Shelly's book.<BR/><BR/>(6) No, Frank doesn't know Aramaic.<BR/><BR/>(9) If Dr. Craig believes in those resurrections, Frank probably does too.Landonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18177364027498623841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26303893019884368252008-01-14T12:00:00.000-05:002008-01-14T12:00:00.000-05:00Looks like Frank Walton updated his entry and once...<I>Looks like Frank Walton updated his entry and once again attacks who I am.</I><BR/><BR/>You have my sympathy. Back in my newsgroup posting days, I experimented with pseudonymous posting out of frustration with certain trolls. Unlike you, I simply stopped doing it without ever fessing up. Walton will never let you forget it, but I think most people will view it as a minor misstep on the way to finding your online voice, particularly given your principled civility since that time.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56606594965763732772008-01-14T09:02:00.000-05:002008-01-14T09:02:00.000-05:00Atheism Sucks=J.P. Holding wannabees.He's the insp...Atheism Sucks=J.P. Holding wannabees.<BR/>He's the inspiration behind their rude shtick.NightFlighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04353837222817533315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17520096493471810712008-01-14T07:48:00.000-05:002008-01-14T07:48:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com