Monday, February 07, 2011

Atheist John Loftus Hits the Nail on the Head with Regard to the Nature of Theological Liberalism

By Dave Armstrong (2-7-11)

Truth is truth wherever it is found. Here is an atheist speaking truth and knowing about his topic from firsthand experience. An atheist understands this, and an orthodox Christian also does, but the theological liberal can't see it:

. . . I used to be a liberal for about six years before I became an agnostic for another six years before I became an atheist in 2005. I know what it is to be a liberal and to argue like a liberal. . . . Liberals offer a milquetoast version of religion that can be safely ignored for the most part, . . . (12-7-10)

I don't know what any particular liberal believes, . . . Since a liberal isn't to be identified with any set particular beliefs, he or she could always deny that what I say applies to him. I will not spend the time chasing such people down into foxholes. (11-15-07)

Yet, although he knows what liberalism is about, he is not above using it to bash orthodox Christians who actually believe in what their creeds and confessions state:

In fact, in my book I use the writings of the liberals to debunk evangelical Christianity much of the time. They simply are on the side of truth. They have better scholars. (11-14-07)


1 comment:

Randy said...

Liberal scholarship has done a lot to discredit the Christian story. They have letters behind their name and they are officially Christian. Yet their tendency is to completely disregard any testimony of the supernatural. People assume they have deep scholarly reasons for concluding a miracle did not happen. That the evidence is somehow dubious outside of the obvious fact that it is a story of a miracle. I mean there is so much fanfare about this big name scholar arriving at this startling opinion. There must be something to it.

The truth is the scholars use zero intelligence in arriving at their conclusions. It simply became unfashionable to accept accounts of miracles as genuine. If you declared them to be almost certainly fabricated then you were celebrated as brilliant. If you said that people wrote about miracles probably because there many credible witnesses then you were dismissed as a backwards thinking bible thumper. If you want to be published you know which way you have to go.

So the "better" scholars is true if "better" simply means more likely to support atheist positions. If "better" means smarter and more likely to have coherent reasons for his positions then these scholars are not better.