Since such amateur polemics and biased silliness about the FARMS Review are being circulated on these boards, I am seriously interested in seeing how one handles Blake Ostler's analysis of the Creation Ex Nihilo doctrine here:
http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=590
I just read it tonight. I shall withhold my own thinking and feelings so I can see such bright and brilliant analysis of say, oh a Gadianton or a Scartch or even a Joey or Antishock can show how flimsy, stupid, unscholarly, biased, and dismal performance that Ostler demonstrates.
A Closer Look at FARMS Review 17/2 (2005)
-
_JustMe
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:37 am
-
_CaliforniaKid
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4247
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am
Re: A Closer Look at FARMS Review 17/2 (2005)
Why would Scratch or Gadianton care about creatio ex nihilo, which is a Protestant/Catholic (as opposed to an atheist) conception? Just curious.
-
_gramps
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2485
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm
Re: A Closer Look at FARMS Review 17/2 (2005)
I was wondering the same thing. Maybe take it to CARM?
There are a few Christian critics here, but not very many.
How about DCPs essay on atheists and morality? One of his editor's introductions, I believe. Can't remember the title.
I bet a lot of people here would be game for that one.
There are a few Christian critics here, but not very many.
How about DCPs essay on atheists and morality? One of his editor's introductions, I believe. Can't remember the title.
I bet a lot of people here would be game for that one.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
Adrian Beverland
-
_Jersey Girl
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: A Closer Look at FARMS Review 17/2 (2005)
CK and gramps,
He states why in the OP. This thread is an obvious response to previous threads. Sheesh.
He states why in the OP. This thread is an obvious response to previous threads. Sheesh.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
_harmony
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
Re: A Closer Look at FARMS Review 17/2 (2005)
JustMe wrote:Since such amateur polemics and biased silliness about the FARMS Review are being circulated on these boards, I am seriously interested in seeing how one handles Blake Ostler's analysis of the Creation Ex Nihilo doctrine here:
http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=590
I just read it tonight. I shall withhold my own thinking and feelings so I can see such bright and brilliant analysis of say, oh a Gadianton or a Scartch or even a Joey or Antishock can show how flimsy, stupid, unscholarly, biased, and dismal performance that Ostler demonstrates.
In case you haven't noticed, JM, Gad and Scratch always put their own thoughts about whatever subject they start a thread about , out there first, so people have something to work from.
They say what they like and what they don't, and why.
So... let's see what you have to say, and why.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
-
_JustMe
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:37 am
Re: A Closer Look at FARMS Review 17/2 (2005)
Harmony
My entire point of bring this up is to see what they can do with the serious and significant, instead of picking on the weakest reviews. There are varying qualities of relivews in *any* review publication. Picking the weakest is hardly methodologically significant. Show me you can engage, I already understand you can mock. Take on Ostler or Christensen or someone who is serious.
In case you haven't noticed, JM, Gad and Scratch always put their own thoughts about whatever subject they start a thread about , out there first, so people have something to work from.
They say what they like and what they don't, and why.
So... let's see what you have to say, and why.
My entire point of bring this up is to see what they can do with the serious and significant, instead of picking on the weakest reviews. There are varying qualities of relivews in *any* review publication. Picking the weakest is hardly methodologically significant. Show me you can engage, I already understand you can mock. Take on Ostler or Christensen or someone who is serious.
-
_GoodK
Re: A Closer Look at FARMS Review 17/2 (2005)
gramps wrote:
How about DCPs essay on atheists and morality? One of his editor's introductions, I believe. Can't remember the title.
The review of God is not Great .
Be careful. Absolutely do not operate heavy machinery while reading that review.
-
_Gadianton
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9947
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am
Re: A Closer Look at FARMS Review 17/2 (2005)
CaliforniaKid wrote:Why would Scratch or Gadianton care about creatio ex nihilo, which is a Protestant/Catholic (as opposed to an atheist) conception? Just curious.
Well, Scratch I think is more of a TBM with an interest in "perfecting the saints". I don't think he has an interested in trumpeting his personal religious beliefs, drawing attention from critics, and then spinning up a secretive listserve for the purpose of intelligence and launching sneak attacks.
You are correct that as an atheist, I do not really care about "creatio ex nihlo". Further, Blake is a good guy. I am pleased that the FROB has included him, and perhaps he will be a good influence on them. I hope he does not fall prey to the environment of hatred that surrounds him in apologetics.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
-
_Daniel Peterson
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7173
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm
Re: A Closer Look at FARMS Review 17/2 (2005)
Gadianton wrote:I hope he does not fall prey to the environment of hatred that surrounds him in apologetics.
Fortunately, Blake doesn't seem to have become a target of hatred to the extent that some of the rest of us have.
But let me just point out, in the spirit of Scartchianism, that Blake's essay on creation ex nihilo is little more than non-step name-calling and ad hominem viciousness, typical of the FARMS Review's on-going campaign of slander, spin, and defamation, and a fundamentally dishonest Mopologetic undertaking that reveals him to be a fraud, a pseudoscholar, and a gossip-mongering degenerate.
There. I hope I've covered the most important bases.
Gadianton wrote:Well, Scratch I think is more of a TBM with an interest in "perfecting the saints". I don't think he has an interested in trumpeting his personal religious beliefs, drawing attention from critics, and then spinning up a secretive listserve for the purpose of intelligence and launching sneak attacks.
ROTFL.
Priceless.
Gad is da man.
-
_CaliforniaKid
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4247
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am
Re: A Closer Look at FARMS Review 17/2 (2005)
Daniel Peterson wrote:Fortunately, Blake doesn't seem to have become a target of hatred to the extent that some of the rest of us have.
It would be hard to hate on the likes of an Ostler. In my mind, he and Kevin Barkey are in a mopologetic category all their own. Are they always right? No. Are they right a lot of the time? Yes. Are they irenic, honest, careful and professional? Almost to a fault.
(Uh oh; I better be careful. I hear "irenic" is something of an insult in these here parts...)