Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘s&m’

I recently listened to an older debate between the apologetic robot called William Lane Craig and the contrarian but amicable John Dominic Crossan. Craig is so predictable, overconfident, shallow, and obnoxious that I can’t help but prefer Crossan, despite his implausible views. Very likely, the debate could be on virtually any topic and my verdict would come out the same against the otherworldly “person,” Bill Craig. Craig’s mindless and mechanical ability to recycle the same material he’s been arguing for 20 years with the exact same inflection and style is all by itself enough to make me want to kill myself. I’ve reached the point where each time I listen to or watch a debate involving Craig, I can safely skip past his entire presentation, because after the thousandth time one has accidentally memorized it. It is always the opponent, not Craig, who might say something you haven’t heard before.

Some person named Sze Leng is correct to say that Craig is “all out to apologize” and that his debating style is “polemical.” But Leng left out the other crucial adjectives, “idiotic,” “superficial,” and “meretricious.”

The debate is moderated by William F. Buckley, which nicely completes the tedious circus. At one point they together challenge Crossan to explain how he is really a Christian, given his denial of the bodily resurrection. While Crossan should have said, “I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition,” he instead gives a reasonable and personal answer. Crossan says essentially, “I find God in Jesus,” indeed to the exclusion (for him at least) of other sources. This is good enough for me, and very likely good enough for the merciful Lord; it was not good enough for theological dominatrix William Lane Craig.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »