Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Norman Geisler Keeps 'on Truckin'



We’re interrupting the E-Block series on Doug del Tondo to let the reader know that Norman Geisler still doesn’t know when it is in his best interests to leave well enough alone. Indeed, at this point he seems to be taking on the habits of a cyberstalker, digging out whatever little opportunity he can to say the same things he’s already said once before which weren’t correct before and haven’t gotten any more correct with age.

Geisler’s peashot is aimed this time at an interview Licona did for a website that is geared towards helping people select a school (link below). One wonders why Geisler would even bother, but at this point, his obsession is apparently so great that Licona could probably appear opposite Big Bird as a special guest on Sesame Street and it would result in a 500 page Geisler response. Further than that I look for a Geisler article in the future which begins, “Recently Mike Licona was taking out his trash and….”

But like I said, there’s little new here, really. Geisler repeats the same stale arguments we’ve covered before in prior entries you can see under the subject link for this post. 

He still hasn’t learned that Greco-Roman bioi is not a “generic category” and still has not taken up my challenge to refute scholars like Burridge; all he adds is the sort of frightened, head-in-sand language we have come to expect from an unschooled fundamentalist in over his head (e.g., Licona was “poisoned by his baptism into Greco-Roman literature which penetrated his mind by unbiblical presuppositions” – next week, Licona will “go to hay-ul if he don’t repent”).

He still doesn’t get that maybe, just maybe, Gary Habermas one-upped him by thinking more deeply about his position on these subjects between 1983 (the time of Robert Gundry’s confab) and now (for as we may expect, someone like Geisler pretty much intellectually stays in stone no matter how long he takes, and no matter how much scholarship bounces off his scalp).

He continues to quote unnamed and anonymous sound bites as though anyone ought to pay attention, and sound bites as well for unqualified “great men” like Mohler and Patterson (who still doesn’t deserve that bronze statue – sorry – but does deserve the pigeons that come with it).

He still thinks he can hoist the 300 ICBI “scholars” (ha ha!) as authorities and that relatively and contextually unqualified people like himself, Packer, and Sproul are competent to judge this matter.  No, sorry, none of that trio is within their depth here.

He still hoists that rather silly argument about not being able to discern author intention. Apparently being chased around by the Ehrmanator didn’t give him a clue.

He’s still hoisting his inconsequential “survey” of “leaders and laypersons” (the old Brian Flemming technique).

He still whines about being made into a cartoon and quotes a few anonymous people with too-tight Fruit of the Looms who were disturbed by it. Aww. How sad.

He still fudges in reporting that ETS kicked out Gundry with a 70% vote (never mind all the abstentions). And he still has delusional views of himself as a new Martin Luther (“Here we must stand.  We can do no other.”).

He manages to expand all of this stale bread into 25 or so points, but nowhere does he advance his arguments one step, much less responds to detailed criticisms of his errors offered by this blog and so many others.

One the few “new” bits is where Geisler says:

Licona boasts of his successful debates with many noted unbelievers using his “new historiographical approach.”  Yet I was told by some persons friendly to Licona view who were present at the Bart Ehrman debate that they believed that Licona had lost the debate. After the event, one father told me that he was informed by his son who heard the debate that he did not want to go to church any more! 

Well, gee, Norm. I have been told by tons of people – atheists and Christians alike – that you botched and made a fool of yourself in your “debate” with Farrell Till. And I’ve seen it used repeatedly by atheists as an example of how piddly-poor Christian apologetics really is. (One example linked below.) And in fact, thanks to you, I probably had to beat Till on the bunions a few more times than would have been necessary had you done a competent job of it. News flash: This is why I find debates useless. As someone once said, the “atheist” side could be represented by a dog howling “I Dream of Jeannie” off key, and there would be atheists who would still say the Christian lost. 

But anyway, given all that, maybe you’d better get that redwood out of your eyeball before trying to take that toothpick out of Licona’s. The way you keep spinning around, you're liable to kill people with it.






No comments:

Post a Comment