My last post was five months ago. You know, the one that I called “Part 1” and promised a “Part 2” follow-up post?
So, Seth, what gives?
Well… ever feel like you’ve bitten off more than you can chew? Or that you have so much to say about something, but don’t want to publish a novel on your blog since no one would probably read it? Yeah, I know the feeling.
So, check this out: I make a promise to my readers to compile and discuss (in a single post, mind you) all the evidences that I believe exist for the Christian faith. Yeah yeah, I hear you skeptics chuckling out there — I can hear you thinking, “Well, that should be a short article!” Go ahead, have your moment… I’ll give you a minute or two to enjoy your cleverness…. (more…)
The article I’m referring to is this one, which (by the author’s own immediate admission) is a lengthy one. However, I like the style of this new blogger, and I admire the caliber and volume of his material — and I thought his comprehensive evaluation of the historical basis for the Christian faith warranted not only a full reading (a task in and of itself), but also a full response. I hope the author perceives this response to his thoughts in the manner in which they were intended: as a show of respect for his ideas and efforts. I look forward to continuing to read his thoughts in the future.
I will be intentionally brief in both my summaries of his arguments (though I will quote him directly where possible) and in my responses to them; I will forgo, for the moment, my normal preference to back up every one of my claims with reasoning and evidence, for the sake of brevity. Questions and requests for clarification can take place in the comments.
Also, I usually like to be a bit more personal when responding to others’ thoughts — the focus of this blog is to emphasize people and relationships before ideas, for the former IMO are what are really important (and often lacking in such discussions of this kind, especially online). However, this particular post will be a bit more formal, which is weird for me — but since this writer and I have yet to have had any kind of personal exchange, I think it would be more weird to employ my normal, colloquial style with him. Who knows, he might be offended at my familiarity when we’ve never, really, had words with each other before. So, because it feels so strange for me to address just the ideas without addressing the person behind it, I feel I need to offer this reasoning as way of a disclaimer as to why my style in this post is so distant and impersonal. I mean no offense to the writer whose ideas I am countering — in fact, I mean the opposite.
Anyway, too much ado already! Let’s get started 🙂 (more…)