The hypocricy never ends, does it? Would you please be as honest about your faults as I about mine? I didn't have to admit anything. There is no evidence I was deceptive, and I didn't have to blog about it.
Now, tell us about your faults. And deal with my arguments.
Absolutely astonishing. Loftus STILL continues to squirm while hanging from the noose of his own weaving. "No evidence [he] was deceptive"... If Loftus is genuinely as poor at recognizing evidence as that statement implies, all the more reason to suspect from the outset that he just might not have all the pieces to the jigsaw puzzle of reason, if you catch my drift. In light of that, the concluding demand to "deal with [his] arguments" takes on a rather ironic twist. If he can't even admit that there's evidence that he was deceptive, when that much is as plain as day by now, why on earth should anyone suppose that he's competent to assess the evidence for a worldview such as Christianity?
Granted, his arguments should still at least be heard out. But I'm in the process of reading his book now, and so far, they're doing a good impression of Icarus soaring toward that big fiery orb in the sky.
John's right in that he didn't have to publicly admit that at least he was deceptive, but that's hardly to say that it was especially noble of him to do so. A step in the right direction, maybe, but given a) his refusal to genuinely concede that what he did was inexcusable; b) his outright LIES regarding the book review issue as well; c) his continued use of any opportunities to come clean to instead just attack Holding; d) his clear exhibition of poor character in the past; and e) the fact that whether he stays silent or speaks, he's still lost all credibility... well, his comment above rings rather hollow.
And John misspelled "hypocrisy".
My fault was stooping to the level of Holding, and I hate myself for it. But there is no parity in comparing one deception due to non-repeatable circumstances with the characterization that I'm a liar, like you did here. None. I'm sure you wouldn't say this about a sibling, now would you? It just reveals how much you want to stretch what I did out of proportion to the reality, and that, my friend is deception as well.
Deal with my arguments then.
I wish you well...the very best in life.
Oh, and for the record, if I were to review my own book it would be a glowing one, silly. As I explained, I posted reviews of what others said, and I told people why I rated it (because I had to do so to post the other reviews).
As for you reviewing my book, go ahead. As I said, I have posted favorable reviews of books I disagreed with, and less than favorable reviews of books I agreed with. That's called being honest and fair. Whether you can do so is highly suspect seeing what exaggerated claims you have made here. Still, if you do, you will put you name on it, not me. Whether people can trust what you say about a book in the future will depend on what they think of your review of mine.
[I fear that this will be lengthy enough to force me to make several comments. They are all intended as one whole.]
John, John, John... I'll address the book review issue first. I don't quite so much care that you posted a book "review" consisting of a number of blurbs from others, without commentary. It was an unnecessary act, but really, compared to everything else you've done, inconsequential. For that reason, when I speak of the "book review issue", I'm referencing your PRIOR review, in which you did--contrary to your own present statements--write a glowing review. This has been documented thoroughly on TheologyWeb. Don't bother attempting to contest that fact. You'll only make yourself look worse.
It is on the basis of several instances of deception (some of which, John, CAN be legitimately classed as "lying" under any proper definition), along with your repeated evasion and refusal to acknowledge the issues involved, that quite a number of people have rightly characterized you as being a "liar", as well as a hypocrite.
As for the relation of Holding to this issue, you'd be wise to drop it. I know that there's a greater chance of Gehenna being renamed "New Siberia" (if you catch my drift) than of you weighing the advice of another conscious entity, but the only thing you're accomplishing by continuing in your refusal to deal with your stake in this matter--completely independently of any involvement that J. P. Holding may or may not have had, in your perception--is perpetuating the impression that Paul Boatman was more right about you back in your seminary days than you will ever be willing to admit. (A note for others: as told on page 13 of "Why I Rejected Christianity", Boatman, one of Loftus' seminary professors, told him, "John, you're an arrogant person.")
What others are seeing as they observe your conduct are the marks of a man who persists in pridefully exonerating himself and blaming others, in such a habitual manner as to create a virtual vortex dragging you ever more deeply into your own warped martyr complex and your own fabricated reality. People see it in your saga of fault told in the autobiographical tale found in the second chapter of your book (I refer chiefly to the way you phrase in print the dealings involving yourself, Kathy, and Linda). People see it in your initial dodging of blame for the blog issue. People see it in the way you continually drag James Patrick Holding into everything. It seems so outright obsessive that it's difficult for anyone to take you seriously when you continue to level unsubstantiated allegations at him, even from within the context of various pseudo-apologies and offhand remarks. People also see how, when confronted with the TRUE claim that you had reviewed your book yourself--with your own words, not the remarks of others--you lashed out with insults and lies, denying such things and instead marking as incompetent any who would dare speak it like it is. People further notice this trend in the way in which, after so many days already, you defend yourself against the truth, stubbornly withstanding any efforts to penetrate your denial. Likewise, people see how repeatedly in your book you offer up arguments blaming God for each and every little thing possible, constantly pushing responsibility heavenward. This goes beyond what might conceivably be reasonable for debate, into the absurd realm of blaming God when humans, of their own volition, create chemical weapons, since God evidently should "control our choices" to make it not so (p. 247). Adding onto this your treatment of sin as not possibly egregious enough to merit the punishment, and your similar remarks regarding the Edenic narrative, and the pattern that has been woven surely must make one wonder whether you're truly the best one to be heeded when assigning blame.
Now, as you've said before, you don't care how people see you. However, John... that's precisely another nail in the coffin. Another hallmark of your pride, in their eyes. And if this wide consensus all sees these acts of yours and acknowledges your wrongdoing--both your ideological adversaries AND your ideological allies--should you not at least take a moment to ponder whether your character faults have more severely gripped you than you imagine, and are more deeply entrenched than you've seen?
I do not take joy in saying any of this, John. I honestly used to like you. I still hold out some hope in some corner of my being that by an entirely unforeseen twist of events, you'll finally break down and confess that you were genuinely wrong in all of these respects, and at last you'll handle the situation like a man--an honorable man.
You bring up again the issue of me reviewing your book. I do not know whether I will review it, at this point. Perhaps someday, should I have a better website on which to host it and more time in which to compose it. In the meantime, know this: it would be as genuinely fair as I can make it, with this knowledge of your character. And yes, John, I will be more than happy to "deal with [your] arguments". Wouldn't avoid them for the world. Granted, it's sometimes a bit difficult to locate your actual arguments amidst the preponderance in your book of mere quotations from numerous others (Hick, Mencken, Carrier, etc.)... but those that are present deserve to be refuted, not merely to be ignored, weak though a number of them might be.
One last thing, John, just in case you come back to read this comment. If you ever publish another book, please get someone OTHER than Joe Holman to proofread it for you. I recommend someone with the requisite competence for the job. Throughout reading your book (I finished today, by the way, and remain rather underwhelmed by the majority of it, though you do seem to have put at least some thought into some chapters), I could barely go a few pages without stumbling upon some sort of error, whether in grammar, spelling, or something else. For crying out loud, Loftus, you stated that the earth revolves around the sun in 24 hours ( p. 98 )! Seriously, how did you and Holman not catch that?
I likewise wish you well, and I wish you the best in life. But that best, of course, naturally entails the activated capacity to recognize your own faults and foolish deeds, and to honestly own up to them. To date, you have not genuinely done that. May your eyes be opened, John.
To be deliberately deceptive to others is a sin. To be deliberately deceptive to yourself is complete foolishness.
Christianity is one big lie. Can't get any bigger than that load of horse shit.
Wow, thanks for the substance there Sweaty. /sarcasm
Commenting by HaloScan
