. . . and why does he hate me?
I was googling, trying to reference an essay that I had written some time ago, when I came across a man named J.P. Holding's very brief comment about my essay. It was a year ago, but I only today just saw it:
Another stupid Skeptic repeats the same old canards about the resurrection.
That was his post in its entirety.
Now, I don't know who this guy is, but you would think that he would have some reason for thinking my essay "stupid". Right?
So I re-read what I had written then (read it here) and though I would probably rephrase a sentence or two for the sake of clarity, I think the piece is a pretty good response to Craig's kind of apologetic rhetoric, and I'd be glad to defend it against Mr. Holding or anyone else who might want to demonstrate where I strayed into "stupid" territory in it. I'm certainly not above correction, after all.
All I have to go by is Mr Holding's choice of words:
A canard implies that I'm deliberately trying to mislead people. Hmm. Does he think I have some stake in the outcome of a refutation of a demonstrably thin argument like Craig's "Four Irrefutable Fact" theorem? Why he would attribute malicious intent to me is a little disturbing.
Anyway, he never engaged any of the points I raised in my 5,000 word essay.
It is simply all just "stupid old canards".
It's cute. I'm once again reminded that all vitriolic rhetoric (every instance) reflects more the speaker . . . than the subject of the rancor.
And if I may say . . .
What a strange person!
Does anyone know if this Holding guy has any kind of prestige in apologetic cliques (in which case, Gosh help apologetics) . . . or is he just an isolated curmudgeon militant case?