Old Testament - Rebuttal

Daniel's Rebuttal
I really have to sincerely apologize to everyone. The quality of the blogs have been dropping. It just gets worse and worse every single week. If you’re just joining us recently, I’ll catch you up on what’s going on.

Daniel is out on a mission: to disparage Christians and Christianity. His agenda is to make a caricature of what Jesus stood for and what Christians believe and he’s willing to pretty much go to any lengths in order to fulfill that agenda. It’s interesting, however, that he really doesn't like being called out on this. He whines complains and when we regurgitate his own words right back at him. Strange isn't it? Let me give you a nice example. He brings up how I use the fallacy known as appeal to emotion. Now if you really do read the blogs you will notice that at the end, he brings up the problem of evil. He accuses me of using a fallacy that he then uses himself. "...the idea of a character that sits idly by, throwing earthquake after earthquake at innocent people, allowing innocent people to be raped, and killing those who haven't died from the first two horrors by giving them AIDS, cancer, and malaria...the idea of that character having the ability to stop all these atrocities yet choose not to is insulting to their families and loved ones." Since we're talking about the fallacies that Daniel loves to point out and then use some himself, I'll even give some more fallacies that he uses. Argument from Fallacy Most Common Fallacy

Daniel employs pretty much every trick under the sun. He can’t argue based on true Scripture alone, so he twists it and takes it out of context (it gets so bad sometimes, that he takes verses from two different books of the Bible at one point) and then declares that it’s self-evident that these verses prove his point. Really the only thing that’s self-evident is that Daniel will misuse and misinterpret to the point of absurdity to further push his narrative and agenda that Christians are brainless morons. 

Daniel says that he wants this blog to be as logical and rational as possible yet he completely flips around his own role. He’s the one with the burden of evidence and all we need to do is point out “one simple error”, not vice versa. In a courtroom, the defense does not have to provide anything, nor does it need to make the argument for the prosecution. If the prosecution holds up a knife and says “this knife proves that the defendant is guilty!” and then sits down, all the defense needs to do is to stand up and say “No.” The jury will go with the defense.

And that’s what is happening here. Daniel is failing and he’s seeking to blame everything and anything. He says that by pointing out his goals and mission to equate Christians with Nazis, we essentially make an appeal to emotion and set a trap… Which… I suppose is true (I don’t know what he means by trap), but so what? This isn’t a fallacy. No one is saying that Daniel is wrong BECAUSE he’s a ridiculing/insulting jerk (THIS is ad hominem). All we’re saying is that Daniel is wrong (because of incomplete evidence) AND he’s a ridiculing/insulting jerk (this IS NOT ad hominem). And what’s up with trying to make us feel sorry for you Daniel? No one made you the “inherent enemy.” You put yourself in that position. Get over yourself. You really do yourself no favors by insulting and ridiculing Christians.

The last part of Daniel’s sorry attempts is truly laughable. He again attacks God for not doing things his way (again seems to fail to understand that God made a covenant with Israel within the context of that period in history.) He brings in a completely different topic (evil in the world) which is of course, a major mistake when making a rebuttal and he also seems to confuse Christianity with Islam (500 years of global conquest and forced evangelism? Sounds more like Mr. Muhammad than Jesus.) But Daniel gets seriously hysterical in the end. He constantly repeats over and over and over again that he has the superior argument (and even feels necessary to point out what he feels are zingers? I mean really?) Calm yourself Daniel. You should allow your argument to speak for itself If someone really needs to repeat over and over and over again that they have the superior argument, that's a sign that they don't really have a superior argument...