Biblioblog Battles

There’s a skirmish in the biblioblogosphere as Polycarp denies John Loftus the status of biblioblogger, and John retorts that such accusations are motivated by jealousy at his ranking.

Others have already joined the fray.

This should be interesting fun…

Remind me again – what’s the official definition of a “biblioblogger” anyway?

"Well if you don't mind I could use some help with someone else; his ..."

Star Trek Discovery: Choose Your Pain
"Since I specified that with which I disagreed, there is no need for your feigned ..."

Gaps in Jesus’ Fossil Record?
"An important canonical issue: is the 70s cartoon series part of the canon?"

Friday Recap #AARSBL17 – AAR Trek ..."
"You seem to have completely misunderstood what I wrote, which was about the thing that ..."

The “Original Aramaic Lord’s Prayer” is ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • James Pate

    Hey, I like Loftus' blog, but Polycarp's number 2, and Loftus is below that. If there's jealousy, it should be the other way around.As far as my definition of biblioblog goes (not that I have any power or influence over the canon), it's blogging about the Bible, period.

  • J. L. Watts

    I generally have no real problem with anyone being a biblioblogger and advocate a more inclusive approach, however, my take on John is that he is purely an emotional sot with agendas to destroy anything that doesn't agree with him. His post this morning on Jim was, well, beyond the pale. And I am still trying to figure out the thing with the apostrophe. :)

  • Jesse

    Mr. Watts, have you ever read Jim West's posts on atheists? Today's post: "Luther, on the Stupidity of Atheists." West's reaction: "I can do this forever. It's actually kind of fun. Christian literature is packed with denunciations of the foolishness of atheism. It's only the simpering postmodern afraid of her own shadow who is fearful of calling a spade a spade and entering the fray; who practices a sort of 'Chamberlain-ian appeasement' towards radical atheists that's both unbecoming and unnecessary."On another occasion: "Atheism is insanity. Hence, there’s no more point in arguing with (or even discussing things with) an atheist than there is in walking into an insane asylum and attempting to carry on a lucid conversation with persons utterly devoid of the gift of lucidity."There are quite a few more examples. He's just as rude to them as Loftus is to West. If you really care about propriety and civil debate, take Jim West to task for his incivility.

  • James

    Basic rule of acceptable discourse in a pluralist society:When we encounter somebody with whom we disagree profoundly, we need to try hard to remember that they aren't really pigs or Nazis–that they're at least as good as Shylock.Does the following meet this elementary test?"all profane persons, who have cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to iniquity, are convicted of madness.""Well said, John. Atheism is insanity. Hence, there’s no more point in arguing with (or even discussing things with) an atheist than there is in walking into an insane asylum and attempting to carry on a lucid conversation with persons utterly devoid of the gift of lucidity."As to defining a biblioblog:It sure won't do to require a high proportion of content making reference to the Bible. Many or most flunk this test.

  • J. L. Watts

    First, I understand the need in a pluralistic society for civil discourse, which has not made me any friends among my more conservative Christian friends. Second, what ticked me off about Loftus was his post this morning attacking Jim's credentials in a very public and ugly way. I thought, and still think, that what he did was beyond the pale. He has a personal grudge against Jim, and that's fine, I reckon, but the methods he uses is far from scholarly or civil. As I said previously, I am an advocate of inclusion when it comes to biblioblogging, and really didn't mind Loftus being on the list, whether he is number one or not – but his manner this morning was unbecoming. He is rash, nasty, and well, mistaken an awfully alot. For example, instead of waiting for me to moderate his comment – which every first time commenter is moderated – it wasted little time in accusing me of censoring him. And, I have no real problem taking Jim to task, as it were, and have done so before, although it was when I much less well known. Oh, and the Jesse James thing, that's funny. (Your comments aligned perfectly.)And, James, as my wife was reading the comments – long after I corrected my mistake – she knew exactly what it was and proceed to instruct me on ownership in the English language.

  • John W. Loftus

    J. L. Watts, it's been more than six hours as of now and you still have not posted my comment, although you have posted others.I have a right to be upset with you and with Jim West.Tomorrow morning if my comment has not been posted then I will blast you, then you can say once again how nasty I am. To me it's like someone hitting me in the stomach and then complaining I am nasty because I complain about it. James McGrath knows me. He's a blogger with me over at Debunking Creationism. He would not join me if he thought of me as your do. Like many other Christian scholars he has have actually read my blog and how I deal with people who treat me as a human being.I don't suppose you have any respect for Dale Allison Jr. either, right?Perhaps you ought to be informed about who I am and how I argue before you embarrass yourself.Cheers.

  • James

    Isn't it more Avalos thatn Loftus against whom one's ire should be directed?Did Avalos say anything untrue?

  • John W. Loftus

    Oops, I see my comment has been published. Sorry. I get email alerts for Dr. McGrath's blog so I responded to it before I looked at other alerts.Cheers.I am your neighbor, your friend, your co-worker.

  • Steven Carr

    WATTSSecond, what ticked me off about Loftus was his post this morning attacking Jim's credentials in a very public and ugly way. CARRAttacking the credentials of somebody with a doctorate from Andersonville Baptist Seminary?An institution accredited by 'Transworld Accrediting Commission International'?How dare Loftus make public that Jim got a doctorate from that institution!Making that public was a low blow.Let's be fair to people guys.From now on, let everybody pledge never to say where Jim got his doctorate from.It can remain our little secret.

  • Qohelet

    Has anyone pointed out that Loftus' post about Pastor West was a cut-and-paste of Chris Heard's blog post from 2006? Mr. Watts' ire should be directed against Chris. And Chris isn't the only long-time biblioblogger who has questioned Pastor West's credentials. I believe Jim Davila (the first biblioblogger) has also chimed in about it.

  • James F. McGrath

    Steven, I think your unique skills may come in handy in this controversy – surely some will want to make the case that Jim West's doctorate is purely mythical… 😉

  • Emanuel Goldstein

    My, what important questions you important men deal with!Say, How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?I have been wondering about that.

  • Emanuel Goldstein

    Speaking of insults, you guys are pikers.Atheism spells Eatshit.How about them apples! Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!Just kidding around, its all in fun.

  • Emanuel Goldstein

    Hey, I'm sorry!I SHOULD have said.AheIST spells Eatshit.There, is that better? LOL!

  • Solly Gratia

    Did J P Holding give lessons in 'Paul's method of argumentation with those who disagree with us' here?

  • James F. McGrath

    I can't remember JP Holding ever commenting here, and a few times when I thought I might link to something of his that was relevant to a discussion here, basic typos in the title of the post have always made me decide not to. What's the story with that? We're not talking about a mere extraneous apostrophe…

  • Solly Gratia

    I used to be on a discussion website he still frequents; his debating style was quite fiery. Some of the remarks in the linked posts and comments reminded me of that. It took me by surprise, since the tone on b/blogs is usually so measured.

  • Edward T. Babinski

    Winston Smith pointed out that "Atheist spells eat shit." He's kidding of course and so am I when I state that it also spells, "Ate Shit," and "Hates It."Agnostic =Go Sin Cat Got In SacSaint CogAnti Cogs[so agnostics are in favor of both "sainthood" for cogs, and "anti cogs"]I could go on, citing anagrams related to the Christian religion, but they get icky pretty quickly. O.K. since you insist I'll share them, but add an asterik for any offending vowels. Christian = Chains R ItEvangelist = Evil's AgentProtestant = Entrap Tots, or, Past RottenProtestant Christianity =Satan's Nitrite Rich PottySatan's Into Chirpy TitterPresbyterian =R A Penis ByterRE: Breasty NipBaptist =Bat SpitSouthern Baptist =A Penis Thrust BotHis Ape Butt's TornTits Spun the Bra O!Bible Study =Lusty DebbiChristian Fellowship =Elf Porn With Ass ChiliLisa His Elf Porn WitchAssembly of God =Bloody Fag MessPentecostal =Leap ContestPentecostals =Let's C Ape SnotPraise Jesus =Jesus Is RapeHouse of Worship =Whore of His OpusPensacola Christian College =Gil Selects a Choice Anal PornGod Bless America =Micro-bead Ass GelCatholic Christian =Cocain's Arch Hi TiltCatholic Christianity =Thin Sic Hairy Cl*t TacoCatholic Christians =Hi, I Lic Satan's CrotchI Satan's Crotch ChiliFundamentalist =Stand, FulminateInflamed TauntsFatalism End NutFelt a Nudist ManAnal Mutt FiendsFundamentalists =Fit Men Anal StudsAnal Stud Fist MenMe Fat Nuts In LadsNuts In Daft MalesNuts In Damsel AftFundamentalist Christian =A Sancta Nut, Infidel's MirthFilthier Mad C*nts in SatanDarn Filthiest C*m in SatanSatan C*ms In Faith's TendrilFundamentalist Christians =Satanic Sl*ts Hard Men Fit InSatan's Nut Sac, Infidel MirthSatan's C*nt-Farted NihilismInnate-Sl*t Rat-Hind Fascism

  • Emanuel Goldstein

    Good work, Ed!I knew that, between us, we could raise the level of intellecual engagement here.After all, we are all just sincere seekers of truth!So, go eatshit!Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!

  • James F. McGrath

    I have managed to keep my blog a largely vulgarity-free one, and am determined to keep it that way. The point about anagrams has been made, and I'll leave those comments alone as long as we now get back to more substantive discussion. Thank you for your cooperation!