Responding to InspiringPhilosophy on the delayed Parousia

#maklelan2224 & #maklelan2225 @InspiringPhilosophy

[gromit]

“I quoted this book, but please don’t use the actual words of the book to describe my comments as dogmatic.”

[MythVisionPodcast]

Great video, Dan! No matter what, he will wiggle out of this and never concede to any evident criticisms.

Even when Kipp, Stephen and I were critiquing him on Bart, we changed our position where we were wrong by agreeing with Jones. I've yet to find him concede with these kinds of engagements. Maybe too much ego? Maybe cognitive dissonance?

Who knows, Maybe one day?

[chadkent]

I once debated an antivaxxer on social media because I hate myself, and they kept linking study after study. Simply reading the studies refuted the points they were trying to make by citing the studies. Always read your sources people.

[allenrodgers]

Every time he points out a “fallacy” I kept picturing Inigo Montoya “I do not think it means what you think it means”

[sammysamlovescats]

When he said that was ad hominem, I just stared at the screen like ???

[nw]

If Dan publicly responded to me with, "This is... BASIC hermeneutics!" it'd honestly ruin my whole day.

[jAAbRON]

I learned about this channel through IP attempting to critique its content. While I appreciated Michael's scholarly emphasis, at the end of the day, it was clear he was reading into the sources, and they always seemed to agree with his pre-existing philosophy.

I much prefer to understand what _did_ happen rather than pretend that our current perspective has always been so.

[wingedlion]

Another issue with conditional prophecy is that it’s special pleading. If the prophecy comes true, it was fatalistic, it it didn’t come true, it was conditional… no way to disprove any prophecy… except the prophecies made by heretical sects, pagan religions or any other prophecy from a tradition I don’t ascribe to. then and only then, we can use the OT test of a prophet to prove their failed prophecies mean they were fakes. Makes total sense, I get to be right all the time and keep my religion as special. Hallelujah!

[AmazingDuckmeister]

I used to value IP so much for his apologetics. That was until he started talking about how we need more Christianity to defeat nationalism in the USA. I then realised he didn't know what he was talking about because I have a degree in politics.

[ThinkitThrough-kdfn]

Mike Jones: "Here's where Dan commits the fallacy of pointing out where I'm wrong."

[bengreen]

hilarious.
Not the first time IP has been hoisted by his own sources.
It's because he doesn't read them thoroughly and just cherry picks things he thinks support his dogmatic arguments.

[awe_possum]

I am a theologian myself and even when I was christian, IP was giving my eyebrows a very, very hard time. Still does. He can find the most fringe piece of literature to support a very specific claim and he doesn't even seem to realize that while doing so, he's getting the gold medal on mental gymnastics.

[zacharydavis]

I was waiting the full video to hear “… has been Hazbin …” And it did not disappoint.

[grigorigahan]

I love that we live in a timeline where a regular part of of my media diet is watching scholars in their respective fields batting down cranks and fighting each other online. I've probably gotten a semester's worth of biblical studies over the years listening to all of these scholars, or reading their books.

[Philusteen]

The gentleman is neither inspiring, nor particularly philosophical.

[jmeyercsce]

IP is getting to be more and more like the Kent Hovind of philosophy.

[pistisproductions]

Dan: " ..and I will be happy to be wrong" - That's why I love this man and his content, he's always willing to step back and apologize if something wrong came out from his mouth.

[OldMotherLogo]

Seems he does not understand what ad hominem and poisoning the well actually mean.

Love the fit for today. 😊

[bengreen]

ah yes - the immediate rush to accuse you of committing fallacies is one of IP's go-to tactics when he has no valid rebuttal.

[TheFranchiseCA]

The obvious resolution is to accept that the writers and editors of the Bible were not perfect. One can be a believer without insisting on that point. Unfortunately it's messy, while insisting on perfect scripture is simple.