ODMafia Evaluating Christianity blog

November 2, 2019

scalesEvaluating Christianity (EC) states

I think it’s reasonable to hold someone who is representing himself to the world as an expert to the standards one would expect from such experts. Such standards include, at minimum, that if one reads someone else’s research and draws conclusions not present in the original article, you should (1) contact the original author to get his views; (2) represent that author’s views of your conclusions fairly in making your own argument; and (3) submit your argument to a scientific journal for review by other professional academic peers within the respective scientific community.”

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

First, we hope that EC means everyone but ODMafia….we get our information by osmosis…books are too time consuming…and research…all that thinking and evaluating. We prefer the Abomination Nation approach of just getting ” bare bones facts”….without the thinking.

Second, if you expect integrity from ODMs, we are above that, or beneath it…or whichever…we’re not sure.

Third, we are in the business of distorting the views of others, not detailing them with accuracy and honesty. We’re not sure who this is aimed at…but we’re sure getting darn steamed!!!! We’re about the truth…the absolute truth….what does integrity have to do with proper research when it is our duty (no wait ministry) to  safeguard truth which is weak, feeble and in need of our protection?

A word to Evaluating Christianity blog….if you need to evaluate Christianity…look no further than the absolute beacon of truthiness –THE ODMAFIA. We believe haughtiness, pride and arrogance is our first line of defense against so called investigators and thinkers. We are the special ops of truth, the line backers if you will to safe-guard the gospel, the truth and all things absolute.

Remember….there is no side but ours and our opinion…which is always decidedly the truth…which of course may look relative to you (when we change our minds due to something inconvenient – like the truth)…but never to us…because we like the word ‘absolute.’ Not sure if that makes sense, but it does to us because thinking comes easy to ODMafia…but we feel sorry for the rest of you who have to wade through this sturdy well thought out defence we call apologetics….especially if you can’t think as fast and as sharp as we can.


Wrath=Love!

April 20, 2019

57447285_2183983761690113_6770910294538452992_n

You dare question our unquestionable Doctrines sinners. We know that Wrath=Love as we’ve already presupposed this to be true (as we got our education from unaccredited colleges unlike you sinners who went to worldly schools; worked hard and actually earned a Real Doctoral Degree*) therefore you too must presuppose it to be true as well. Nevermind the fact that this isn’t found in the New Testament:

“Barth distances himself from classic substitution views, especially those stemming from Anselm. He acknowledges that the concept of punishment is present in Isaiah 53, but denies that it is present in the New Testament (a puzzling assertion, since he has used the term himself just earlier [223]). He then says this:

The decisive thing is not that He has suffered what we ought to have suffered so that we do not have to suffer it, the destruction to which we have fallen victim by our guilt, and therefore the punishment which we deserve. This is true, of course. But it is true only as it derives from the decisive thing that in the suffering and death of Jesus Christ it has come to pass that in His own person He has made an end of us as sinners and therefore of sin itself by going to death as the One who took our place as sinners. In His person He has delivered up us sinners and sin itself to destruction (253).

Earlier on the same page Barth also denies that the concept of satisfying God’s wrath is present in the New Testament. Thus my takeaway is this: Barth affirms a version of PSA, but not propitiation; and for Barth the penal element is peripheral, not central. The main thing for Barth is that Christ deals with our sin itself (and destroys it) by taking our places as the judged. Also, Barth’s version of PSA seems more oriented to Christ’s entire incarnate life, just just his death – this, and his frequent arguments from Christ’s “solidarity” with the world make his version of PSA sounds more compatible with a kind of recapitulation theme, as found in Irenaeus. Thus despite the similarity of language, at a very crucial juncture I think Barth’s doctrine of atonement must be seen as in a quite different category than classic PSA views in the reformed tradition. While I think some of his assertions stand in an ambiguous relationship with Scripture, I do find him an enlivening theological sparring partner, especially on the nature of the incarnation.”

Our Presuppositions are always correct.

*Our official Diploma of Presuppositional Apologetics:

untitled


%d bloggers like this: