I don’t really know what to make of Doug’s latest post- since he apparently thinks Bultmann was an ‘apologist’ of some sort- but of course this means Doug has either never read Bultmann or has completely misunderstood him 100,000%. So I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that Doug was dipping in the sacramental wine earlier today and heard a door creak behind him. Being startled, he stood up too swiftly and bashed his head into the corner of the cabinet, causing a massive injury to his brain and damaging the very dendrites which allow one cell to communicate with another.
Pray, then, for Doug as he recovers. Or if that isn’t the cause of his anti-Bultmannian misprision, then pray that he trot down to the local bookseller and actually buy something Bultmann wrote (instead of, obviously, only reading something about Bultmann by one of his many detractors).
3 responses so far ↓
Doug Chaplin // March 12, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Nope, the Bultmann bit is your entirely erroneous Bultmannian view that faith has nothing to do with fact or reason. It is your regular anti-apologetic polemic that is the dead horse in question. Apologetics remains a live mare’s nest!
Jim // March 12, 2008 at 4:40 pm
If there weren’t any ‘apologists’ out there imagining insanely that God needed their help, I wouldn’t have to hop on their dead backs and flog them.
Drew // March 12, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Just from my point of ignorance with the trajectory of apologetics in general…
If one refers to an apologist from before what we now associate it with, does it have a different connotation? In other words, Justin’s Apology and the like are just a bit different than any of the apologist swill today (See Swindoll). Schleiermacher (to whom Bultmann is in some debt right? not that it totally matters here) had a very different kind of “apologetic” work in On Religion, but it still fits the genre quite well.
Like gas stations in rural Texas after 10 pm, comments are closed.