Well, Mr. Finnell has lately exhibited enough signs of Functional Apologetical Madness to warrant my attention and to serve as a lesson for others. For now, let’s just focus on the November 28 blog post, which is only one example of how apologists sometimes try too hard to argue a certain point.
**************
How many times have we read somewhere, “Tomatoes are not vegetables; they’re fruit!” When we have encountered this claim, we have dealt with someone who perhaps fails to realize that the average person doesn’t give a rip about fine structural distinctions of the average fruit and average veggies and doesn’t give a rip about the range of recorded historical intensions of the words “fruit” and “vegatable.” Instead, if it’s a plant-like thing that tends to be served like veggies, it’s a veggie per vernacular language convention; if it’s a plant-like thing that is watery like watermelon and tends to be eaten whole while in hand, it’s a fruit per vernacular language convention. And that’s the point: average Joes speak like average Joes, not scientists.
How many times have we read somewhere, “Jackrabbits are not rabbits; they’re hares!” When we have encountered this claim, we have dealt with someone who perhaps fails to realize that the average person doesn’t give a rip about fine structural distinctions and behavioral distinctions of rabbits and hares or the range of recorded historical intensions of the words “rabbit” and “hare.” Instead, pretty much if it hops and has long ears, it’s a rabbit: period, or per vernacular intensions of the word “rabbit.” And that is the point: laypersons speak like laypersons, not scientists.
Meanwhile, guess what: the Bible was written by and for individuals who speak like average persons and not modern scientists. Don’t believe me? What then are we to make of passages such as Leviticus, chapter 11 where insects--which we all know to have six legs--suddenly have just four legs? That’s right: no one in the time of Moses made the taxinomical distinctions of modern science.
**************
In the same vein, who truly cares about esoteric distinctions of (distilled) water and amniotic fluid any more than we care enough about such things to insist that “watery eyes” are not watery but eyes filled with lipids, proteins, mucal secretions, and also some water? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears;) )
No one but an anal retentive scientist, doctor, nerd or Campbellite apologist could possibly care about such things. Bear in mind, meanwhile, that the idea that the water mentioned in John 3.5 is amniotic fluid is not something that non-Campbellites just plucked out of the sky or invented out of nowhere. Notice in the John 3 text that Christ first speaks of being “born again" and does not switch to the language of being “born of water” until Nicodemus brings up the language of emerging from his “mother’s womb”! Furthermore, would it not be apt of Christ to utilize Nicodemus’ mention of natural birth in order to contrast man’s fallen nature and the nature of regenerate persons to speak of matters of salvation--especially considering the apostle Paul’s extensive lessons in his epistles on the importance of being regenerate vs. being a slave to the flesh?
Don’t play the game of linguistic anthropology, grammar, pragmatics and discourse analysis if you don’t remember the rules.
**************
How many times have we read somewhere, “Tomatoes are not vegetables; they’re fruit!” When we have encountered this claim, we have dealt with someone who perhaps fails to realize that the average person doesn’t give a rip about fine structural distinctions of the average fruit and average veggies and doesn’t give a rip about the range of recorded historical intensions of the words “fruit” and “vegatable.” Instead, if it’s a plant-like thing that tends to be served like veggies, it’s a veggie per vernacular language convention; if it’s a plant-like thing that is watery like watermelon and tends to be eaten whole while in hand, it’s a fruit per vernacular language convention. And that’s the point: average Joes speak like average Joes, not scientists.
How many times have we read somewhere, “Jackrabbits are not rabbits; they’re hares!” When we have encountered this claim, we have dealt with someone who perhaps fails to realize that the average person doesn’t give a rip about fine structural distinctions and behavioral distinctions of rabbits and hares or the range of recorded historical intensions of the words “rabbit” and “hare.” Instead, pretty much if it hops and has long ears, it’s a rabbit: period, or per vernacular intensions of the word “rabbit.” And that is the point: laypersons speak like laypersons, not scientists.
Meanwhile, guess what: the Bible was written by and for individuals who speak like average persons and not modern scientists. Don’t believe me? What then are we to make of passages such as Leviticus, chapter 11 where insects--which we all know to have six legs--suddenly have just four legs? That’s right: no one in the time of Moses made the taxinomical distinctions of modern science.
**************
In the same vein, who truly cares about esoteric distinctions of (distilled) water and amniotic fluid any more than we care enough about such things to insist that “watery eyes” are not watery but eyes filled with lipids, proteins, mucal secretions, and also some water? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears;) )
No one but an anal retentive scientist, doctor, nerd or Campbellite apologist could possibly care about such things. Bear in mind, meanwhile, that the idea that the water mentioned in John 3.5 is amniotic fluid is not something that non-Campbellites just plucked out of the sky or invented out of nowhere. Notice in the John 3 text that Christ first speaks of being “born again" and does not switch to the language of being “born of water” until Nicodemus brings up the language of emerging from his “mother’s womb”! Furthermore, would it not be apt of Christ to utilize Nicodemus’ mention of natural birth in order to contrast man’s fallen nature and the nature of regenerate persons to speak of matters of salvation--especially considering the apostle Paul’s extensive lessons in his epistles on the importance of being regenerate vs. being a slave to the flesh?
Don’t play the game of linguistic anthropology, grammar, pragmatics and discourse analysis if you don’t remember the rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment