For this week’s installment of Pastor Feinstein’s presuppositional apologetics, I actually find a point the Pastor got right. Only one, though—the rest of the time his reasoning is more like a man trying to do battle using a sword with no hilt.
Feb 17 2013
Wielding your sword by the blade
Leave a Reply
About the Author
4 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
F [nucular nyandrothol]
February 18, 2013 at 9:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wow. These aren’t philosophical arguments at all, but the same old “there has to be a god” with philosophical jargon sprinkled on top. And none of it is logical or consistent. That’s the wrong way to hold a sword!
Laury
February 19, 2013 at 5:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Not to make too much of the term, but ‘using a sword by the blade’ is an legit method to fight.
http://www.thearma.org/ARMA/ARMASiteImageArchive/cw174.jpg
Example of historical method. Disarming tool and sometimes a blade isn’t what you need but instead an Axe or improvised mace. The hilt does good work there.
Just sayin….
mikespeir
February 27, 2013 at 1:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It works well enough as a metaphor, though, don’t you think?
Marcus Ranum
March 18, 2013 at 11:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You missed the part where Duncan wrote: using a sword with no hilt.
It’s hard to bludgeon someone with the hilt of a hiltless sword, whether you’re holding it by the blade or just the bare tang.