Quantcast

«

»

Feb 17 2013

Wielding your sword by the blade

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.

4 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    F [is for failure to emerge]

    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!

  2. 2
    Laury

    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….

    1. 2.1
      mikespeir

      It works well enough as a metaphor, though, don’t you think?

    2. 2.2
      Marcus Ranum

      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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

%d bloggers like this: