Muad'Dib

I am confident that the remark on trusting Robertson's opinions was meant to be viewed as irony, but I would like clarification on whether or not some member here is alleged to have engaged in criminal misconduct. If I am being entirely too serious and missing the joke, I apologize for being a wet blanket, but on a matter as potentially serious as this I would rather err on the side of caution.

Scrutinizer

Yeah, you're right, better to be overly concerned than not do anything about criminal acts.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Muad'Dib: I am confident that the remark on trusting Robertson's opinions was meant to be viewed as irony, but I would like clarification on whether or not some member here is alleged to have engaged in criminal misconduct. If I am being entirely too serious and missing the joke, I apologize for being a wet blanket, but on a matter as potentially serious as this I would rather err on the side of caution.

I'm sorry for any confusion. It was said entirely in sarcasm, and I know of no stalkers at the SecWeb. However, Jerry Falwell said there was some sort of atheistic conspiracy to take over the American government. I think this message appeared to him as he was eating a bowl of Alpha-Bits cereal. At least that's the way I remember it...

Peace,

Polycarp

(WARNING: This message contains statements that, if taken literally, may lead to misunderstanding.)

Gurdur

@ Polycarp:

Pardon me, but since he is a bishop, wouldn't the deliberate supression of his title and non-acknowledgement of his position be a reverse snobbery?
In other words, you're damning him if he does and damning him if he doesn't.

Spong is not alone, as you imply, Polycarp; a great many Christians seem to be expressing problems with the Church - which itself is the product of internal conflict throughout its history, and has undergone a great many large changes.

And I am surprised by this very nasty accusation.

For a start, as far as I know, Spong does not have his own publishing empire á la Falwell or Hal Lindsey. IOW, Spong's books don't make money for him in any real way.

Please detail just how Spong is supposed to be making money off people in the manner you allege.

I stress again I am surprised at this rather poisonous accusation, Polycarp; I had expected better of you.

Quite apart from the moral side of your accusations of implicit lack of sincerity on Spong's part, and of money-making, I assume you're also aware of the logical fallacies of ad hominem and of 'poisoning the well'.

Please answer seriously. That was quite a nasty charge of yours.

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Muad'Dib

Glad to hear it! I'll search around my room for my humor-hat, apparently I've misplaced it...

Gurdur

Polycarp, please answer my questions above regarding your allegation against Spong.

Into addition, I wish to make the following observation:

I was initially sympathetic to your hints regarding the personal abuse you feel yourself a victim of here (and the distinction between personal abuse and valid criticism is clear).

However, on a practical level, you have just indulged in what seems like quite unsupported personal abuse against Spong.

Now please detail the differences in your conduct and the conduct of those you implicity complain about.
The moral differences, if any.

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur: Pardon me, but since he is a bishop, wouldn't the deliberate supression of his title and non-acknowledgement of his position be a reverse snobbery? In other words, you're damning him if he does and damning him if he doesn't.

Oh, for crying out loud… A person who criticizes a hierarchical system, but waves their title of hierarchy around in the subtitles of many of the books they write is completely different than “suppressing” one’s title. There are hundreds of clergy who write books, and I know of NONE who use their clergy title in the subtitle of most of their books. I’ve never seen any of them accused of “suppressing their title”. It’s especially odd when the person promoting their title claims to be so strongly opposed to the entire system of titles. Are you actually being serious? Gimme a frickin break…

Quote:

Spong is not alone, as you imply, Polycarp; a great many Christians seem to be expressing problems with the Church - which itself is the product of internal conflict throughout its history, and has undergone a great many large changes.

Huh? Who said he was alone? You asked me what I thought of John Shelby Spong. I didn’t’ know I was supposed to critique the entire group of people who share his views. I never said anything to imply he was alone in his views. Next time you ask my opinion of someone, I’ll be sure to keep my thoughts to myself. You’re taking my words and reading your own interpretations into them.

Quote:

And I am surprised by this very nasty accusation. For a start, as far as I know, Spong does not have his own publishing empire á la Falwell or Hal Lindsey. IOW, Spong's books don't make money for him in any real way. Please detail just how Spong is supposed to be making money off people in the manner you allege. I stress again I am surprised at this rather poisonous accusation, Polycarp; I had expected better of you.

The feeling is mutual in regards to my expectations of you. I never made any nasty accusation. Spong hasn’t made money dishonestly, and if you think he doesn’t make a lot of money from his book sales then you need to talk to someone in the publishing industry. He sells a ton of books, and makes plenty of money from this. Athletes make money off me and millions of other people. There needs to be a market for someone to make money. I was merely pointing out Spong’s market. If you think someone needs their own publishing company to make money, you’re sadly mistaken. Are people in Europe completely ignorant of capitalism? I didn’t think so… Perhaps you can tell me how I “alleged” Spong was making money off people. The only implication of what I said was that he made money off the sale of his books. Since that is all I intended to say, and in fact did say, then I see no need to defend the comment. As far as I know, he could be giving all the money to charity. He obviously likes the role of renegade bishop, though.

As long as we’re into poisonous accusations, what’s inherently wrong with owning your own publishing company and making money for yourself as you accuse Falwell and Lindsey of doing?

Quote:

Quite apart from the moral side of your accusations of implicit lack of sincerity on Spong's part, and of money-making, I assume you're also aware of the logical fallacies of ad hominem and of 'poisoning the well'. Please answer seriously. That was quite a nasty charge of yours.

Huh, again? Where did I imply that Spong was insincere? I have no idea where you came up with that idea. I’m still a little perplexed about what exactly this “nasty charge” is that I’ve made…

Quote:

I was initially sympathetic to your hints regarding the personal abuse you feel yourself a victim of here (and the distinction between personal abuse and valid criticism is clear). However, on a practical level, you have just indulged in what seems like quite unsupported personal abuse against Spong. Now please detail the differences in your conduct and the conduct of those you implicity complain about. The moral differences, if any.

I don’t come here looking for sympathy. If I wanted it, I’d go to a church like Spong’s where everyone is accepted with open arms. If you’re talking about my comments regarding ad hominem arguments from my opponents you can save your tears for someone else. My feelings don’t get hurt at this place. Please tell me exactly what personal abuse I’ve committed against Bishop Spong. I’ve never said he’s been dishonest. The only thing I said that is ad hominem is, “Spong is more than willing to do the hammering, and take your money while he’s at it.” From what I’ve seen of him promoting himself, I’m led to believe that he wants to sell as many books as possible. Not dishonestly in any way, but still get ‘em out the door to those who want them.

Photocrat

Well, we also believe QM on the basis of 'testamony' since there's no way any of you are going to repeat *all* of the experimentation which led to its formation. But we also have a rather different claim--we're not talking about a natural force which can be manipulated according to a set law, but about a Person (or three Persons, but the doctrine of the Trinity is not relevant here) who can go beyond the natural laws which bind us.

Now then, we do have credible doctors & scientists who have verified miracles--I refer you to Lourdes [http://www.lourdes-france.com/] which makes available for inspection the medical records of the cases they've deemed miraculous. I especially refer you to #8, the broken leg which was healed.

Experimental procedure is only applicable to a set natural law. Since God cannot be 'manipulated' as such, part of the procedure is not logically relevant. However, that does not preclude us from making evidentiary arguements or providing sufficient evidence to establish such a claim. I refer you again to the Lourdes medical records, which can be made availible by request to the Medical Bureau there.

For these I refer you to the arguements of polysymbolic Christian monotheism. It argues that experiences of God have been loaded into cultural constructs by each culture, since they had to just to be able to talk about them, given that the experiences transcend words. Using the evidence gathered on mystical experiences, you can support this. From there, I defend against pantheism by noting that the universe is contingent, whereas God cannot be. I find the religion that offers the most effective resolution of human problematics (Christianity) and I can even unload some of the cultural constructs given Jesus Christ as a revelation of God to us all, which eliminates a whole layer of human constructs into which the experience was loaded :]

Besides, Christianity has the most verifiable miracles (Lourdes) unless you can find some better :] The best I've seen was the tape of the Ganesha (sp?) statue drinking milk. Unfortunately, my coasters can do that (thirstystone) and I can explain it via a great many other ways--capillary action, formation of hydrates, etc. none of which are the least bit remarkable, scientifically (contrast with Lourdes miracle #8, the healing of a badly broken leg).

Gurdur

Enough of your self-pity already; it was a clear question, you provided a reasonably clear if debateable answer, and your self-pity is irrelevant.

You implied he was wrong and didn't belong in the Christian church. Fallacy of self-pity defence. Oh, and equivocation.
Oh, and re-read my original question to you. You're even wrong with your justification.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, the old automatic fallacious tu quoque defence.

You contradict yourself below where you acknowledge your ad hominem attack.

Fallacies again. Mistaken analogy, and BTW I know quite a bit about the publishing industry. Either give me facts or shut up, but I'm not impressed by crap analogies.

See above.

Ah, more supercilious crap. You really can't do better than that?
Your previous statement was:
Add fallacy of equivocation to the list.
Ah, personal attack again.

Ah, tu quoque yet again.
You're not willing to be honest, but you want it of others.
For example Hal Lindsey has made a great deal of money pushing very fake prophecies, and has come under severe criticism within the Christian community for his - ahem - untruths of prophecies. It doesn't seem to stop him.

Fallacy of playing dumb.

Excellent. Always nice to know where one stands.

Equivocation yet again.

I have, you've implied it, and you've admitted the ad hom.

So we've got your personal opinion, but no facts.

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Toto

I'm sure that Spong wants to sell books to get his ideas out. If we wanted to get rich, he would surely pick a more marketable topic than theology.