No, one can't. A pseudo-Christian, perhaps, but not a Christian. Come to
think of it, why would you even want to. Jesus is either a liar or a
lunatic, isn't he?
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Ed Brayton <cynic@net-link.net>
> To: Stephen Jones <sejones@ibm.net>
> Cc: Evolution Reflector <evolution@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: Destructive criticism of Christian apologists (was
Denigrating falsehood)
> Date: Monday, May 25, 1998 3:42 PM
>
> Stephen Jones wrote:
>
> > EB>I have not been on this particular reflector long, but I have
interacted
> > >with Glenn for a long time on other mailing lists and other forums.
> >
> > This probably explains what you wrote to me privately about soon after
> > you joined the Reflector! How about you sharing it now with all
> > Reflectorites, or give me permission to post it, since it bears on what
we
> > are debating.
>
> I have never intentionally sent you a private message on this or any
> other subject. If I did so, it was because I neglected to hit the "cc"
> button and send a copy to the entire list. Since I don't know what
> message you are referring to, please forward it to the list. And what we
> are debating here is ONLY your accusation against Glenn, which you are
> refusing to substantiate or retract.
>
> > EB> I have never - repeat never - seen Glenn be anything but gracious
to
> > >those he communicates with. And Burgy, who has been on this list a
> > >very long time (and invited me to join it as well) says the same
thing.
> >
> > I do not necessarily claim that Glenn is not "gracious", in some sense
of
> > that word. My argument is not so much with how Glenn says it, but with
> > what he says.
>
> So someone can be "gracious" while making an ad hominem attack on
> someone else? Stephen, it is becoming quite obvious that you don't have
> the vaguest notion of what an ad hominem attack is. Did you just throw
> it out there because it sounded impressive?
>
> > EB>In fact, I would challenge you and anyone else out there who thinks
> > >that Glenn has engaged in ad hominem attacks to either support the
> > >charge or retract it. Is that not the ethical thing to do?
> >
> > I could dredge up examples of Glenn's "ad hominem attacks" but I
> > haven't the time or the inclination. But I have started a thread called
> > "Glenn's ad hominems FAQ" where people can in future add to same.
>
> Well, you DID post the first message in the "Glenn's Ad Hominems FAQ",
> and it wasn't even close to actually being one.
>
> > EB>An ad hominem attack is a fairly simple thing to define and
identify.
> > >If in fact Glenn has made ad hominem attacks, they should be very easy
> > >to point out. Why don't you do so?
> >
> > Because I haven't got the time or the inclination. But to keep you
happy,
> > I will start recording them from now on in the FAQ.
>
> If you think that it is a reasonable thing to accuse someone of doing
> something in the past, refuse to substantiate it, then say that you will
> point it out in the future, then I'm sure you won't mind when I claim
> that you have, in the past, repeatedly and flagrantly threatened the
> life of the Pope. When you respond that you have never done so, I will
> simply say that I do not have the time or inclination to support my
> charge, but I will begin a "Stephen Jones' Deaththreats on the Pope FAQ"
> in which I will point them out in the future.
>
> > EB> And while you are at it, perhaps you could explain the causal link
> > >between acceptance of evolution and an inability to identify ad
hominem
> > >statements.
> >
> > I did not say there necessarily was a "causal link between acceptance
of
> > evolution and an inability to identify ad hominem statements." My point
> > was that you and Glenn are both evolutionists and can be expected to be
> > biased in favour of each other in debates with creationists like me.
>
> Isn't that amazing? We evolutionists are biased in our views of your
> creationists, but you creationists are objective about us. So objective,
> in fact, that you accuse someone of doing something and refuse to
> support it or retract it. I bow before your amazing objectivity.
>
>
> > EB>and tell me what the distinction is between "destructive criticism"
> > >and "pointing out factual errors"? You seem to think that "destructive
> > >criticism" means "disagreeing with someone I agree with".
> >
> > By "destructive criticism" I mean a criticism that is entirely negative
and
> > has no constructive elements.
>
> And you don't think that pointing out their factual errors serves any
> constructive purpose? How objective.
>
>
> > EB>Well, Stephen, you didn't say "Glenn will engage in ad hominem
> > >attacks in the future". You said that he regularly has engaged in ad
> > >hominem attacks on this list in the past. Surely it is not too much to
ask
> > >that you support or retract that statement?
> >
> > See above. It *is* "too much to ask". I have *megabytes* of mail from
> > Glenn and it would take me *weeks* to go through it all looking for ad
> > hominems and listing them all. Glenn hasn't denied that he has "engaged
> > in ad hominem attacks". And no one else (evolutonist or creationist)
who
> > has been on the Reflector and in a position to know has denied it
either.
>
> Whoops. Perhaps you don't read close enough. Burgy has, in fact, firmly
> denied your claim, twice. But no one has supported your claim, either.
> Surely if his use of ad hominem attacks was so blatant and repeated,
> someone out there should be able to show an example of it, right? Or
> perhaps you are just wrong?
> >
> > >SJ> I would have absolutely *no problem whatsoever* stating my
> > >>Christian "bona fides"! And I am not worried in the slightest (for
> > >>myself) that you a deist, do not take my "claim of being a Christian
> > >>seriously." According to your worldview, claiming to be a Christian
> > >>would not mean all that much factually.
> >
> > EB>How on earth do you know how I would deal with the question of
> > >who is a Christian "from my worldview"? You really are amazingly
> > >presumptuous.
> >
> > It is not "presumptuous" at all. If you really are a "deist" (as you
claim to
> > be), then you must deny that God could (or would) supernaturally
> > intervene in the world, including His giving a special revelation in
the
> > Bible:
>
> <snip definitions of deism>
>
> > If you reject "supernatural revelation" including "the Scriptures", and
the
> > "supernatural doctrines of Christianity", then by definition you would
not
> > do not take my "claim of being a Christian seriously", at least in the
sense
> > that I mean it.
>
> I'll take non-sequiturs for $1000, Alex (you can look up "non sequitur"
> in a list of logical fallacies while you're looking up "ad hominem").
> Why does it follow that because I reject the validity of Christianity, I
> would not take the CLAIM of BEING a Christian seriously? One can BE a
> Christian even if Christianity is false, just as one can BE A Hindu if
> Hinduism is false.
>
>
> > EB>For the record, I do not doubt that you are a Christian, nor would I
> > >think to challenge your claim to be one. But your behavior here is
> > >certainly not Christ-like, either in dealing with Glenn or with me a
few
> > >weeks ago. When even your fellow Christians think you've gone too far,
> > >it's time to look in the mirror.
> >
> > Let's face it Ed, If you are a deist then you must think that "Christ"
is
> > either a fraud or a mental case:
>
> <snip standard "liar, lord or lunatic" quote>
>
> That would still have nothing to do with whether I take the "claim of
> being a Christian" seriously.
>
> > So your idea of what is "Christ-like" would not mean anything
flattering.
>
> Actually, I am a great admirer of Jesus. Like Jefferson, I reject the
> claim that he was divine while admiring many things that he said,
> especially the basis of his ethical system. But this really is beside
> the point. I don't think Jesus would make an accusation and refuse to
> support it.
>
> > The Jesus I read in the gospels made many enemies by his
straighttalking
> > and was eventually crucified because of it. All I did with you was ask
you
> > what you meany by "the theory of evolution" which you claimed to be a
> > "staunch advocate" of. To date you have never answered that simple
> > question.
>
> Your "simple question" was "WHICH theory of evolution do you advocate",
> which I answered, even while bristling at the rude tone of your
> statement that I was "attempting to deflect" your question. Once you
> refused to back off of your stance, I concluded that it was pointless to
> discuss the matter further with someone who was so presumptuous. Anyone
> who read the original exchange can see clearly that you rudely jumped to
> the conclusion that was dodging your question, when in fact I was
> answering it the way it was asked. By your curious definition, this
> might even be considered an ad hominem attack, but since it was offered
> by a creationist, I'm sure you don't think so. How objective of you.
>
> > >SJ>Indeed, your support of Glenn actually helps my argument. Non-
> > >>Christians would like Glenn's attacking of Christian apologists. What
> > >>Glenn apparently fails to realise is that his desteructive attacks on
> > >>Christian leaders just confirm non-Christians like your in their
existing
> > >>views. No non-Christian would ever become a Christian because of
> > >>Glenn's destructive criticism of leading Christian apologists.
> >
> > EB>Nonsense. I find far more merit in the behavior of Glenn than I do
in
> > >your behavior.
> >
> > This proves my point. You find "merit" in Glenn's "behavior" of
> > destructively criticising Christian apologists."
>
> No, I deny that his criticism of the men you mentioned is at all
> destructive. And so have some of your fellow Christians. Then again,
> perhaps they aren't "real Christians". I'll leave that to you to judge
> (since you seem to enjoy it so much).
>
>
> > EB> But when your fellow Christians find your attitude embarrassing,
> > >isn't it time for a little self-evaluation? Wait, let me
guess...they're not
> > >"real Christians"?
> >
> > Ed, I try to have a "time for a little self-evaluation" every morning.
> >
> > And I've *never* said of anyone who claims to be a Christian on this
> > Reflector that "they're not `real Christians'".
>
> How slippery. Demanding that someone give you their "Christian bona
> fides" along with "If you don't answer these questions, I will be forced
> to make the conclusion..." is not claiming that they're not real
> Christians, but don't you think it is implying the same?
>
> > No doubt a small number of the more evolutionary minded Christians on
> > this Reflector may find my pro-creation/anti-evolutionism
> > "embarrassing", but if they do, that is *their* problem.
>
> It is your behavior toward others that is appalling, not your views.
>
> > Christians who are
> > anti-creation/pro-evolution are a tiny minority within Christianity and
I
> > have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of my
"fellow
> > Christians" in the real world would support me rather than them.
>
> Do you have anything to support your claim that pro-evolution Christians
> are a "tiny minority"? Let me guess, you'll point them out when they
> occur in the future?
>
> Ed