Re: Destructive criticism - last post
Ed Brayton (cynic@net-link.net)
Tue, 02 Jun 1998 22:28:14 -0400Stephen Jones wrote:
>
> Glenn
>
> On Thu, 28 May 1998 21:03:31 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >SJ>I said "regularly". I will ask you one more time:
> >>
> >>Do you go *regularly* to church? Do you read the Bible and pray *regularly*?
> >>Do you pray for your `enemies' like Morris, Gish, Ross and Johnson?
> >>
> >>It is no crime if you don't *regularly* go to church, or read the Bible and pray
> >>*regularly*. But it is a bit naughty to keep evading the question. How about
> >>a simple "yes" or "no" (Mt 5:37).
>
> GM>While frankly, it is absolutely none of your darned business what my church
> >attendance is or what my Bible reading habits are, I will answer this and
> >then I am through with you.
>
> If you publicly destructively criticise leading Christian apologists like Hugh Ross
> and Phil Johnson, while claiming to be a Christian, then I will make it my "business"
> to enquire just what your Christian standing is.
>
> GM>I go to church every Sunday, unless I am out of town....Do I pray for those who
> >differ from me? Often. Do I read the Bible--nearly every day (not all,
>
> I am glad to hear (finally!) that at least you go to church regularly. I am less pleased
> that you do not seem to pray as regulalry for those Christian apologists whom you
> destructively criticise.
>
> GM> I can't live up to your standards of perfection.)
>
> Yet you expect Christian apologists to live up to *your* "standards of perfection"! Consider
> your perfectionistic attack on Phil Johnson for his statement that whales and bats came
> from a "rodent", despite the fact that evolutionists like Steve Stanley say it too. And what
> about all your pontifications about Christian apologists needing to adhere to higher standards
> than non-Christians? You don't even live up to your *own* "standards of perfection"!
>
> GM>Now get your nose out of my personal business!
>
> If you publicly destructively attack Christian apologists, then your Christian standing
> is no longer your "personal business" and I will continue to poke my "nose" into it.
>
> GM>I find your repeated demands
>
> They were just *questions* Glenn. I made no "demands". You could have avoided
> those "repeated" questions by giving a straight answer the first time.
>
> GM>on this particular issue to be rude, annoying, unchristian, unloving,
> >judgmental, pridefully pharisaic, and holier than thou.
>
> Just because I asked you if you regularly went to church, read the Bible and
> prayed? Your overreaction here is *very* revealing.
>
> GM>Are you going to look down your nose at me if I am not as good as you
> >think you, yourself are?
>
> You seem to forget, it is *you* who thinks that the world's leading Christian
> apologists are not as "good" as you are.
>
> GM>You have NO right to judge me in this fashion. Who do you think you
> >are, God?
>
> Who is judging you? I simply asked three questions that any Christian should
> be prepared to answer.
>
> GM> I am a servant of God and am responsible to Him. I don't have to
> >answer to you for my relationship with my God. That is between Him and me.
> >With that, keep your nose to yourself!
>
> I said all along that you didn't have to answer my questions. But if you as a
> "servant of God" publicly and destructively criticise leading servants of God like
> Phil Johnson and Hugh Ross, then the quality of your spiritual life becomes
> an issue.
How about posting a single example of Glenn "destructively criticizing"
- as opposed to correcting errors of fact and reason - a Christian
apologist. Let me guess, you don't have the time or the inclination to
back up this charge either?
Ed