On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 11:08:57 -0500 (CDT), SZYGMUNT@EXODUS.VALPO.EDU wrote:
SZ>I will respond to several of your comments below. My responses
>are set off by *********.
OK. But unless Stan replies with anything new, this will be my last post on this thread. I
thank Stan for his evident concern, but he misunderstands what I am on about.
[...]
>SZ>in your responses by assuming that you know their motives
SJ>I do not assume that I know people's "motives", except in the ordinary way
>that we all make assumptions about other people based on what they profess
>to believe, say and do. It is routine for TE/ECs to make assumptions about
>creationists "motives". Indeed Stan and Steve have done this in this very
>post about me, assuming (wrongly) that my problem is just a need to "grow
>up"!
[...]
SZ>Steve, in your comment above, and elsewhere in this post, you lump
>me in with those who hold the TE/EC position. In this you are wrong. My
>own beliefs in the area of origins and evolution are, at present, quite
>similar to yours.
I do not "lump" Stan "in with those who hold the TE/EC position" except
in one place where I was ambiguous. I was unsure if Stan was a TE/EC
and I did not have him in mind when I am talking about "the usual varying
degrees of intimidation, denigration and abuse that I am accustomed to at
the hands of TE/ECs on this Reflector".
But having said that, after debating for the best part of 4 years on the
Reflector, I was not aware that Stan's "beliefs in the area of origins and
evolution are...quite similar to" mine. I cannot ever recall Stan agreeing
with me on any point.
>SZ>What I object to is your whole tone and style of discussion,
>which I find to be marred by counterproductive whining.
Stan (and Steve Clark's) perception that I am "whining" is in their heads.
Stan obviously pays no attention to my side of the "discussion". I have
repeatedly said that I am not complaining that I have been personally hurt
*at all* by Glenn's privately telling a false story about me, and I have never
asked for apologies or sympathy. Indeed I am *glad* that it happened and I
regard it as a God-send (literally)!
My aim is to focus on the pervasive ad hominems and sub-Christian
nastiness by TE/ECs on this Reflector as a fact that cries out for an
explanation. Since I assume these TE/ECs are all fine Christians otherwise,
and since there are Bible warnings about "serving two masters" (Mt 6:24)
and not being "taken captive by a hollow and deceptive philosophy" (Col
2:8), I assume that the problem is in the "E" part of "TE/EC" controlling
the Christian "T" part.
On this Reflector the philosophy and motives of creationists are routinely
discussed by TE/ECs. Why is discussing the philosophy and motives of
TE/ECs off the table for discussion?
>SZ>Note here that I have said
>nothing about your MOTIVES, only your words, and what they communicate.
I would have thought that saying that someone was "acting like a spoiled
child" or "a mean-spirited parent", and heading the post "petty, personal
agendas" is not exactly saying "nothing about" my "motives"!
SZ>>Has it ever occurred to you that someone who agrees with you on many points
>might nevertheless object to your PRESENTATION of your viewpoint?
Of course I could always improve my "presentation" (who couldn't). But I
don't believe that is the *real* problem here. Stan has never shown any
interest in the past in my "presentation". Therefore I assume that my
"presentation of" my "viewpoint" here is not the real issue, but my
"viewpoint" itself is what Stan is really objecting to.
[...]
>SZ>and by sweeping generalizations that are
>>far short of the whole truth and paint whole groups of diverse individuals with
>>a broad brush.
SJ>Stan has yet to demonstrate that my "sweeping generalizations" about
>TE/EC are "far short of the whole truth". And the "whole groups of diverse
>individuals" who I "paint with a broad brush" all share a common TE/EC
>position.
[...]
SZ>As I pointed out above, in at least MY case, this is not true. I am
>sympathetic to an old-earth creationist position (OEC), or to
>what you describe as "mediate creation", which may include some degree
>of common ancestry. This is the problem with sweeping generalizations!
Why does Stan assume that I was including him in my "generalisations"
about TE/ECs? Nothing in my post above says that.
But it is the first time I have been made aware that Stan is "sympathetic
to..."mediate creation". I have posted on Mediate Creation in the past
and Stan has *never*, AFAIK, ever posted his agreement with me, either
publicly or privately.
[...]
>SZ>Now you are on the receiving end of it, and you are acting like a spoiled
>>child. Or perhaps like a mean-spirited parent, who after correcting his
>>child, says something like:
>>
>>"I reserve the right to bring up your bad behavior in
>>the future when it serves my purpose to do so."
>
>Note how Stan feels its OK for TE/ECs to assume that they know
>*creationists* motives!
[...]
>SZ>WHOA! My comment had nothing to do with your motives...I do not know
>you well enough to speculate on them. I said, "...you are acting like a
>spoiled child or a mean-spirited parent..." I said this because this is how
>your comments "come across" to me.
I fail to see what Stan's distinction is here. My assumptions of TE/ECs
"motives" is also based on "how" TE/ECs' "comments `come across' to
me."
I don't accept Stan's assurance that his saying that I am "acting like a
spoiled child" or "a mean-spirited parent" had "nothing to do with" my
"motives".
Stan's whole argument is based on his premise that my "motives" must be
wrong. Why can he not accept that I might be trying to highlight TE/ECs'
control by a materialistic-naturalistic philosophy for the very best motives,
namely I believe it to be *true*?
>SZ>his is what they communicate to me, and I think they hurt your position!
I it is difficult to take this seriously. Stan AFAIK has *never*, either
publicly or privately indicated that he agrees "with much of" my "position"
and that he is "concerned about it". If he really was "concerned about it" he
would have sent me a personal message of support, plus concern, and not
send a message titled "petty personal agendas" saying that I should "grow
up".
SZ>Since I agree with much of your position, I am concerned about it!
I don't accept Stan's assurance that his saying that I am "acting like a spoiled
child" or "a mean-spirited parent" had "nothing to do with" my "motives".
Stan's whole argument is based on his premise that my "motives" must be
wrong. Why can he not accept that I might be trying to highlight TE/ECs
control by a materialistic-naturalistic philosophy for the very best
motives, namely I believe it to be *true*?
SZ>I hope you understand this... how a person "acts" or "behaves", while it
>has its subjective element (since someone else may interpret your words
>differently than I do), is not the same as the motives out of which the action
>or behavior proceeds.
Stan needs to "understand this" *himself*. It is *he* who assumed that my
"motive" was pursuing "a petty personal agenda" and that I was "acting like a
spoiled child" or "like a mean-spirited parent", and has persisted in his
assumption, despite my repeated protests to the contrary.
[...]
SJ>But Stan is here misunderstanding what I am on about. I am not complaining
>in the least about being "on the receiving end of it". I have been "on the
>receiving end of it" from TE/ECs for the best part of 4 years, and if I was
>concerned about I wouldn't have stayed or indeed come back.
>
>But I am at least pleased that Stan appears to acknowledge that it *was*
>"bad behavior" on Glenn's part! If that is the case, why has neither Stan, or
>any other TE/EC publicly admonished Glenn for his "bad behavior", but rather
>are defending it?
[...]
SZ>Again I am lumped in with the TE/EC position when it is convenient for
>your argument.
This is the *first* time in this post that Stan could fairly claim that I have
"lumped" him "in with the TE/EC position", although my actual words are
ambiguous. But on the basis of Stan's assurance that he is not a TE/EC, I
will reword it as follows:
"I that is the case, why has" no "TE/EC publicly admonished Glenn for his
"bad behavior", but rather" some "are defending it?"
SZ>Of course what Glenn did was unacceptable behavior! He
>admitted it and apologized for it in his own way.
Glenn did *not* apologise for his "unacceptable behavior". Glenn said that
he stood by his claim that I "drove most of the real thinkers away from this list":
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:36:31 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
>>>GM>But he is the one I really think
>>>>drove most of the real thinkers away from this list.
[...]
>SHame on you Bertvan. The ONLY address on the note when it left my machine
>was to you. You copied it and sent it on. You have no ethics sir. You are
>scum on the bottom of the ethics pool and are NOT to be trusted in any way
>shape or form.
>
>But since it is public, I will stand by what I said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn apologised only for the "hurt" it caused me:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:00:53 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
GM>...That is a disgusting thing
>for him to do because it hurt Stephen, strained further our already
>strained relationship, and frankly, embarrassed me, which is the least of
>the issues. If this is the type of activity that Bertvan is interested in
>doing then he has serious problems with his judgement and he is not to be
>trusted.
>
>I will apologize to Stephen for this. I owe that to him after Bertvan's
>lapse of etiquette. Bertvan has NO right to stand on a soap box as an
>ethical judge of anyone as he hypocritically does here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But since it did not cause me any "hurt" there was no need for Glenn to
apologise on that score. What he should do is either: 1) defend his
allegation; or 2) retract it.
Please note that I have never asked Glenn to apologise, which I would
do if I was "whining". It is a simple matter of ordinary justice that
does not change until Glenn either defends his allegation or retracts
it.
SZ>So to me there was no need to bash Glenn for this.
I don't ask that Glenn be "bashed". But I would have thought that TE/ECs
should have, at the time, shown some disapproval, in view of the
seriousness of the breach of Christian ethics by one of their number.
SZ>However, I wrote to call YOU to account
>for YOUR words and style of discussion.
This is *rich*! Glenn privately tells a false story about me which he is not
prepared to defend publicly but does not retract, and when he is found out,
he calls the innocent person who did it "scum on the bottom of the ethics
pool".
Yet Stan feels "there was no need to" call Glenn to account "for this" but
he does feel there is a need to "call" *me* "to account" for *my* "words and
style of discussion". What a double-standard!
If this is Stan's idea of what's fair and right, then I do not recognise that
he has any moral authority to "call" me "to account" to him!
SZ>I think you will ultimately
>be much more effective in communicating a persuasive vision of creation
>if you drop the whining tone
And I "think" that *Stan* "will ultimately be much more effective in
communicating a persuasive" message to *me* if he drops his persistent
mischaracterisation (which is starting to border on the *deliberate*),
that my legitimate issue as just "whining"!
SZ>and the attempt to split hairs and score
>debating points and rather articulate a POSITIVE position of
>*what you believe*, and why.
I have done that and will continue to do that. But when TE/ECs respond to
my "positive position" with ad hominems (as they routinely do), then I will
respond appropriately with my firm belief that their sub-Christian behaviour
is due to their being: 1) taken "captive" by a "hollow and deceptive
philosophy" (Col 2:8), namely scientific materialism-naturalism; and 2) the
conflict of them "trying to serve two masters" (Mt 6:24), namely Christian
theism and scientific materialism-naturalism.
SZ>I believe Ramm was at least partially
>successful in doing this in his 1954 book, which I know you often
>refer to.
I am not aware of Ramm being "successful" with TE/ECs. If he was, they
would not be TE/ECs but PCs.
The fact is that *no one* has been "successful" with this hard core bunch
of TE/ECs on the Reflector. Phil Johnson was on this Reflector with them
for several years, and he wasn't "successful" with them. Nor were the other
"really powerful thinkers on the list" like Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, and
Jonathan Wells "successful" with them. So why does Stan believe that *I*
should be any more "successful" with them?
After 4 years of trying to be "positive" I see my role now as telling the
unpleasant truth to TE/ECs as I see it, namely they have been taken
"captive through [a] hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on
human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ"
(Col 2:8), namely scientific materialism-naturalism.
SZ>Why don't you do the same? You'll catch more flies
>with honey than with vinegar.
I have been trying to "do the same" for the best part of the last 4 years and
it has done no good whatsoever. But neither did Phil Johnson, Mike Behe,
Bill Dembski and the other "really powerful thinkers" who were once on
the list.
I am now convinced that the situation on this Reflector is *pathological*
with the hard-core TE/ECs and unless they are brought face to face with
their underlying philosophical problem, namely having been taken "captive"
by the "hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition
and the basic principles of this world" (Col 2:8), namely scientific
materialism-naturalism, no "success" will be possible.
SZ>Are you interested in the truth, or merely in scoring debating points by
>>impugning the character of your intellectual adversaries?
SJ>The former. I happen to believe that it is "the truth", that all TE/ECs are in
>fact, to varying degrees, under the adverse influence of a naturalistic
>philosophy, on the basis of: 1) Scripture warnings about mixing worldly
>philosophies with Christianity (Mat 6:24; Col 2:8); and 2) personal experience
>of debating TE/ECs on the Reflector.
>
>I have been a Christian for over 30 years in a variety of churches and some
>TE/ECs on this Reflector, without a doubt, are the nastiest Christians I have
>ever come across. This is a fact which cries out for an explanation. The
>common factor evidently is the "E" in TE/EC.
>SZ>I suspect that I will be the next target of your defensive, self-justifying
>>posts.
SJ>I am not interested *at all* in "justifying" myself. I have bigger fish to
>fry!
>
>But I note that Stan admits that my posts are "defensive". One defends only
>when one has first been attacked. Stan just ignores the attacks by TE/ECs on
>this Reflector against their fellow Christians who are creationists, and then
>blames creationists for having the temerity to defend themselves!
[...]
SZ>Once again, I have not ignored Glenn's uncharitable comments about you.
>You know that!
First, my point was wider than just Glenn. I said "Stan just ignores the
attacks by TE/ECs on this Reflector against their fellow Christians who
are creationists". Glenn is just an extreme case of a much wider problem
among TE/ECs on this Reflector.
Second, in the case of Glenn, *how* do I "know that" Stan has "not
ignored Glenn's uncharitable comments about" me? AFAIK it is only in
this post that Stan has expressed even mild disapproval of what Glenn
as done.
SZ>And I don't begrudge anyone the chance to defend themselves
>against personal attacks or to defend their position against attacks on it.
And what I am doing is exactly what Stan says he doesn't "begrudge",
namely defending myself against Glenn's "personal attack", and indirectly
defending my position against attacks on it. Yet Stan calls that a "petty,
personal agenda", "whining", "acting like a spoiled child", "a mean-spirited
parent", etc. If this is not begrudging, then I would hate to see Stan's
grudging!
SZ>But I think the TONE of the defense is important.
See above. This "tone" perception that I am "whining" is all in Stan's head.
If he keeps saying it, despite my strong denials, I will assume it is a
*deliberate* ad hominem.
SZ>Your note to Glenn, which
>really pushed my button, was the one I paraphrased as "I reserve the right to
>bring up your past bad behavior in the future if I want to."
It would help if Stan quoted what I actually said in context, rather than
reacting to his own "paraphrase" of what I said:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 07:27:22 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
[...]
>I never asked for Glenn's apology for privately posting a false story, and I
>still don't. If Glenn doesn't want to apologise for privately telling a false
>story about me, that is *his* problem. For me the matter of Glenn's
>apology is closed.
>
>But until Glenn either 1. defends publicly his false allegation about me
>allegedly driving away "most of the real thinkers away from this list...within
>about 3 months of" me "coming aboard"; or 2. retracts it publicly, I reserve
>the right to bring it up whenever Glenn tries to make out that some godly
>Christian apologist like Hugh Ross or Phil Johnson is guilty of not measuring
>up to the high standards of Christian morality that Glenn sets for his fellow
>Christians, but not for himself!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan in his "paraphrase" of what I said, makes out that I would bring up
Glenn's "past bad behavior in the future if I want to", which makes it sound
like I would bring it up to defend *myself*. But what I actually said was
that I would bring it up to defend "some godly Christian apologist like
Hugh Ross or Phil Johnson".
This is an example of how Stan has got the whole thing wrong. He is really
reacting to a misperception in his head. If he keeps it up, I will assume
it is *deliberate*!
SZ>You KNOW this is wrong.
It might be if Stan got his facts right and didn't rely on his own "paraphrased"
version of what I said!
SZ>True Christian love, as hard as it is, "does not take into
>account a wrong suffered...bears all things..." as we read in 1 Cor. 13.
First, "True Christian love" includes getting the facts right and not
"paraphrasing" wrongly what someone said, and then attacking them for what they
didn't say.
Second, Stan quotes Scripture to me, but ignores the other Scriptures that
I am citing against TE/EC, namely Mt 6:24, and Col 2:8. Why does
Scripture apply against me but not against TE/ECs?
Third, why does Stan quote "1 Cor. 13" to me but not to Glenn, who still
refuses to defend or retract his false story about me?
Fourth, why does Stan quote "1 Cor. 13" to me but not to *himself"? It is
Stan who has sent a public, unloving message to me entitled "petty,
personal agendas" with unloving comments like I am "whining" and should
"grow up" and that I am "acting like a spoiled child" or "a mean-spirited
parent"!
Fifth, I believe I am acting in *true* "1 Cor 13" love by (however
imperfectly) trying to show TE/ECs that they have been taken "captive
through [a] hollow and deceptive philosophy" (Col 2:8).
Sixth, TE/ECs should show "True Christian love" by taking my admonition
seriously and discussing it rationally. If I am wrong, I would like to
know that I am wrong and apologise. But if TE/ECs react with ad hominems,
then they confirm to me that I am right!
SZ>I agree this is difficult, but I see examples of it on this reflector,
>most notably in Jonathan Clarke's patient replies to you and in many
>of Loren Haarsma's posts.
I appreciate Jonathan's posts. Loren has until just now not posted
anything to me, since I have been back on the Reflector.
SZ>I fail in this too...as all who are truly honest will admit.
So why is Stan singling *me* out for special treatment?
SZ>So I'm trying to call you to a higher standard,,
When Stan *first* shows evidence of applying his "higher standard": 1) to
himself; 2) to Glenn; and 3) to the TE/ECs on this list, then he will have
earned the moral authority in my eyes to call me to account.
It is easy to quote passages from Scripture like 1 Cor 13. If this was
applied literally this Reflector could not exist, because it is *impossible*
not to appear to be contradicting 1 Cor 13 in the eyes of those one
disagrees with.
It could be argued that Paul contradicted his own teaching by "sharp
dispute and debate" with his fellow Christian leaders (Acts 15:2) and by
debating with Pagan philosophers (eg. Acts 19:10). Obviously some pretty
hard things were said by Paul because he was beaten up and flogged a
number of times (2Cor 11:24-25).
Also, "1 Cor 13" clearly involves confronting fellow Christians when they
are in the wrong, as Paul did in Gal 2:11: "When Peter came to Antioch, I
opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."
SZ>>which in addition to being THE RIGHT THING TO DO, will ultimately,
>IMO, make your position more persuasive.
I have seen no evidence that Stan is interested in making my "position more
persuasive". He has *never* AFAIK, ever supported me, either publicly or
privately. He waits until he attacks me with a post titled "petty, personal
agendas" to tell me he is really my closet supporter. Give me a break!
I can only conclude, based on the evidence of: 1) Stan's ad hominems
against me ("petty, personal agendas", "grow up", "whining", "spoiled
child" and "mean-spirited parent"); 2) muted criticism of Glenn; and 3)
uncritical support for TE/ECs generally, that Stan is really trying to get me
to pull my punches, in order to protect his TE/ECs scientific friends from
criticism.
Maybe Stan has the best of motives in this, maybe not. I cannot tell. But
I have a right to be suspicious of Stan's `Greek gift', based on the above.
>SZ>Oh well, at least it will take some of the heat off Glenn for a while :)
SJ>It is interesting (and I believe significant), that Glenn who is clearly the
>wrongdoer in this issue, is by virtue of him sharing the same TE/EC position
>as Stan is transformed by Stan into the `victim' taking the "heat"!
[...]
SZ>To bring up a wrong done after an apology has been given
>(even a grudging one) is simply
>contrary to the whole notion of forgiveness.
This would be true, if Glenn had in fact given "an apology" for the "wrong".
But in fact Glenn has refused to admit it was a "wrong". Glenn has said he
will stand by what he said and all he apologised for was any "hurt" I
suffered, which was none.
So, I repeat what I said:
Until Glenn either 1. defends publicly his false allegation about me
allegedly driving away "most of the real thinkers away from this list...within
about 3 months of" me "coming aboard"; or 2. retracts it publicly, I reserve
the right to bring it up whenever Glenn tries to make out that some godly
Christian apologist like Hugh Ross or Phil Johnson is guilty of not measuring
up to the high standards of Christian morality that Glenn sets for his fellow
Christians, but not for himself!
But until that occurs (and maybe it never will), for me the matter is closed,
unless someone brings it up again!
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to
believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,
but I'd rather not consider that)." (Dawkins R., "Put Your Money on
Evolution", Review of Johanson D. & Edey M.A,, "Blueprints: Solving the
Mystery of Evolution", in New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p34)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------