A Reiteration and Clarification of my Purpose

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>>> >>TILL

>>> >>Out of curiosity, I would like to know the opinions of others.

>>> >>Do you see any substantial difference in the attitudes of Jason

>>> >>and Jacob?  They both seem to think that they know it all, so I

>>> >>wonder if any meaningful dialogue with Jacob is going to be

>>> >>possible.  I find it hard to be patient with college students who

>>> >>think that they know more than those who have been around

>>> >>the block a few times.  Fortunately, not all of them are like that.

>>>

>>> >MUNDINGER

>>> >I suppose that the chemistry professor tires of doing simple titrations

>>> >in the laboratory year after year, but how else will his students learn?

>>> >Jason and Jacob may be boring to you but they are typical of the

>>> >believers we encounter in everyday life.  Many of us don't have the

>>> >inclination to spend years studying the Bible but can benefit

>>> >tremendously by watching you and others in action.  Please don't

>>> >neglect us novices.

>>>

>>> |aaron|

>>> I have to agree.  My career choice does not allow me to delve into

>>> this stuff as deeply as I would like to.  People like Till (and many

>>> others on this list) as well as the many inerrantists who supply

>>> the opposition, make it so much easier for those of us who just

>>> can not seek such a depth of knowledge in these subjects.  Those

>>> of you on the list who continue to hit these topics over and over

>>> for the benefit of people like us (wether skeptic or inerrantist) are

>>> greatly appreciated.  :)

>>

>>ZANUSSI

>>I normally hang around in the shadows of the list, but now is one of those

>>times I like to make an appearance, this time to agree with both Mundinger

>>and Aaron. A major part of my learning process is to hear both sides of the

>>argument, to get a better understanding of the "whole" picture rather than a

>>one-sided viewpoint of it. I've been through the Bible a few times and am

>>quite cemented in my beliefs on errancy, but to actually see inerrantists

>>and errantists "go at it" at the issues only helps clarify my own ideas on

>>what I believe to be errant about the Bible. Besides, I'm getting a great

>>opportunity to see both good and bad examples of the use of logic, which, I

>>hate to say, is a shortcoming of mine! Yes, it may be tiresome to read some

>>of the "sermonettes" that appear from time to time from our inerrantist

>>friends, but I have no problems with deleting messages or ignoring threads

>>until the subject gets back on track. I can live with that, because

>>ultimately I am learning in the long run.

>

>TILL

>The problem with sermonettes is that they don't contain any efforts to

>defend the inerrancy position or to answer the opposition's rebuttals.  They

>simply present theological jargon that is based on the assumption that what

>is spewed from pulpits on Sundays is truth.  If one is primarily a lurker,

>who only sits and reads, it is easy to say that the sermonettes should be

>answered, because the answering will be done by someone else.  In my case,

>my writings are constantly being targeted by Christians who set up home

>pages and suddenly see themselves as apologists.  I continually receive

>private messages from people who inform me that so-and-so at such-and-such a

>site has posted a response to a certain article that I published in *The

>Skeptical Review* and that they would like to see my response to it.

>However, even though I am retired and spend probably 10 to 12 hours every

>day of every week in my office working on articles and responses, I simply

>do not have enough time to reply to all of them.  Right now, on Adnan's

>newsgroup, two people have posted replies to previous articles of mine that

>they want me to reply to, and this comes at the very time when I have to

>curtail drastically my activities on the internet in order to attend to

>editing duties required to meet the next publishing deadline for TSR.

>Perhaps this will explain the reason for my impatience with the likes of

>Jason (Foreverlive) and now his friend Jacob, who have little to offer by

>way of logical argumentation but a lot to say by way of meaningless

>sermonizing that does nothing but beg the questions they are obligated to

>prove.  This is why Jason's address was put into my filter several days ago

>so that I wouldn't even be bothered by his pointless preaching. Jacob is

>just a sermonette or two away from joining him.

>

>As I have already pointed out, not every member of the list thinks that

>sermonettes are consistent with the purpose of the list.  I don't know how

>many postings per day Jason is now sending to the list, but before I trashed

>him, he was sending about 15 or 20 per day that did nothing but preach or

>hurl one-line barbs and insults.  As the owner of the list, I know that

>several *nsubscribed because they didn't like coming home from work and

>finding a box full of postings from errancy, most of which didn't have

>anything to do with the purpose of the list.  Why should those who post

>sermonettes be allowed to drive others away just so they can send to the

>list nonsense that nobody is going to pay any attention to anyway?  We have

>several members on this list who were once Christians until they studied the

>Bible and saw discrepancies and absurdities in it that they couldn't

>believe.  That anyone would even think that such people as these would be

>impressed or in any way influenced by the trite sermonizing that we have

>seen from Jason and Jacob is a testimony to their shallow thinking.



|aaron|

I completely agree that sermonettes are a waste of time and should not
be addressed except in the most concise manner necessary to say,
"Start defending inerrancy or be silent."  ForeverLive (Jason) took a
while to chill, but he's calmed considerably, and I was delighted to see
he consulted some friend on the matter of Josiah's death (though it
looks like he will need to do some more consulting).  Jacob seems to
think that showing "God's Love" is real is as simple as quoting from a
Bible he has yet to show is reliable as a character descriptor of God.
He also isn't an "inerrantist", but he must hold *some* part of the bible
as inerrant, which it appears Joseph Crea, I, and others have been
trying to find.  The fact that he accepted Joseph's arguments on the
character of his god, and rejected others, such as the importance of
fulfilled prophecy, makes me seriously doubt that debate with him
will be beneficial.  If he can't see why a failed prophecy from the
gospel Jesus' mouth (or from *any* biblical prophet for that matter),
means that, according to his own holy book, anything attributed to
Jesus is "not to be feared", then I would agree...He is not worth it.

Still, my gratitude to you, other errantists, and of course the inerrantists
continues.  I've never been dissatisfied by yours or any other errantist's
willingness to pursue matters of errancy.  Your determination is
greater than mine, and I wouldn't *dream* of asking you to pursue
someone who you (or any other errantist) doesn't deem worth the
pursuit.  I get plenty of email already, thank you.  :)


--
aaron rainwater

Come away oh human child
To the waters and the wild
With a faery hand in hand
For the world's more full of weeping
Than you can understand.
-- Loreena McKennitt  "Stolen Child"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]