Recent posts/comments over at Stan's "Winging It" blog have talked about me (gossiping again, misrepresenting my views again, slandering again... all without the possibility to defend myself) and whether or not to allow me to defend myself/my ideas against false attacks/misrepresentations at his blog (and, as always, the caveat: I'm not picking on Stan and his commenters, I'm raising the words and ideas they spoke of to speak about ideas, not people)...
Glenn...
By allowing Dan to broadcast his heresy and other false teachings on everyone else's blogs, we give him an open forum. He is a time waster, his name links to his blogs which lead people to them for learning more of his false teachings and heresy and no one else should be led to a site like that. He refuses to remain civil in discussions and virtually always resorts to name-calling. He is not a Christian and yet pretends to be one while worshiping a God and Christ of his own making.
Publishing his comments gives him his desire to spread his false teaching while pretending to just be asking questions. I recommend NO ONE give him a voice on their blogs.
Stan...
I've tried "leaning to the grace/mercy" side with Dan. He's used it to continue the running battle that got him evicted. I suppose, if someone else wanted to waste their time dueling with him, I could let him comment on, but I've come to the Prov 26:4 condition. Besides, I do harbor some concern that his approach will encourage others in his direction.
Christians of an earlier age burned people like him at a stake to avoid allowing his heresies to infect others. [!! wft? -dt]
Isn't his own blog sufficient?
...Dan T thinks that my concern for misguided people like him is a concern from weakness. Dan T thinks that historical, orthodox, biblical Christianity is a position of weakness. Dan T thinks that minds are won by making the most winning arguments. Dan T is confused. But no amount of discussion, requests, imploring, reasoning, argumentation, evidence, or dialog will stay him from the swift leap into insanity.
Not much I really wanted to say here, just pointing it out with a few thoughts.
It seems that their fear (concern, worry, whatever) is that my arguments will win over "misguided people..." and "encourage others in his direction..." thus, the conclusion that we ought not allow people like that to comment. Ban people like that. Don't give people like that a voice.
I, of course, disagree. One thing that Stan got right is that I do believe that the best arguments at least tend to make the best cases and win the most support, over time. It's why racism and slavery and sexism are not much supported in church anymore (whereas they used to be supported and promoted in many churches). It's why support for gay folk having rights and liberties is gaining support and opposition to the same is fading away rapidly (thanks be to God!)
As for me, I do believe that we should make our cases, support our arguments and not deny others that option to do the same (especially if we're going to talk about them/slander them/misrepresent their actual positions). I'm not afraid of those who disagree with me on some points... I'm not afraid of them making their case and possibly winning over people. I think the arguments offered at places like Stan's tend to be pretty weak and shallow, and too often irrational and immoral. I have nothing to fear from people making those arguments.
Ultimately, I believe bringing to the light of day "arguments" like these above only serve to use their own words to chase people away from their positions. Their arguments are their own worst enemy. By all means, make them. And should I have misunderstood some point of yours, please correct me. I have no problems with being corrected in a mistake, I have no fears there, either.
======
As an aside... What in the name of all that is holy is the comparison to burning people like me at the stake... is he longing for those days? Because that's what it sounds like. "if only it were that easy to get rid of heretics..." ! That's a very concerning line. Of course, I'm sure Stan doesn't think that. But then, what was the point of putting that line in there? I would love if Stan would clarify.
(Stan, you are welcome here to come out and affirm that it is a great moral wrong to burn people - even those you think are "heretics" - at the stake... or otherwise clarify your meaning.)
35 comments:
This looks a lot like the slander, gossip, and misrepresenting that you're complaining about in others.
Dan T: "It seems that their fear (concern, worry, whatever) is that my arguments will win over 'misguided people...' and 'encourage others in his direction...' thus, the conclusion that we ought not allow people like that to comment. Ban people like that. Don't give people like that a voice."
Stan: "It was, in fact, his personal attacks on me and my family along with his complete inability to apologize (which you've seen, too, I believe) which was the final violation of the 'Let's keep it friendly' rule."
"I do allow a lot of dissension on my blog. Lots of people with ideas different and even opposed to mine can merrily comment away here. I'm clearly not afraid to have opposing views represented. But, of course, 'He won't let me comment, so he's lying and scared of me' is the only possible conclusion."
Comment: I've said from the beginning that the rule at my blog for commenting is "keep it friendly" and I told you when you did it that you breached that line. I've never had any trouble with disagreement as anyone who looks at the blog can see. I've banned one person -- you -- and that not for disagreeing, but for the personal attacks on myself and my family that I won't abide. You've never done anything to alter that except to apologize that I felt you did something wrong. (What kind of an apology is that??)
_____
You highlighted my comment, "Dan T thinks that minds are won by making the most winning arguments." as if that was wrong and went on to say, "One thing that Stan got right is that I do believe that the best arguments at least tend to make the best cases and win the most support" ... which says I was right.
_____
Stan: "Christians of an earlier age burned people like him at a stake to avoid allowing his heresies to infect others."
Dan T: "!! wft?" "is he longing for those days?"
No, that's neither slanderous, libelous, misrepresenting, nor gossip. That's just good clean dialog between friends. Come on, Dan, are you trying to be serious complaining about these things while doing them yourself. "Well, as long as I SAY I'm not doing it, I'm not." Dan, the point was that people in the past thought heresy like yours was serious. People today do not so much. I've never condoned, encouraged, wished for that kind of overreaction. I believe it was and would be wrong. But thanks for the charitable mindset you have toward me that thinks I would think otherwise. That is indeed libelous, a gross misrepresentation of my views and my character. And how you think that doing this here is not what you call "slander, gossip, and misrepresentation" is truly baffling.
Anonymous...
This looks a lot like the slander, gossip, and misrepresenting that you're complaining about in others.
? How so? I specifically was not saying anything about the people, but the ideas they were representing. I used their words. They are free to come and correct anything I misunderstood.
Do you really think that having a case where people are talking about you (where you are not able to defend yourself) and pointing to that, pointing out how they appear unwilling to let at least some opinions get published, citing THEIR reasons ("concern that his approach will encourage others in his direction...") and noting that I disagree with the reasons that THEY offered as valid, rational reasons for not allowing comments is "slander?" How so? That it's gossip? How so? I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about ideas. They're free - welcome! encouraged!) to come clarify. Where is the gossip in that? What specifically is a false witness?
I don't think you understand what those words mean, anonymous.
No, that's neither slanderous, libelous, misrepresenting, nor gossip. That's just good clean dialog between friends.
No, it's none of those things. It's a fun, funny zing at a guy who has written something that sounds like he's longing for the days of burning heretics. It wouldn't be funny if it weren't for the way that many fundamentalist types position themselves as the Ones Who Speak for God. Because you all collectively come across as self-professed keepers of the Way (and those who disagree with your opinions are heretics - just as you and your gang tends to consider me a heretic! "heresy like yours...") - you set yourself up for little zings/serious questions when you make comments like this.
So, you're clarifying then: Clearly, NO, you do not think we should burn heretics. I was sure you didn't. The question was, why would you post something like that, then? Just by way of emphasizing the seriousness of heresy? Do you recognize the problem of citing a gross evil to emphasize a point that you sort of set yourself up for this sort of question?
Regardless, thanks for the clarification and the explanation. I hope you will give some thought as to why someone would ask that question.
I've never had any trouble with disagreement as anyone who looks at the blog can see. I've banned one person -- you -- and that not for disagreeing, but for the personal attacks on myself and my family that I won't abide. You've never done anything to alter that
As I have said in the past, I have NO IDEA what you consider an "attack" on you and your family. Since I do not know what it is that I've said that has so offended you that you considered it an "attack," I can't be specific.
As I have said in the past, as soon as you tell me what I've done to cause offense, I will gladly apologize, as I am sure I must have done something. I am always prepared to apologize for actual mistakes and for plain rudeness (as I am sometimes rude, to be sure). But to apologize, I have to know what it is I'm apologizing for.
In the past, when I've asked you to tell me what I've done that you consider an "attack," you've opted not to tell me. That, or I can't find it. Here's your chance: Tell me what I've done and I will gladly apologize and I will thank you for giving me the chance to do so. It is not my intent to cause ill feelings, help me out, Stan.
Thanks.
No, that's neither slanderous, libelous, misrepresenting, nor gossip. That's just good clean dialog between friends...
...thanks for the charitable mindset you have toward me that thinks I would think otherwise. That is indeed libelous, a gross misrepresentation of my views and my character.
... people in the past thought heresy like yours was serious.
I'm serious about my earlier question: Clearly, you hold the position that I'm a heretic. You believe some of positions are "heresy," according to your own words. Agreed?
Do you recognize that when you call others "heretics" (and in my case, I'm not even all that "heretical..." I affirm all/nearly all the basic essentials of traditional evangelical Christianity - God, son, holy spirit, Bible as God's Word, salvation by grace, through faith in Jesus, repentance for forgiveness of sins, etc), that you SOUND LIKE you consider yourself one of the "keepers of the faith..." one of those who, like those who burned heretics in the past, decide who is in and who is out of Christianity. When you do this, you come across as pretty arrogant and presumptuous. Do you recognize this?
Do you recognize how this is a turn off for people who seek to follow God, that such presumption and arrogance SOUND LIKE you're placing yourself in God's position, and as a result, you sound very much like the Pharisees who killed those who disagreed with them and the oppressors of the middle ages?
I'm just curious if you recognize that's how you sound. If so, does that concern you at all?
Greg and Stan, you are both repeating the error on Stan's blog about slander and libel. In the Bible, when slander is used, it is designating using your words to demonize another. There were no US libel laws.
Thus I am using slander correctly, not incorrectly as you claim repeatedly.
Craig, in spite of your false claim, my motive is not to use the Bible to beat up people. It is to correctly identify the behavior that is being used.
Understand both those points, now?
I'm sure these were simple mistakes and ones you two will be glad to acknowledge, since I believe you to be men of good will.
Whatever you say Dan.
No, Craig, not "whatever I say." Just the truth matters. You made mistaken claims. No problem, mistakes happen. The question is, will you have the humility and grace to admit the mistake and move on?
Dan,
Virtually the only time you ever use or quote scripture is when you feel that it gives you a way to point out what you perceive to be the error of others, or when you drop a ridiculous phrase like "kick against the goads" into a conversation as if simply using a b=Biblical phrase somehow gives your position more credibility. I cannot think of a time when you have ever made a positive case from scripture as a direct support for any of your opinions. Or at least been able to provide a clear and unambiguous scriptural case for your positions.
In the case of the post that has your panties in a wad, I need to point out a few facts.
1. The comments were made in a public forum which you have access to.
2. None of the comments represent something that has not already been said directly to you.
3. I'm pretty sure that it would be possible to find quotes from you that back up every opinion expressed in the thread in question.
4. As you have demonstrated, you have ample opportunity to defend yourself as well as provide rebuttal to any false characterizations.
5. I believe that we are all entitled to our opinions, as well as to expressing those opinions.
I see nothing else worth contributing to this thread. I, of course, patiently await you resuming engaging in the multiple threads which are on hold waiting for you.
"...whiner, a complainer, a bitchy do-nothing who only gossips and slanders and otherwise does not take part in the realm of God."
I know I said that the last comment was it, but I noticed this elsewhere and couldn't help but compare it to the thread that has Dan's panties in a wad. I could be wrong, but this seems at least comparable to the type of comment that has Dan all upset, if it is not worse.
Just for the record, I think Stan and others will testify to the fact that I have consistently spoken for allowing you to comment. I see no reason to deny you the ability to expose your own idiocy and poor Biblical understanding. It is an opportunity to address what are examples of opinions and positions unfortunately held by too many people in this world.
At the same time, while you are too willing to delete comments of mine for self-serving reasons that are almost always untrue and inaccurate, where I would simply let others decide when they read them themselves, I can't dictate to others when they will block or delete someone or why.
Art,
I too suggested that Dan be allowed to speak and took some heat for it. On the other side, I am and always have been a fan of the "your blog, your rules" standard and as such I support Stan in his decision to ban or not ban. In much the same way that I supported Dan allowing (I didn't and still don't agree with it, but I support it) some of his commenters to engage in personal attacks which I found egregious and in some cases false. I feel like people should be allowed to set their own standards and if others don't want to accept those standards then they shouldn't comment. I've tried to walk a middle ground, in terms of deleting comments for specific reasons and with multiple warnings, but would not suggest that my way is the only way.
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that any one of us who blogs has ample opportunity to defend ourselves against anything said which seems like all anyone could ask for.
"...whiner, a complainer, a bitchy do-nothing who only gossips and slanders and otherwise does not take part in the realm of God."
This still sounds slandery to me.
It is not slander to point out slander. It is not slander to point out gossip.
Really you are suggesting that calling someone a "whiner", a "complainer" a "bitchy do nothing" "who only gossips and slanders" and saying that someone "does not take part in the realm of God", is not slander?
I know the whole legal definition of slander doesn't interest you, but in the legal world the only defense against slander is the truth. Are you really suggesting that your characterization is 100% truthful?
"It is not slander to point out slander. It is not slander to point out gossip."
But it is a lie to say things that aren't true.
Indeed. You really should be careful about that. I'm willing to write off your false claims as mere ignorance or a simple mistake, but not everyone is as gracious.
Peace.
And yes, I believe those descriptors are accurate, truthful (if somewhat harsh - at least the "bitchy do-nothing") descriptors.
"I believe those descriptors are accurate, truthful..."
Any objective proof to back up your belief, or are you good to make claims about someones standing in the "realm of God" just based on your feelings and beliefs.
I've pointed out to you before that the fact that you believe something doesn't make it true. Where in the Bible does it say "Repay slander with slander"?
"I'm willing to write off your false claims as mere ignorance or a simple mistake, but not everyone is as gracious."
I guess it's good that I'm so generous with yours.
Who was this written about, Marshall?
He has claimed I am not a Christian, that I am lying, that I am intentionally denying what I know to be true about God. These are all false claims and slander, objectively speaking.
He has spoken about me to denigrate me at public places where I am not part of the conversation, this is gossip.
He comes here and whines about people who are doing something to promote better Muslim/world relations when he is not doing anything himself. That is being a bitchy do-nothing.
I have not slandered anyone. That, too, would be a false claim.
To clarify, the Bible speaks about those who are engaging in these things are not in the realm of God. I'm just repeating the Bible on that point. If you want to take that line literally as your side is wont to do, that's on you.
"Who was this written about, Marshall?"
Wow, you don't even keep track of who's character you trash.
"He has claimed I am not a Christian, that I am lying, that I am intentionally denying what I know to be true about God. These are all false claims and slander, objectively speaking."
Where is the quote and link?
"He has spoken about me to denigrate me at public places where I am not part of the conversation, this is gossip."
Really, do you mean where he tried to get Stan to let you comment? You whine about this, yet you have managed to defend yourself quite well.
"He comes here and whines about people who are doing something to promote better Muslim/world relations when he is not doing anything himself. That is being a bitchy do-nothing."
OK, provide some proof that he is "not doing anything". That's a pretty sweeping claim, so let's see some proof. If you can provide proof I'll agree with you, if you can't then it's a false claim by any definition.
"...otherwise does not take part in the realm of God."
Once again a broad and sweeping claim of fact, if this is not slander (by your definition), then you should have no problem providing factual evidence to prove the accuracy of your claim. If you can't than, by definition, it's another false claim.
"I have not slandered anyone. That, too, would be a false claim."
As I said truth is the only defense against slander, so all you have to do is to demonstrate that your claims are actually true (believe doesn't count), and I will gladly retract my opinion of your claims.
"To clarify, the Bible speaks about those who are engaging in these things are not in the realm of God."
Really, it specifically speaks of Art? Simply because you take one phrase out of context doesn't demonstrate to truth of your claims.
"If you want to take that line literally as your side is wont to do, that's on you.
At this point I can take it literally out of context, but that's all.
"those who are engaging in these things"
If you had proof, then you might be right. But so far...
Tell me again where that Bible mentions "a bitchy do-nothing"? I missed that part.
Oh, speaking of demonstrably false, this one is demonstrably false. "only gossips and slanders", demonstrably false.
I'm sure glad someone as lacking in grace as you doesn't get to decide who's in "the realm of God".
"Do not return evil with evil, return evil with good."
I've heard that somewhere, but I can't remember where.
The data is out there. I'm not going to look it up. Ask Marshall, he'll tell you what I've said. He has said I'm not a Christian, that I am lying, etc. It's verifiable, and not really in question.
As to why I wasn't sure if that is spoken about Marshall, the fact is, unfortunately, there are several fellow Christians who have slandered, gossiped, bore false witness, etc. so, it could have been several people I was speaking of. I believe I recall that this particular quote was about Marshall.
If conservative bloggers wouldn't so consistently respond to people in this manner, it would be easier to recall whom it was spoken of.
On the other hand, if Marshall affirms that he has not said those things and that he does not think those things, I'll gladly apologize. He won't.
So, you have data that proves beyond any doubt that Marshall is a "bitchy do nothing" and that he "ONLY gossips and slanders"? Really?
I can easily provide proof that the latter claim is false, easily.
"My sincerest condolences. May rest in God's eternal peace."
Which one is that, gossip or slander?
I could find more, but only one proves your claim false.
I'm sorry if you don't recognize hyperbole when you see it. That was hyperbole.
"Marshall, who is doing nothing whatsoever in his life..."
Just one more little bit of falsehood.
Really, how long did it take for you to come up with that excuse?
I guess as long as Marshall claims that his statement was hyperbole then you'll give him the free pass you expect, right?
Absolutely.
"...have anything positive to say about this work being done as cited in this story... "
What is the above sentence?
a) a lie
B) hyperbole
c) a typo
I'm infrequent, first you postulate what amounts to a "rant exception" allowing you to jettison grace, civility, and respect for others as long as you claim it's a "rant". Now, you postulate a "hyperbole exception" which allows you to say anything about anyone with no regard for truth or accuracy as long as you claim (after the fact) that it's hyperbole.
I'm going to have to remember these exceptions and make better use of them in the future.
Jesus ranted, gave grief to the Pharisees of his day. Called them snakes and white-washed tombs. Almost certainly, you and I agree that there is a time for harsh words.
So, if so, I assume you don't have a problem with me doing this at least in theory.
As a point of fact, Marshall has had nothing positive to say about this work cited in that story. So that, in fact, was a fact.
1. You're not Jesus
2. The quote in question referred to me as well as Marshall. As I have had positive things to say about the Declaration, that would seem to render the quote false. I'm also pretty sure I could find at least a couple of Marshall comments that are not negative as well. Although the fact that you included me is enough to render the comment false.
3. You can do whatever you want no matter how petty and graceless it makes you appear, but that doesn't mean I endorse it.
1. No, but I do strive to follow His example. I think that's a good idea, as I'm a Jesus' follower. Disagree?
2. It has been duly noted multiple times that you have had some positive things to say about the Declaration. That was mainly directed towards Marshall.
3. My point remains sound: We presumably both agree that there is a time for harsh words.
So you agree with me that this is, at the least, a good first step and that there is a time for harsh words.
The only thing we disagree on in this post, in the main, is that somehow - for reasons you have yet to offer - my analogy is a bad analogy. Feel free to disagree. It is rationally sound.
1. Sure
2. Then perhaps you should have been more precise in your criticism
3. Sure
Post a Comment