Jon Curry often makes comments about how unkind he thinks the Christians on this blog are, how we should focus more on arguments and not personal issues, how he may stop coming here because of how we're behaving, etc. But here's what he said to Steve in a recent post:
"Steve, your posts and comments are so consistently irrational and muddled that I feel no need to respond. You have reading comprehension problems, so many logical problems. I truly wonder if some of the less clueless Christians around here are embarassed by you."
In an earlier thread, Jon wrote:
"Steve, I have to wonder if you understand how you come across through your keyboard. Callous, uncaring, and always reflexively rude to the skeptic. You know, you don't have to display zero sympathy. You don't have to assume that John [Loftus] is wrong in everything he did and in everything he says."
So, Jon tells us that Steve is "callous", "uncaring", has "zero sympathy", etc. But Jon wants to focus on the issues. He doesn't want to engage in personal criticism like the Christians at this blog do.
This is the same Jon Curry who has repeatedly told me what my motives supposedly are, has referred to Christians of the past as "vicious" and "wicked" and "liars" on the basis of highly questionable evidence, etc. In order to not be so "clueless" and "embarrassing", maybe Christians like Steve should offer as little documentation for their claims as Jon Curry does for his, leave discussions without interacting with their opponents' arguments as often as Jon does, deny Jesus' existence, repeatedly make false and misleading claims about the textual record, rely on ridiculous theories that they found in a Wikipedia article that carries a warning about its own content, and take other positions that put them to the left of the Jesus Seminar.
So what are you saying, Jason? Was it wrong for me taunt Steve? Would it be wrong to compose a taunt song? Or does the bible teach that you are supposed to mock and ridicule your enemies? Does the bible teach that we are NOT supposed to do unto others as we would have them do unto you if the "others" are people that disagree with you theologically? If you aren't embarassed by Steve, why haven't you answered these questions that I asked you already in the other thread?
ReplyDeleteWas my taunting as cruel as that of Steve? Steve taunted John Loftus in response to John baring his soul, admitting his darkest secrets. This was completely unprovoked. I on the other hand reacted to Steve's (again unprovoked) name calling of me. Maybe I shouldn't have. But what I did wasn't cruel and callous as Steve was towards John. When you call someone names you shouldn't be shocked when they call you names back. That's what I did with Steve. Steve mocked John not because John had mocked him. Steve mocked him and kicked him while he was down, and this was unprovoked. Steve is cruel and callous. And he thinks this is his biblical mandate. What do you think? Did Steve do the biblical thing?
You keep pointing to this "false and misleading claims" post as if it contains false claims from me, which it doesn't. I'm well aware that most manuscript changes are the result of innocent error on the part of scribes. I haven't said otherwise.
Speaking of misleading, how about the heading of this post. As if I'm talking about a lot of "clueless Christians." What I actually wrote was about LESS clueless Christians. What I think most people that are interested in understanding me would recognize is this is actually a backhanded compliment, not a put down. But as per your typical pattern, you read what I write in the most rigid, incoherent, and difficult way possible to erect your misrepresentations and attempt to show my errors. I must think every single person thought the story of the woman caught in adultery was original to John. After all, I said "everyone". I must think all Christians are torturing murderers since I pointed out that Cyril was. I think in doing this you betray a desperation to find errors in the thinking of your opponents. There is no pausing to be sure you have the meaning of my words correct. Phone calls help with this type of miscommunication, but you don't want that. You don't want to understand. You want to find a few "gotcha" errors. Why do you think that is? I think I know.
Jon Curry said...
ReplyDelete"Or does the bible teach that you are supposed to mock and ridicule your enemies?"
This assumes that I regard the Debunkers as my "enemies."
But they are not my "enemies" in the way the Sermon on the Mount describes one's enemies.
Loftus is not my personal "enemy." Nor the other Debunkers.
Jon is projecting his own imaginary assumptions on to me.
"Steve taunted John Loftus in response to John baring his soul, admitting his darkest secrets...Steve mocked him and kicked him while he was down, and this was unprovoked."
We've been over this ground before. Jon has developed an emotional investment in Loftus' reputation.
Loftus chose to publicize his private life. Loftus chose to write about his sex life.
And he did this to justify his apostasy. He specifically identifies his affair with Linda in terms of "Why I changed my mind: my deconversion," and goes onto discuss this as a "major crisis," which set his deconversion in motion.
Far from being unprovoked, I singled out an event which he himself singled out. He put this on the table as a reason for his deconversion. He put this in the public domain. He gave this as a rationale for his subsequent apostasy.
Actually, his treatment of Linda, as well as his ex-wife, is cruel and callous. And Curry is cruel and callous to take Loftus' side.
But Jon is looking for a guru. Some new authority figure in his life.
Even assuming that Jon's misinterpretations of Scripture are correct, since he doesn't believe the Bible anymore, he doesn't believe in Biblical ethics.
So what does he want me treat him according to a value system which he repudiates as a false code of conduct?
Jon Curry said:
ReplyDelete"Was it wrong for me taunt Steve?"
I was addressing your inconsistency in how you claim people should be treated as compared to how you've treated Steve and other Christians. I don't agree with your criticisms of Steve in particular, for reasons such as the ones I explained in another thread that you left:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-testimony-of-irenaeus-not-positive.html
Though I think that your criticisms of Steve are wrong as applied to him, I don't think that all of the criticisms would be wrong if applied to somebody else. As I've explained in another thread, judgments about which language is appropriate and which isn't are often difficult to make. You've been making a significant issue of how unkind you think Steve has been, so I think it's appropriate to mention that some of your comments don't seem to meet up to your professed concern for "care", "sympathy", etc. I'm not the one who started this. You are.
You write:
"If you aren't embarassed by Steve, why haven't you answered these questions that I asked you already in the other thread?"
Because I was at work. I saw your post before leaving this morning, but didn't have time to write my response. I did post a response there this evening. Considering how frequently you've left our discussions and your discussions with other people, without responding to our questions and arguments, you aren't in much of a position to criticize me for not responding to you less than one day after your post.
You write:
"You keep pointing to this 'false and misleading claims' post as if it contains false claims from me, which it doesn't. I'm well aware that most manuscript changes are the result of innocent error on the part of scribes. I haven't said otherwise."
The post you're referring to addresses much more than that one issue.
You write:
"Speaking of misleading, how about the heading of this post. As if I'm talking about a lot of 'clueless Christians.' What I actually wrote was about LESS clueless Christians. What I think most people that are interested in understanding me would recognize is this is actually a backhanded compliment, not a put down."
There was no intention to suggest "a lot". You're reading that qualifier into what I wrote. I didn't intend it. And calling somebody "less clueless" still involves "cluelessness".
You write:
"I must think every single person thought the story of the woman caught in adultery was original to John. After all, I said 'everyone'."
I've already addressed your argument on that issue. You claimed to be using "everyone" hyperbolically only after being corrected, and you still haven't explained why you rejected my appeal to hyperbole in explaining Jesus' teachings in Matthew 5. You've repeatedly appealed to hyperbole to defend comments you've made on this blog, yet you reject an appeal to it in a historical context in which it was commonly used. I'm asking you to be consistent.
You write:
"I must think all Christians are torturing murderers since I pointed out that Cyril was."
I didn't claim that you made that argument. I've corrected you on this issue before. Again, I asked you whether you think that Christians like Peter, Irenaeus, and your wife have behaved like the Christians you were criticizing, such as Cyril of Alexandria. I was going to then ask you a further question depending on your answer. At that point, you assumed that I was accusing you of arguing that "all Christians are torturing murderers". That was a false assumption. But you keep repeating it.
You write:
"I think in doing this you betray a desperation to find errors in the thinking of your opponents."
No, I'm not desperate to find errors in your posts. They're easy to find. When somebody denies that Jesus existed and claims that the Pauline authorship of books like 1 Corinthians and Philemon is "suspicious", for example, you don't have to be "desperate" to find some significant problems with his reasoning.
You write:
"Phone calls help with this type of miscommunication, but you don't want that."
You didn't want it either until long after our discussions began. If you haven't been able to communicate effectively in the hundreds of pages of posts you've written for more than a year now, I don't think that a phone call is going to add much to the discussion. You called James White twice, and he reached the same sort of conclusions about you that I have.