In chess circles a person is called another person's "customer" if the second person is constantly winning games and hence rating points by beating the first.
Rauser was Steve's customer.
He said a bunch of the annoying and misguided things that Steve wanted to respond to.
True. And I know Steve was able to use Rauser to make needed points that other Christians benefited from. It's just, for me, I'd rather run headlong into a brick wall repeatedly :-D
I look at it as a cost/reward evaluation. There's too much swamp to wade through for my interests to get so little in return. I know others need to hear him being refuted, so I wouldn't look down on anyone else from Triablogue spending their time doing that. I just don't find it useful for my time.
Yeah, I can see that. Though they were usually rather short posts, so not much time was spent on him at least. Don't think I needed to scroll down to see the whole thin that often, if it all.
It takes a lot of work to write something short. Or as Blaise Pascal said: "I only made this letter longer because I had not the leisure to make it shorter." (Pascal's "Provincial Letters" Number 16).
I appreciated Steve's work in regards to Rauser. I loved that Steve's conservative commentary on the liberal non-sense. Even Rauser felt the burn that he made a video in response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ob8LJ3EkYE
I tried to get him kicked out of the Christian Apologetics march madness tournament thing on the grounds that he isn't a Christian. Steve called it what it was: Apostate. I wish more people were like Hays in that regard.
Yeah, that's in part why I mentioned what I did. Some people have asked at least one or two of us if we were going to respond. My response is...well, this post.
I read your comments Hawk on that YouTube video. I don't believe Steve tried to get him fired; I mean, it could have been anyone who contacted his school and yet he pins it on Steve Hays. We just don't know and he failed to provide any proof.
Rauser shouldn't be surprised at Steve's attacks against him (they weren't personal, but strictly theological, philosophical, polemical, etc); I mean, Rauser promotes all kinds of dangerous stuff with real theological implications.
I don't even like that Steve's articles are called "attacks". I'm sure that what Rauser was feeling was the strength of Steve's arguments. Not "attacks".
Sorry, I should have put it as "attacks" since that's what Rauser was calling it. I would say that Steve responded to Rauser, not attacked him (since attack is personal and I don't think Steve ever attacked people personally, only their arguments).
"Yes, I think responses to him are in Hawk's very capable hands :-D I don't envy you, Hawk."
Lol, I don't envy me either, to be honest! It's not something I really want to do or anything like that. And I didn't want to make it more public than it deserves. So I was content to just leave the comments on Rauser's post and YouTube video. Hopefully that's good enough. Hopefully we won't have to say anything more about this.
Thanks, Cory. We may have some actual evidence in tension with Rauser's allegations if Rauser wishes to double down on his allegations against Steve. I guess we'll see what happens if anything.
Also, as I pointed out to Rauser in his post on his website, even if Steve was engaging in ad hominem or tu quoque attacks against Rauser, sometimes these are justifiable. For example, I had left this post from Ed Feser in my reply to Rauser.
My guess is that Rauser was a stand in for a whole category of academics most of us here find odious: the wolf in sheep's clothing, the Evangelical pretender. Rauser believes he was being mercilessly hounded in a very personal manner when, in fact, he was never that important. He was merely a token whipping boy for his despicable tribe.
And Steve's correspondence with Taylor Seminary, if that actually occurred, was probably also not about Mr. Rauser at all. It was to demonstrate the complete hypocrisy of the seminary administration. Taylor is nowhere close to being an Evangelical school....
"Anyone who approves of Trump's job at this point in his presidency is either ignorant, irrational, and/or immoral."
So, if you don't share Randal's view re. his disapproval of POTUS, you are either "ignorant, irrational, and/or immoral". The smarminess of this statement is compounded by the fact that, to my knowledge, Rauser is not a U.S. citizen. POTUS doesn't work for him.
I am convinced that Rauser's true political leanings are more "progressive" than he lets on. He has been consistent for years re. his attacks upon conservatives of various stripes. I believe I understand why Steve dedicated time and effort to challenge's many of Rauser's progressive viewpoints. And, as Steve once wrote, if you throw a rock into a bush and the coyote hiding there lets out a yelp, it gave itself away.
"Any Christian leader still defending a vote for Trump does not get a seat at the adult table. Do not listen to such people or support their ministries."
Rauser seems to have a strange obsession with U.S. politics despite his not being a U.S. citizen. He has attacked conservative Christians for several years re. their support for Trump. Rauser knows full well the likely outcome if Christians abandon Trump & the GOP at the ballot box in 2020. That is precisely what he wants, as he has clearly demonstrated that he supports much of the platform embraced by the Left. And, as surely as Rauser will readily attack conservative socio-political viewpoints, he will attack conservative theological viewpoints. He is a hardcore Leftist. Steve had a very keen sense of this (imo). Steve understood why Rauser's controversial viewpoints needed to be highlighted and eviscerated (imo).
Now that's funny.
ReplyDeleteIn chess circles a person is called another person's "customer" if the second person is constantly winning games and hence rating points by beating the first.
Rauser was Steve's customer.
He said a bunch of the annoying and misguided things that Steve wanted to respond to.
True. And I know Steve was able to use Rauser to make needed points that other Christians benefited from. It's just, for me, I'd rather run headlong into a brick wall repeatedly :-D
DeleteHaha! I wondered this myself!
ReplyDeleteWas it that he was too cliche? Too strawman-like?
ReplyDeleteI look at it as a cost/reward evaluation. There's too much swamp to wade through for my interests to get so little in return. I know others need to hear him being refuted, so I wouldn't look down on anyone else from Triablogue spending their time doing that. I just don't find it useful for my time.
DeleteYeah, I can see that. Though they were usually rather short posts, so not much time was spent on him at least. Don't think I needed to scroll down to see the whole thin that often, if it all.
DeleteIt takes a lot of work to write something short. Or as Blaise Pascal said: "I only made this letter longer because I had not the leisure to make it shorter." (Pascal's "Provincial Letters" Number 16).
DeleteI appreciated Steve's work in regards to Rauser. I loved that Steve's conservative commentary on the liberal non-sense. Even Rauser felt the burn that he made a video in response:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ob8LJ3EkYE
I tried to get him kicked out of the Christian Apologetics march madness tournament thing on the grounds that he isn't a Christian. Steve called it what it was: Apostate. I wish more people were like Hays in that regard.
Yeah, that's in part why I mentioned what I did. Some people have asked at least one or two of us if we were going to respond. My response is...well, this post.
DeleteI replied to Rauser in the comments of this very YouTube video.
DeleteI also replied to Rauser (as RWH) in his own post here.
DeleteYes, I think responses to him are in Hawk's very capable hands :-D I don't envy you, Hawk.
DeleteI read your comments Hawk on that YouTube video. I don't believe Steve tried to get him fired; I mean, it could have been anyone who contacted his school and yet he pins it on Steve Hays. We just don't know and he failed to provide any proof.
DeleteRauser shouldn't be surprised at Steve's attacks against him (they weren't personal, but strictly theological, philosophical, polemical, etc); I mean, Rauser promotes all kinds of dangerous stuff with real theological implications.
I don't even like that Steve's articles are called "attacks". I'm sure that what Rauser was feeling was the strength of Steve's arguments. Not "attacks".
DeleteSorry, I should have put it as "attacks" since that's what Rauser was calling it. I would say that Steve responded to Rauser, not attacked him (since attack is personal and I don't think Steve ever attacked people personally, only their arguments).
Delete"Yes, I think responses to him are in Hawk's very capable hands :-D I don't envy you, Hawk."
DeleteLol, I don't envy me either, to be honest! It's not something I really want to do or anything like that. And I didn't want to make it more public than it deserves. So I was content to just leave the comments on Rauser's post and YouTube video. Hopefully that's good enough. Hopefully we won't have to say anything more about this.
Thanks, Cory. We may have some actual evidence in tension with Rauser's allegations if Rauser wishes to double down on his allegations against Steve. I guess we'll see what happens if anything.
DeleteAlso, as I pointed out to Rauser in his post on his website, even if Steve was engaging in ad hominem or tu quoque attacks against Rauser, sometimes these are justifiable. For example, I had left this post from Ed Feser in my reply to Rauser.
My guess is that Rauser was a stand in for a whole category of academics most of us here find odious: the wolf in sheep's clothing, the Evangelical pretender. Rauser believes he was being mercilessly hounded in a very personal manner when, in fact, he was never that important. He was merely a token whipping boy for his despicable tribe.
ReplyDeleteAnd Steve's correspondence with Taylor Seminary, if that actually occurred, was probably also not about Mr. Rauser at all. It was to demonstrate the complete hypocrisy of the seminary administration. Taylor is nowhere close to being an Evangelical school....
I bet Hymaneaus and Alexander felt attacked by Paul.
DeleteThis smarmy, condescending comment by Rauser today on his twitter feed is yet another example of why I detest his tactics:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/RandalRauser/status/1278105018260795392
"Anyone who approves of Trump's job at this point in his presidency is either ignorant, irrational, and/or immoral."
So, if you don't share Randal's view re. his disapproval of POTUS, you are either "ignorant, irrational, and/or immoral". The smarminess of this statement is compounded by the fact that, to my knowledge, Rauser is not a U.S. citizen. POTUS doesn't work for him.
I am convinced that Rauser's true political leanings are more "progressive" than he lets on. He has been consistent for years re. his attacks upon conservatives of various stripes. I believe I understand why Steve dedicated time and effort to challenge's many of Rauser's progressive viewpoints. And, as Steve once wrote, if you throw a rock into a bush and the coyote hiding there lets out a yelp, it gave itself away.
Here we go again:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/RandalRauser/status/1284106796265689089
"Any Christian leader still defending a vote for Trump does not get a seat at the adult table. Do not listen to such people or support their ministries."
Rauser seems to have a strange obsession with U.S. politics despite his not being a U.S. citizen. He has attacked conservative Christians for several years re. their support for Trump. Rauser knows full well the likely outcome if Christians abandon Trump & the GOP at the ballot box in 2020. That is precisely what he wants, as he has clearly demonstrated that he supports much of the platform embraced by the Left. And, as surely as Rauser will readily attack conservative socio-political viewpoints, he will attack conservative theological viewpoints. He is a hardcore Leftist. Steve had a very keen sense of this (imo). Steve understood why Rauser's controversial viewpoints needed to be highlighted and eviscerated (imo).