Lest You Forget...

The current President has demonstrated he is not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office; he cannot rise to meet challenges large or small. Thanks to his disdainful attitude and his failures, our allies no longer trust or respect us, and our enemies no longer fear us.

That's a pretty harsh indictment of Biden.

What?

That was the letter signed by more than 200 retired generals against Trump last year?

Oh.

Well, at least there are no mean tweets anymore. 

Surely this isn't evidence that God is upset with people who preach, but do not practice. Who tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and give rules like "don't misgender" and "check your privilege." God's not going to be upset with people who do their good deeds on Twitter for all to see while in secret they grope their interns. These people who cross sea and land to gain a single convert, and once they have that convert they turn them twice as woke as they themselves.

Don't harsh my buzz, and other things Boomers say. God is love. He understands you did your best.

I mean, you didn't, but you would have if it hadn't been for Netflix.  And that's the important part.

As Huxley is to Darwin...

In his recent Dividing Line broadcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_X9QuJGvgs), the Honorable Doc James White informs us (at the 11:08 mark) that he is "the most active English-speaking Christian apologist in the current day."  Which surprised me a little.  But you know, I can let him have Thursdays.  There's six more days to go around.

Although maybe he's talking about active on his bike.

White also informs us (earlier at the 10 minute mark) that he's been consistently careful and charitable.  I am actually quite grateful that he told us this, because otherwise no one would be able to tell.

I mean, just look at what White says at the 40 minute mark: "It is absolutely time to work through a basic outline on something called logic. Formal fallacies. Bad argumentation. What's modus ponens, what's modus tollens?  What's the law of the excluded middle?  What are these things? ...They are the laws of thought.  And, what happened last week?"

And yes, so far I'm with White.  But then, without a hint of irony, in the very next breath (literally--queue it up and listen), White proves how rational, logical, consistent, charitable, and reasonable he is: "Now, there have been various people who've attacked me.  People like Steve Hays.  Oh my gosh.  Steve, dude, um, that was one of the worst things that ever appeared on Triablogue.  I mean, you can't even pretend any longer to be even slightly unbiased.  At all.  I mean, you missed the forest for the trees so badly on that it was just shameful.  I'm sorry dude you've lost it."

This is his entire response to Hays.

It takes a special kind of mind to go off on a complete abusive ad hominem WHILE IN THE MIDDLE OF SAYING YOU WANT TO TEACH LOGIC all whilst never examining even a single argument Steve Hays wrote.

And it's easy to see why White did this.  The good doc is going after the people who responded to him from the side of critical theory and, as is wont the case when an ugly fact destroys a beautiful theory, Hays didn't attack White on that basis.  He agreed with White's view on critical theory.  Thus, Hays doesn't fit White's narrative.

Just to make it even more ironic, I happened to see some interaction that Hays had with some members on Facebook who were discussing this, and one of them literally said to Hays, "This might come as a shock, but White's Dividing Line show was not a response to your (far more reasonable) criticisms."

Far more reasonable.

Hmm.  So White spends a ton of time going after the people who were far less reasonable, and he completely ignores Hays's arguments, instead substituting verbal abuse for argumentation.  Yes, I'm sure that's the way to win hearts and minds.  Even better, while doing that he should demand that people be calm and reasonable toward him, and that DeWitt provide logical arguments and reasons for treating White the way DeWitt did.

Oh wait.  That is what he did?

Well then.

Is White consistently careful and consistently charitable?  Well, he's consistently something.  I'm thinking the word is "hypocritical."

Wait a second.  Hypo...CRITICAL!

Critical Theory adherent confirmed!

Not in my backyard

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/no-shthole-people-please-rich-liberals/

I'll do for you if you do for me

It's funny to see how liberals impute hypocrisy to Trump supporters. They still don't have a clue: 

i) The relationship between Trump and his supporters is like a military alliance: If you defend us, we'll defend you.

Insofar as the Trump administration is acting in the interests of freedom-loving Americans, insofar as the Trump administration is protecting their Constitutional rights, they will support him. So long as his administration is sticking up for them, they stick up for him. It's a reasonable, predictable reaction.

ii) Everyone ought to be personally virtuous. Everyone ought to be virtuous in their private life.

However, what sets a politician apart from a private citizen is their role as public policymakers. (In some cases, the same could be said for some Fortune 500 CEOs.)

At that level, the question at issue is not what choices a politician makes in his own life, but how his policies determine my choices in life. I'm not responsible for what he does in his private life–for good or ill. I don't make those decisions for him. The issue is what decisions he makes for me and my dependents. 

In terms of laws and regulations, what does he permit, prohibit, or mandate? The primary question isn't how he lives his own life, but whether he lets me live me do the same.  

As a rule, what a politician does in his personal life is his own business. But does he mind his own business where I'm concerned? Does he accord to others the same prerogative he accords to himself? 

In both (i) & (ii), there's a principle of reciprocity. 

The Excessive Skepticism Of Gospels Scholarship

"the kinds of differences we find between Plutarch and his sources are quite comparable with the differences between the Gospels, and nothing in the least like form criticism is postulated by experts on Plutarch." (Richard Bauckham, Jesus And The Eyewitnesses [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2017], 596)

For some other examples of excessive skepticism in gospels scholarship and New Testament research in general, see here and here.

"But generally - in everyday life, in law courts, and in historical research - the normal rule of thumb is to trust what people tell us. Ordinary life would be impossible if we did not….Many New Testament scholars seem to suppose that the more sceptical of the sources they are, the more rigorously historical is their method. But this is not how historians usually work. In good historical work it is no more an epistemic virtue to be sceptical than it is to be credulous. In everyday life, we do not systematically mistrust everything anyone tells us. When someone who is in a position to know what they tell us does so, we normally believe them. But we keep our critical faculties alert and raise questions if there is specific reason to doubt. There is no reason why historical work should be substantially different in its dialectic of trust and critical assessment. Sometimes excessive scepticism goes hand-in-hand with a misplaced desire for certainty….But in historical work the desire for certainty, for any sort of total accuracy, is as misplaced as systematic scepticism. In history we only deal with probabilities (as is also the case in much human knowledge). Historians are in the business of constantly making reasonable judgments of probabilities. To believe testimony, to trust it when we have no means of verifying its content in detail, is a risk, but it is the kind of risk we are constantly taking when we trust testimony in ordinary life." (ibid., 608, 613)

The Inferiority Of Non-Christian Miracles

I recently read The Cambridge Companion To Miracles (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), written by a group of almost twenty Christian and non-Christian scholars. There are chapters about miracles in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and other religions, along with chapters on other topics related to miracles. It's far from a conservative Christian book, but it often advances the case for Christianity, whether the authors realize it or not.

Same-Sex Double Standards

Richard Posner, a judge and legal scholar, has written an article for Slate on the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision. There are a lot of problems with the article. I suggest that people read John Roberts and Samuel Alito's dissents rather than relying on Posner's misleading descriptions of their views. But notice the following contrast in Posner's comments:

Mother's Day: Holiday Of Hate

You probably celebrate Mother's Day. And you probably get your mother flowers and other things you don't give your father on Father's Day. Bigot.

Obama Enacting His Religion As President

David French has an article for National Review on Barack Obama's religious views. There's a lot of significant information there, but here are some good portions that have implications beyond Obama:

Atheist hypocrisy

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_hypocrisy

Janus-Faced Lumpkinses

So Peter Lumpkins his been acting like a punk on his blog in his treatment of James White, indeed, his treatment of any Calvinist. He's a loving, nice, civil, irenic Arminian. White and other Calvinists are angry heresy hunters who comment on books without reading them (I know, demented, right?).

I called out Lumpkings at his blog and pointed out some hypocritical reasoning of his vis-a-vis his treatment of Justin Taylor &c. I tried to point out the incoherence of his position on the matter, which I detail here.

I posted at his site as Frank Rizzo, infamous "Jerky Boy," and I even called Lumpkins "sizzle chest," Rizzo's famous line. I also told him I had "recordings" out. Type in "Frank Rizzo," sizzle chest" and "recordings," and see what you find (some R-rated language, so be advised).

Anyway, everyone knows Calvinists are big meanies, most don't know they're consistent. Same behavior in public as in private---if you've earned the derision. But Arminians put on a friendly public face. They're the kind, loving, civil branch of Christianity. Especially Peter Lumpkins. He's got a book out on abstaining from alcohol. He's a squeaky clean teetotaler (IOW, a conscience-binder). But this isn't necessarily the case, for they may act worse than Calvinists in private. After posting my critique of Lumpkins I was harrassed with several emails, given Lumpkins' attacks on White &c and his questioning of their credibility, I think it's time to question Lumpkins' credibility:

*********************

From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:08 PM
To: Paul

What's the matter "Frank" can't you get anybody to read your devastating expose? Or, is it they just don't want to comment? What a hoot...


With that, I am...
Peter

----------
From: Paul
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:31 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins


Yeah, my audience usually reads more sophisticated material and is more interested in real players in philosophy and theology, which would explain the disintrerest. The post has had about 100 views so far, so they must not want to comment. Probably gave them a good laugh at your expense.

Anyway, where's my nickel, or are you a liar? What a hoot

With that, you are...
Pwned

----------
From: Paul
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:41 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins

What, couldn't let all of my comments through so your readers could "judge for themselves?" But now they're "judging" without "reading everything," something you staunchly forbid. Should you give them all the info before they judge, just like you wanted Taylor &c. to do?

With that, this is...
Too Easy


----------
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:39 AM
To: Paul

Unfortunately, "Frank" you didn't earn a shiny new nickel. Not even close. And, speaking of "liars" I think it's you who ought to fess up on that one. Talk about moral irony! You come to my site to make me out the 'hypocrite' because I hate Calvinists and was just bent on getting Justin, et al. But you do so incognito and even flat out lied when I asked you to reveal yourself and to note my commenting policies. So, you attempt to bait me with your "one" question, all along knowing what you were there to do. And, to top it off, you were dishonest about it.

Yessirreee. You really got me where you want me, I'd say. What a double Georgia hoot, guy! Youz crackin me up~!

----------
From: Paul
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:29 AM
To: Peter Lumpkins


Yeah, but who's acting like the 5 yr old and harrassing like a school girl?

Where's my nickel?

Know your limits.

----------
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM
To: Paul

Rather harass like a school chick than flat out lie for no substantial reason. I mean, you weren't exactly facing the Gestapo as Corrie when she lied to protect the Jews. And, in order to qualify for a shiny new nickel, you've got to produce the goods. You did not and, apparently, cannot.


----------
From: Paul
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins

You're such a goon. Frank Rizzo is one of the characters in The Jerky Boys. I though you were culturally savy anough to catch the reference; indeed, I even called you "sizzle chest" (his signature line) and told you I had several recordings out.

I produced the goods via a valid (and sound) three step argument.

Now run along, you're bugging me.

----------
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:36 PM
To: Paul

you lied

goodbye

----------

From: Paul
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins


oh yawn.

anyway, makes it convenient to not have to deal with the arguments.

sarcasm, satire, and parady are not lies. If I had said I was Brad Pitt, would you be playing the goodie goodie, two shoes too? No. Why? Because it's obvious. Likewise, Frank Rizzo, Not my fault you're a sheltered and fragile flower who didn't get the reference.

Run along, you're losing the debate again.

----------

From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:37 PM
To: Paul

Please. Such sheer rationalization is nonsense, "Paul" and you know it. Whatever satire you do on your site has not a single application on mine. I point blank asked you to go by my commenting policies and you a) was dishonest about it b) continued to ignore the commenting policies. It's guys doing what you did which ruin the blogging experience. You somehow think *you* do not have to play by other's rules when you're on their turf. Simply put, you, "Paul" are both dishonest and a coward. You would not come and straight up ask a question on my site. Instead you had to "hide" and do it. A sort of a literary bushwhacker. And, when your little sheet over your face was about to blow away, you did what cowards do--run for deeper cover--this time through explicit dishonesty. Imagine it--you accusing me of being dishonest about my hatred for Calvinism all the while you were dishonestly hiding behind a lying sheet. You talk about writing a blog whose readership demands intellectual acumen and more sophisticated theology and philosophy. Give me a break. Here's one--how about a blog where you own up to who you are and stand behind your words. It's called integrity, "Paul" or whoever the heck you are.

Now. I am done. I'd appreciate it if you'd go back to your make-believe world where you can you know all the sophisticated theology and philosophy your readership can handle. With good old, Rhett, I say, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a d_ _n!"


----------
From: Paul
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins


Wait, you email me and then act as if I'm harrassing you?

Here's a hint: get a life.

Maybe people wouldn't come to your site and engage in those kinds of tactics if you weren't such a pompous, self-important, overbearing, proud, arrogant jerk.

You also have not once engaged the arguments I've given you, not even the arguments undermining your charge of lying.

I also didn't run for deeper cover you didn't post my comments with the link to my blog so your readers really could "judge" for themselves. You tried to make it look like you had the last word and there was no response to your most awesome objections.

Look, you got schooled and it seems all of this outrageous and infantile behavior on your end is because your fragile ego can't take the pwneage.

Does your mom still know you're up?

---------------


From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM
To: Paul

When one is caught lying, the honorable thing to do is admit it. Cowards routinely rise up in anger...kinda like you did, jackass. Now, don't bother Emailing me again because I just flagged your email on Google as spam.

Oh, btw, I do have a life. But know I ain't wasting another moment exchanging with a hotheaded bean-brain (not to mention a cowardly liar).

Now, go back and play your I'm-a-real-intellectual-blogger pretend game. And, when you think of me, recall Rhett's words I left for you...
Tak (więc) długi (długo), nieuczciwy człowiek i lepszy wy

---------------

From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:32 PM
To: Paul

Dear "Frank" "Paul" and/or "Hiteish Ghupta"

So, what are you a stalker or something? Are you really that desperate for attention that you must continue harassing me like this? Does your readership know what a high-ranking Internet skank you are? Oh, but they don't. You sound so smart and learned on your blog. And, when unsuspecting people ask for a recommendation for a book, you sound so well read. Ah, but behind your sheet, what we have is a puny little gnat, buzzing around the Internet in disguise annoying people.

Here's the deal, Jack: Get lost. I wouldn't give you the time of day now for any thing serious because you're too darn creepy. You deny you don't lie, but then log onto my site and yet once again, lie through your sheet---
"I tried to weight the merits of the discussion between "Frank" and Peter and then I found this site, which would seem to favor Frank Rizzo as the winner."

Well liar. You know what the Apocalypse says: all liars burn in the Lake of Fire. I wish you'd remember that before you slobber down your chin with another one.

Oh brother. Talking about a mistake letting you on. You are why I have moderation. And the only reason--Internet tirds like yourself not knowing when to quit....

Now for the last time--and YELLING--I HAVE NO INTEREST IN EXCHANGING WITH YOU! NONE! PERIOD! GET LOST, CREEP!

*********************

Sorry, forgot to mention that Lumpkins' emails demand a R-rated warning too---though I confess to not knowing what a "tird" is. Also notice that he first emailed me. He then ends by demanding I quit harrassing him, as if I emailed him. Anyway, it would appear Lumpkins needs to deal with his own internal problems and demons rather than busying himself about James White, Justin Taylor, Peter Pike, etc. He wants to question White's credibility? Perhaps people should begin to question his.

Arminian Sensibilities

At A.M. Mallett's place, here's what his his combox looks like:

Paul Manata said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

June 14, 2010 7:55 AM

A.M. Mallett said...

Mr. Manata, the Triabloke Cartoon Network does not meet our community standards of decency to allow your post to remain on this board.

June 14, 2010 8:04 AM

Paul Manata said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

June 14, 2010 9:27 AM

A.M. Mallett said...

Mr. Manata, you did not understand. The Triabloke Cartoon Network does not meet our community standards of decency to allow your post to remain on this board.

June 14, 2010 1:24 PM

Now, this gives the impression that I said mean and unloving things. That I made untoward comments of some kind. However, that would be far from the truth. I will now paste what I originally wrote and let the reader draw their own conclusions about the self-professed love and Christian charity expressed by Arminian epologists, Mallett being one example:

Paul Manata said...

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/06/rocks-for-brains-arminian.html

June 14, 2010 7:55 AM

A.M. Mallett said...

Mr. Manata, the Triabloke Cartoon Network does not meet our community standards of decency to allow your post to remain on this board.

June 14, 2010 8:04 AM

Paul Manata said...

I simply posted a link to my response so thinking people could get both sides. Deleting my post and saying what you said gives the impression that I made an untoward comment.

June 14, 2010 9:27 AM

A.M. Mallett said...

Mr. Manata, you did not understand. The Triabloke Cartoon Network does not meet our community standards of decency to allow your post to remain on this board.

June 14, 2010 1:24 PM

This is but one example of the alleged Arminian's superior Christian fruit vis-a-vis the Calvinist. This is an example of what Calvinists deal with all the time. Self-serving, self-justifying, self-excepting, sola-inter-group-loving, mean and angry favoritists.

It is also interesting that Arminian epologists are not coming down on Mallett but are excusing and approving of his behavior. I recall these same epologists demanding that Triabloggers rebuke Steve Hays. However, they refuse to do what they ask of others. Their debate tactics have to be shown for what they are: Arminian epologists have, by and large, co-opted the debate tactics of the political left.

It should also be understood that Mallett is trying to protect his image by allowing only one side of the story to get out. In reality, he critiqued a post of mine and called it foolish. When it came to his attention that fellow Arminians in fact did argue in the way he called foolish, he had to backtrack. He then endorsed the interpretation he called foolish, putting my critique of interpretation back on the table as an undefeated-defeater.