Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Caner's guard dogs

I haven't posted a lot on the Caner affair. There are more important things in life. However, while reading a post at TFan's blog last night, I got drawn into an exchange with one of Caner's guard dogs. One wonders why some folks are so personally and emotionally invested in this man. Why they defend him at all costs. It's like a homosexual lover who flies into a rage whenever somebody slights his boyfriend.

steve said...
Tim G said...

"Are you saying that misspeaking is lying? If the intent was NOT to give false information and yet the information was false - it is lying or misspeaking."

There are things that a man can misstate, and things that he can't–especially when we're dealing, not with an isolated utterance, but a pattern.

Unless Caner is suffering from senile dementia, he can't repeatedly misstate where he was born, where he grew up, whether or not he trained to be a suicide bomber, &c.

Ironically, you're using a dishonest argument to defend a dishonest man.

"The problem in this scenario as you present it is that you have already determined the intent as if you knew and do know the heart. That is a huge issue in my book."

How is that a "huge issue"? By that standard, we could never convict a defiant defendant of a crime. As long as the accused pleaded innocent, we couldn't conclude that he was lying, despite compelling evidence to the contrary, unless we could read his mind.

Likewise, by your standard, it would be okay to let your cub scouts go camping with a Scout Leader who's a convicted pedophile, for as long as he denies the charge, it would be wrong to assume he's lying about his past.

The fact that you and others go to such lengths to defend Caner illustrates the fact that, for better or worse, fans and followers often take after their leaders or idols.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 2:41:00 AM
steve said...
Tim G said...

"He did not enhance his resume. He did not create anything that was not there."

In a fallen world, there's a symbiotic relationship between deceivers and self-deceivers. Tim graphically illustrates the Biblical truth that some men have an insatiable appetite for self-deception. They are what makes false teachers possible.

The fact that Tim calls himself a pastor and "church strategist" is a disgrace.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 2:46:00 AM

steve said...
Tim G said...

"For one to so do is to bear false witness."

By your standard, the allegation of perjury is self-refuting. By your standard, you can't rightly accuse someone of perjury unless you can read his mind. For he can't bear false witness unless he intends to bear false witness, and only God can discern his intentions.

Therefore, you just convicted yourself by your own rules of evidence.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 3:13:00 AM
steve said...
Tim G said...

"Geisler also points out that in the Swedish culture, the place of birth of one's father is considered to be the nationality of the children."

Even if that were true, Caner wasn't addressing Swedes, he was addressing Americans. That's not a cultural assumption in American society. And since Caner is thoroughly acculturated to American society, it would be duplicitous to say something that means one thing to the speaker, but something quite different to the target audience.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 3:17:00 AM

steve said...
Tim G said...

"For one to so do is to bear false witness."

It is pointless for you to quote provisions from the OT penal code when you smother the law code with your unscriptural standard of evidence. By your lights, an OT judge could never convict a defendant, for he could never infer criminal intent. In that event, the OT law code would be unenforceable. A dead letter from the time the ink was dry on the parchment.

People are entitled to a reasonable presumption of innocence, not a blanket presumption of innocence. People can nullify any presumption of innocence by guilty actions.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 3:39:00 AM
steve said...
Tim G said...

"Intent requires a clear thorough plan. None is there."

That's demonstrably false. For instance, a man can intend to commit a crime without having a "clear thorough plan." Many burglars are bunglers. They don't think ahead. They don't have contingency plans. They act on the spur of the moment. Doesn't mean they lack criminal intent.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 3:44:00 AM

steve said...
Tim G said...

"One more thing. I have no emotional tie. I am passionate about people destroying the character of others for the simple reason of some crazy theological agenda."

That seems to be a popular argument among Caner's fanboys. However, that argument obviously cuts both says. If Caner's opponents have a theological agenda, then, by converse logic, his supporters also have a theological agenda. So you discredit yourself in your effort to discredit others.

"I also think that one needs to realize that any preacher in America could be found guilty if all were held to the standard that Caner's critics are holding him to."

Well, you certainly have a low opinion of the Christian ministry. However, that explains a lot, for you're certainly living up to your low expectations.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 5:01:00 AM

steve said...
Tim G said...

"Your refusal to repent and your continued attacks towards me are telling of your arrogance and lack of spiritual guidance. "

In order to defend Caner you just stooped to smearing the entire Christian ministry by dragging everyone down to his level.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 5:10:00 AM


  1. I've had the exact same thoughts rolling around in my head for the past several weeks. I've been tempted to ask those same questions of Peter-'The-babbling-bad-man'-Lumpkins, Tim Rogers, or anyone else who pulls the argument from intent. I guess if their kids read their defenses of Ergun Caner, then this is what will be said the next time they have a dispute.

    Lumpkins: Jimmy, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ground you to your room for the rest of the day for lying to your mother about tracking mud in the house.

    Jimmy: No, Dad! I didn't lie to Mom!

    Lumpkins: Yes, Jimmy, you did. You told Mom that Brian tracked the mud in the house when YOU were the one who did it.

    Jimmy: You still don't know that I lied!

    Lumpkins: Jimmy, I heard you lying to Mom myself. I checked our house's webcam, and I saw you coming in the house with muddy shoes. Brian told me about it just a few minutes ago-

    Jimmy: You can't prove I lied! You don't know that I intended to tell Mom a lie!

    Lumpkins: Listen here, son! You've done this kind of thing for years now. This has to be the ten-thousandth time I've caught you in the act! I heard you myself and I caught you on camera several times this week already!

    Jimmy: It doesn't matter, Dad. You can't prove that I lied! You can't prove that I ever intended to deliberately tell a falsehood, so stop calling me a liar!

    Lumpkins: ...

    Lumpkins: ...

    Lumpkins: ...

    Lumpkins: Fine. I'm sorry for calling you a liar, you deserve better than that. You were baptized in an SBC church after all. Just don't do it again, okay?

    Jimmy: Okay, Dad.

    Lumpkins: Alright.

    Brian: Dad?

    Jimmy: Punches Brian in the head, knocking him to the floor.*

    Brian: Ow! My nose is bleeding!

    Lumpkins: Jimmy! How dare you attack your brother?!

    Jimmy: I didn't attack him! You can't prove that I intended to attack him!

    Lumpkins: Goes crazy and shoots himself in the head.*

    It's pathetic that grown men are determined to act like petulant kids in public.

  2. I have to admit this leaves my head spinning! (the comments section at beggars all) It appears that to ask a direct question is nothing but arrogance and unGodly attacks, but then we are reminded that no one can offer any criticism because we can't know the "intent of someone's heart". Yet we can call individuals and indeed whole groups of people arrogant and in need of repentance, all with a superior air of holiness that certain people are merely the dust being shaken off of feet. (yes brother ever onwards and upwards...) Yet others are merely anonymous cowards who hide. But then when Caner says nothing and is presumably hiding he is merely obeying authority which is something we all could use a healthy dose of. Again it leaves my head merely hurting. And also with a empty sense of sadness.
    Now back to our regularly scheduled programming......

  3. I meant the comments section of TF blog. Again with the slightly dazed spinning head look.

  4. “When a leader sins, doing unintentionally any one of all the things that by the commandments of the Lord his God ought not to be done, and realizes his guilt, or the sin which he has committed is made known to him,"

    or about collateral damage when there is intent in one action but not another:

    "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine."

    Either, with willful intent or without, the Law recognizes that the actions alone, with no need to read one's mind or heart, constitute a sin committed.

    In legal proceedings, it doesn't matter, either. Crimes of basic or of specific intent are still crimes. One does not need to prove intent, one only need to look at the outcomes of the actions.

    In Caner's case we have not only the outcomes, but the means to those outcomes is in evidence. It is like having a dead body with a bullet hole and having the gun that produced it. And beyond, with the recorded messages and printed materials we have what amounts to eyewitness testimony by the perp himself. We do not need motive, or intent, we only need the facts. One of those is the outcome. In that case Caner is a primary beneficiary regardless of intent. It is like the person who by what is otherwise innocent circumstances, because of actions he took, causes the death of a testator with the beneficiary being the perpetrator of the "innocent act." The motive is proven by the outcome, the intent is demonstrated by the "innocent act," which the perp committed knowing what conditions would result. See, not shoveling the snow off the sidewalk when it results in injury is litigable because a rational person knows what the effect of not doing so might be. In our little town it is a crime of potential injury. You see, then, in the world there are reasonable expectations of wisdom and knowledge to live and to do in society. Sadly, that is being demonstrated to not be the case in evangelicalism thank to Canerisms.

    The fact that there is no remorse or plan of remediation and only a vague apology and a light punishment sought by his defense team indicates that there is no sense in which the culpability amounts to any wrong doing. (I like the fact that Scripture calls upon the injured party to set the punishment, not the board of directors.) It indicates that the defendant is incompetent, however. That would not set well with any judge. At this point a judge would demand evidence that the defendant is indeed an idoit. Which may be provable in Caner's case, but under normal circumstances what is presented as character references in his defense in regard to his great achievements would demonstrate intent to decieve the judge if the defense suddenly sought clemency on incompetency claims. He would throw the book at Caner and possibly ring the defense up for contempt.

  5. Steve,

    As was pointed out by one of TF's astute commenters, I too was struck by the fact that "Tim G." was quite adamant that no one but God could see E.C.'s heart motivations, therefore rendering it an impossibility to impute the motivation of "lying" to him [despite the veritable mountain of documented and verifiably factually contradictory claims he has made]; yet Tim was equally adamant that your brief combox statements belied a heart that is "arrogant and lack[ing] in spiritual guidance".

    Simply amazing!

    "It's like a homosexual lover who flies into a rage whenever somebody slights his boyfriend."

    Oh no you di'int!


    In Christ,

  6. Strong Tower,

    That was a well reasoned and cogent example.

    As a corollary to your illustration, let's consider the following hypothetical; say Caner had accidentally run over a child crossing the street while speeding in a school zone on his way to a meeting at LU, would Caner's erstwhile defenders assert under oath in a court of law that the court had no ability or standing to render a judgment in the case because no heart motive could be determined except by God Himself?

    There's such a thing as involuntary manslaughter, where there was no intent to kill, but where there's nevertheless a dead body mangled up under a car that had been carelessly and wrecklessly speeding, causing untold damage and resulting in incalculable and irreversable damage to the lives of those affected.

    God is willing and able to forgive believers of their most heinous and contemptible sins, but contrition and repentence precede that forgiveness, and one must first admit that there is a problem before the problem can be addressed. Ergun Caner and his minions seem desperate to abort the process of repentence and reconciliation in this matter, and while no one has been killed, the truth has certainly been badly maimed and mangled through this sad debacle.

    And though repentence and forgiveness are still not out of the question for E.C. if he will but humble himself, God offers no promise that believers won't suffer the consequences of their sins long after He has forgiven them.

    In Christ,

  7. "...God offers no promise that believers won't suffer the consequences of their sins long after He has forgiven them."

    Indeed. And when we survey the Scriptures we find that even our sins are means by which God disciplines us. We see that God does "scourge" us as his sons.

    Elihus rebuke of Job is fitting:

    In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men, while they slumber on their beds, then he opens the ears of men
    and terrifies them with warnings, that he may turn man aside from his deed and conceal pride from a man; he keeps back his soul from the pit, his life from perishing by the sword. Man is also rebuked with pain on his bed and with continual strife in his bones, so that his life loathes bread, and his appetite the choicest food. His flesh is so wasted away that it cannot be seen, and his bones that were not seen stick out. His soul draws near the pit, and his life to those who bring death. If there be for him an angel, a mediator, one of the thousand, to declare to man what is right for him, and he is merciful to him, and says, ‘Deliver him from going down into the pit; I have found a ransom; let his flesh become fresh with youth; let him return to the days of his youthful vigor’; then man prays to God, and he accepts him; he sees his face with a shout of joy, and he restores to man his righteousness. He sings before men and says: ‘I sinned and perverted what was right, and it was not repaid to me. He has redeemed my soul from going down into the pit,
    and my life shall look upon the light.’ Behold, God does all these things, twice, three times, with a man, to bring back his soul from the pit

    It should not be missed in Job accusing God of injustice, or in the life of David where God sent a deceiving spirit so that David would number the people, that God guides the events of all mens lives, especially in the lives of those he has called, in such a way that their sins find them out. It may be before the fact or after, but the punishment, the scourgings are meant as a kindness that brings repentance. We consider then Ergun worthy of our prayers because by the same fiat we work our salvation with fear and trembling because it is God who works in us the willing and doing of his good pleasure. Let's hope that God grants repentance, for that, as it was with Job and David is where we will know that Ergun has seen the face of God.