Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Hubner's credulity


From Hubner’s latest post:

Steve says in a small post, “Jamin Hubner, with his overdeveloped persecution complex, nurses the notion that I must be attacking his pro-“Palestinian” position because I hate him.” Folks, I honestly have no idea what Steve is talking about – especially since he provides no references or links to my material.

Why do I have to remind Hubner of what he’s said in the past?

Steve Hays at Triablogue doesn’t seem to like me. I don’t know why, and I wish that wasn’t the case. But that’s just the way things are.


Continuing:

Steve Hays has produced a number of recent posts, most or many of which flow from an attitude that can nowhere be praised in God’s word. He has essentially been told this by many close to him…

Who are the “many” who’ve “essentially” told me that?

His latest mockery involves selections from my job history…That’s very unfortunate. Continual (and unrepentant) mockery and condescension of other Christians has done very little to further God’s kingdom.

I’m puzzled by Hubner’s incapacity for self-criticism. The offending post was simply a tu quoque argument. Hubner said:

I realize this is largely a waste of time for many people. Talking about the history of the state of Israel with Zionist Dispensationalists is as useful as talking about the history of the Bible with King James Onlyists...In short, no meaningful discussion will take place over the primary issues because one side is simply incapable of putting emotions, tradition, and knee-jerk reactions aside.

What’s that if not mockery and condescension of other Christians? Since he chose to post that invidious comparison, I responded in kind by comparing Huber to Charles Lee Feinberg. Hubner takes umbrage when someone does that to him, but it doesn’t occur to him that he’s guilty of the same thing. Unfortunately, Hubner isn’t receiving the type of mentoring he needs.

I’m even more confused. He says elsewhere, “For some odd reason, Hubner lacks the moral discernment to draw the correct conclusion from that worse-case scenario. He apparently imagines that if Israel and the “Palestinians” are equally culpable, then they are entitled to equal treatment from the US, or Christian Americans.” How Steve is able to enter my imagination is beyond…my imagination. But perhaps Steve himself is lacking discernment since I have never argued or asserted that present day Palestinians and Israel “are entitled to equal treatment from the US, or Christian Americans.” A thick straw man, indeed, as the rest of his post “Geostrategic morality” depends on it.

What his Hubner’s point if he doesn’t think Dispensational Christians or American foreign policymakers are being unfair to the “Palestinians” by giving Israel preferential treatment?

The rest of Steve’s recent material is…well, usually not his material (those of you who are familiar with Triablogue realize that it has unfortunately become more of a blog index than a blog itself, since well over half the material – well, Steve’s material at least – is nothing but links to other websites. An occasional link to other people’s material is something we all do as bloggers because it can be helpful, but in the case of Triablogue, it’s become rather exhausting and an incentive to do just that: read other things.

Well, that’s pretty egotistical on his part. What’s wrong with directing readers to good material by other writers? Moreover, no one is forcing the reader to follow the link.

The more substantive content of Steve’s blog posts are sometimes just hard to follow. His post “The Protocols of Anti-Zionism” has me scratching my head. I honestly have no idea why he quoted from the PLO and its recognition of Israel’s right to exist and then quoted from a website that shows Arafat’s ordering of terrorism against Israel, or why any of that is relevant to me or anything I’ve said. I have never suggested that the state of Israel today simply doesn’t “have the right to exist.” Nor has anything been written from my keyboard that suggests that Christian shouldn’t condemn acts of terrorism by Palestinians, or by anyone else. Nor have I invited anyone to a contest to see which side, Israelies or Palestinians committed more terrorism in history. If none of these things are the point of his post, I don’t know what is.

Why does he find that so hard to follow? Hubner said:

Now, as far as I know, I have yet to hear a single Zionist dispensationalist ever acknowledge that that was truly the opinion of any Arab in the Middle-East at any time. Could have Feisal expressed sympathy and kindness towards the Jewish cause any more?

Notice how Hubner unquestioningly accepts this statement as an expression of Feisal's “true” opinion. I illustrated Hubner’s credulity by quoting two prominent Muslims who talk out of both sides of their mouth on terrorism. You’d have to do more than just quote Feisal’s public statements to know what he truly thought of the Jewish cause. Feisal’s public expression of sympathy and kindness towards the Jewish cause doesn’t tell you what he really felt.

This is the language of diplomatic leverage. Foreign dignitaries often say things for public consumption they don’t sincerely believe. What world is Hubner living in?

15 comments:

  1. Jamin Hubner said:

    The rest of Steve’s recent material is...well, usually not his material (those of you who are familiar with Triablogue realize that it has unfortunately become more of a blog index than a blog itself, since well over half the material – well, Steve’s material at least – is nothing but links to other websites. An occasional link to other people’s material is something we all do as bloggers because it can be helpful, but in the case of Triablogue, it’s become rather exhausting and an incentive to do just that: read other things.

    A weblog which many people apparently appreciate since it's one of the most popular weblogs and since it's been around for a very long time is Instapundit. The majority of Instapundit's posts simply provide links to other material.

    ReplyDelete
  2. well over half the material – well, Steve’s material at least – is nothing but links to other websites.

    Unfortunately our brother Jamin is overlooking the massive archives that have been accumulated over many years of serious output from this blog, mostly from Steve, but also from powerful writers like Patrick Chan, Paul Manata, Gene Bridges, Jason Engwer, and Evan May. That is not a very fair thing for him to say. Blogs evolve. People move on. Bloggers with massive and powerfully logical output (like Steve Hays) blow up all their opponents so badly that it's difficult to find worthy interlocutors to engage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve,
    As a true outside third-party to this conflict you and Jamin are having, and as a reader of both your blog and the AOMIN blog, I find your attitude in this affair most unsettling.
    You have chosen to attack other Christians on matters that are tertiary (at best) while ignoring that you agree on all the primary doctrines.
    You have chosen to defend your attacks with hubris, mockery, and what reads to me like disdain. None of these are qualities that Christ would approve of.
    Christians and non-Christians alike read your blog and I wonder if they too are growing a little tired of your pedantic nit-picking concerning Hubner. Remember who you represent.
    I would counsel you to take a few days off from this blog, re-focus your thoughts on Christ and His glory, and then ask yourself if the public battle that you are enggaing in with Hubner (and AOMIN) is giving our Lord proper glory?
    I would also like to see a public apology to AOMIN for your slanderous "Allahu Ackbar & Omega Ministries" title you used in recent past. If you apologized to Dr. White for that, you need to share it with your readers.

    Praying that you repent and knowing Christ and we will forgive you,

    Mel

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mel,

    Just volunteering your partisan opinion has no caché with me. You need to reason with me, not just make oracular pronouncements.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,
    As a true outside third-party to this conflict you and Jamin are having, and as a reader of both your blog and the AOMIN blog, I find Jamin's attitude in this affair puerile and unyielding.
    He has chosen to insult other Christians on matters that are tertiary (at best) while ignoring that you agree on all the primary doctrines.
    You have chosen to defend his attacks with counter-arguments and examples of where Hubner's blinders get the best of him. Both of these are qualities that Christ would approve of, for Christ himself demonstrated the blindness of his opponents to the truth and took the time to speak the truth even when it fell on deaf ears.
    Christians and non-Christians alike read your blog and I wonder if they too are growing a little tired of Hubner's pedantic intransigence concerning Israel. Hubner: Remember who you represent.
    I would counsel him to take a few days off from this blog, re-focus his thoughts on Christ and His glory, and then ask himself if the public battle that he is waging against Israel (and Triablogue) is giving our Lord proper glory?
    Perhaps in return, you would consider apologizing to AOMIN for your "Allahu Ackbar & Omega Ministries" quip used in recent past, if you haven't already, given that the original article was (apparently?) never posted on AOMin but solely on Hubner's own blog.

    Praying for the peace of Jerusalem,

    Jacob

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jamin Hubner said:

    The rest of Steve’s recent material is...well, usually not his material (those of you who are familiar with Triablogue realize that it has unfortunately become more of a blog index than a blog itself, since well over half the material – well, Steve’s material at least – is nothing but links to other websites. An occasional link to other people’s material is something we all do as bloggers because it can be helpful, but in the case of Triablogue, it’s become rather exhausting and an incentive to do just that: read other things.

    1. I, among other Tbloggers, used to post some links for Steve. But Blogger made it easier for Steve to post the links himself. So if it's true Steve has been posting a lot of links, then that's one good explanation why.

    2. Also, Tim Challies (whom TeamPyro calls "The World's Most Famous Christian Blogger"®) posts a daily "A La Carte" which primarily shares links. (At least during the weekdays. Occasionally on the weekends.) For example, here's today's A La Carte. By parity of logic, what Hubner says about Steve above would then likewise have to apply to other Christians like Challies too.

    3. I still post links. I probably post more links to others than I post posts with more self-produced substance. So I guess I'd fall under Hubner's ire as well.

    4. I don't recall saying anything about Hubner over Israel-Palestine. In fact I don't think most the other Tbloggers have weighed in as far as Hubner is concerned. As far as I'm aware, most of us simply haven't involved ourselves with Hubner. At least not until now. But I wonder if Hubner isn't trying to somehow involve us when he insinuates such things about Triablogue.

    5. I think Christians are at heart givers and sharers (e.g. Acts 20:35). So I'd think it'd be a good thing for Christians to share links of interest with others, to direct traffic to other commendable sites, to notify people of good things to read elsewhere, etc.

    But Hubner makes it seem like there's something wrong with posting and sharing good links. If this is true, then I would tend to think this sort of attitude is contrary to what a Christian ought to cultivate.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Frankly the more output I read by Jamin in response to criticism the less intelligent he appears.

    He now strikes me as one of those guys that paints himself in the best possible light by polishing and re-polishing his material for public consumption, but when his forgone conclusions are challenged, and there's strong pushback that he can't blithely ignore he comes apart at the seams and melts into a self-pity puddle.

    Sad.

    The boy needs to grow up more than a bit, methinks.

    TF's latest rejoinder only served to confirm my opinion.

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jamin, in my view, needs to take a cold shower and cool off.

    One example of why I suggest this comes from his remarks cited in here taken from his blog,

    "...The rest of Steve’s recent material is...well, usually not his material (those of you who are familiar with Triablogue realize that it has unfortunately become more of a blog index than a blog itself, since well over half the material – well, Steve’s material at least – is nothing but links to other websites.".

    When I read that and then read these verses, following, I tend to conclude that there really isn't any new ground being covered; and, the Wisdom of the ages still rings supreme as True?

    2Co 10:9 I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters.
    2Co 10:10 For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account."
    2Co 10:11 Let such a person understand that what we say by letter when absent, we do when present.
    2Co 10:12 Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.
    2Co 10:13 But we will not boast beyond limits, but will boast only with regard to the area of influence God assigned to us, to reach even to you.


    Two obvious realities to note from those verses, are, one, it is unwise to make that sort of a comparison about Steve as Jamin does, and, two, I don't see any overreaching here by Steve and his influences beyond what God has assigned him and the Triablogguers who contribute in here with him?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You see this is why more and more you are posting in an echo chamber.
    You have such a beam in your eye, that you can't even remember what it feels like to see clearly.
    My opinion, after reading your unrelenting diatribes, is that you are enamored with your own intelligence.
    You don't sound the slightest bit humbled or repentant at the charges of sin leveled against you. If anything, you sound as if you have bowed out your chest and done your best to sound condescending.
    We all sin and are by no means perfect. But someone such as yourself ought to pay particular and close attention against sounding arrogant and condescending. You will only drive people away with such attitudes.
    I realize that I am no one to you and that I offer no "logical arguments" for you to heed my post. I simply appeal to your conscience and the Holy Spirit living inside you.
    Ask yourself, "Has my blogging behavior in the last few weeks given glory to the Lord Jesus Christ?"
    Remember what I said earlier that you chose to ignore which I will restate here:
    1) Jamin is your brother in Christ. He is trying to honor God in much the same way you are. Of that you should be glad.
    2) Offer criticism in a loving way as if to your child or loved one.
    3) Apologize to your brother in Christ, James White, for the slanderous accusation that you implied in your previous post.

    Your brother in Christ,
    Mel

    p.s. The word is cachet, not cache'

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mel,

    You seem to think you have the anointing. That it's sufficient for you to declare your disapproval, demand a public apology on behalf of your mascot, and the current object of your anointed disapproval is supposed to repent in sackcloth and ashes. I'm not sure where you acquired such a lofty sense of your spiritual insight, but you need to clip your angel wings, come back down to earth where the rest of us live, and appeal to reason rather than your gnostic intuition.

    I'm also not impressed by partisan commenters who are oblivious to their party spirits.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You might be right, but since I don't like how you said it, I demand you repent!

    Mel's post comes across just as critical, condescending, and judgmental as he accuses you of being. How ironic.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm sure few doubt that you wield the sledgehammer effectively, Steve.

    With regard to this Hubner dustup, at least one person (me), however, hopes you'll soon trade it for a hammer and chisel.

    (My partisanship meter lists Hayesward on this particular issue.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1. On the one hand, Mel says stuff like:

    * "Offer criticism in a loving way as if to your child or loved one."

    * "someone such as yourself ought to pay particular and close attention against sounding arrogant and condescending. You will only drive people away with such attitudes."

    2. But on the other hand, here's what Mel says about Steve:

    * "you are posting in an echo chamber"

    * "you can't even remember what it feels like to see clearly"

    * "your unrelenting diatribes"

    * "you are enamored with your own intelligence"

    * "you sound as if you have bowed out your chest and done your best to sound condescending"

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1. BTW, what can Steve (or anyone really) do when someone responds to his request for reason with the following: "I offer no 'logical arguments' for you to heed my post."

    2. Mel said: "I offer no 'logical arguments' for you to heed my post. I simply appeal to your conscience and the Holy Spirit living inside you."

    But it's not part of the Bible or Biblical worldview to appeal to one's conscience or one's sense of the Holy Spirit while simultaneously foregoing "logical arguments."

    Rather God gave us minds in order to think and reason (among other things). To dispense with "logical arguments" and at the same time put one's entire weight on persuading through "conscience and the Holy Spirit living inside you" alone is not Biblical Christianity. Instead it seems to me it's closer to the Quakers' idea of the inner light or something along those lines.

    Besides God himself reasons with us. Perhaps one of the most well-known verses in support of this is Isa 1:18: "Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD."

    So if Mel thinks Steve sinned against Jamin, then Mel needs to reason it out with Steve. Why does he think Steve sinned? On what basis? Mel should appeal to Scripture, biblical ethics, etc.

    ReplyDelete