Petrino Sounds Like Hatfield
Now the papers are talking about how new Razorback coach Rick Petrino is an old option man. He was reading defensive ends in preschool and ran the option in college- for his father no less. While he does say that you can also use option principles in a passing context, most of the print space is devoted to the option that we all know and some love from the Ken Hatfield era. The story even speaks of the success Navy has had competing with more talented schools using that offense. The article mentions the immediate past coach of Navy, but the same facts also fit Air Force when Hatfield led that school to a pretty good string of wins using the option.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Monday, June 16, 2008
45 Comments:
This is good. You sever any thin thread of credibility by reporting a change in the Chairmanship of the Arkansas GOP which could not have occurred on the day of the state executive committee meeting without open dialogue. Then you pull the post entirely without explaination or apology and replace it with your latest theory on Razorback football.
Stick to football.
Go Hogs.
It's funny how Mark Moore likes to ridicule other people's religious beliefs, but is willing to believe ridiculous things about the Arkansas GOP, state politics, etc., even when they are outmoded by facts.
Good recovery Mark. Hope your "sources" regarding football are more reliable than your sources regarding politics which you seem to know little about.
Life on the margins never felt so liberating.
But even the new blog post is wrong. The UofA football coach's first name is Bobby, not Rick. I'm sure Mark was thinking of Rick Pitino, but come on, what a stupid mistake.
RICK Petrino? What a boob.
"It's funny how Mark Moore likes to ridicule other people's religious beliefs..."
It's "funny" how Mark Moore is man enough to put his name to his posts when he personally criticizes someone. Who the heck are you?
Mark qualified what he said, that his sources were questionable and that he wasn't %100 sure. Everything else he posted, IIRC, still applies (e.g., the negative Bush factor in '06, Milligan's disastrous fiscal focus and Bush identity campaign approach, the disappearance of Lagrone).
Having been an AW reader for sometime now, I'll take Mark Moore's opinion over yours anyday.
And, Mark was right in that removed article about the GOP computer being stolen. Other Arkansas news sources, like the Times, reported the same thing two days later. I'd say the overall track record for accuracy on AW beats the other news sources hollow, though- even in the pulled article, more than half of his information was correct.
I am enough of a man to confine my statements to matters that are true. Mark Moore is not. I am enough of a man to avoid ridiculing the doctrines of religious people. Mark Moore is not. I am enough of a man to take responsibility for my mistakes. Mark Moore is not.
Defenses of Mark Moore that rely upon his supposed manhood are a mug's game.
Anonymous said...
"It's funny how Mark Moore likes to ridicule other people's religious beliefs..."
It's "funny" how Mark Moore is man enough to put his name to his posts when he personally criticizes someone. Who the heck are you?
---------------------------
Anybody else see the irony in this statement.
*hint* for you Moore apologists.
look at who posted it
st. lucia,
A non functioning clock is right twice a day. I'd give Mark the same odds.
Let me get this straight: the person who says "more than half of his information was true" was defending Mark Moore? I wonder what qualifies as a criticism!
The person who consistently refuses to listen to criticism, even those who could easily be written off as scoffers with bad intentions,sets themselves up for a fall.
I did pull the story when I realized that my second or third hand source might have been wrong. While I was checking it out, the critics posted the retraction themselves. Newspapers have to print retractions because there is no way for the public to correct them, except for a letter to the editor that might get printed a week or so later. I would have to print retractions too, if I had a bad story that got by without notice.
The critics forcefully noticed and set the record, if not straight, then more correct on the point of who is chairman of the state GOP. They did it right here on this blog, just where I would have done it, sparing me the need.
But the larger issue is "what should AW be"? As I said in the original article, my sources in the state GOP are not what they used to be. Even though AW did correctly break the story about the GOP state HQ being broken into, there was error in the report as well.
I now think that I am no longer connected enough to compete in the "breaking stories" business. It was a mistake to try. From here on out, I think I will focus on analysis, rather than being the one to break new stories.
Mark,
Glad you had an epiphany of purpose. Since you are now in the analysis game, you might want to update your Razorbacks story to at least attempt to be accurate with the coach's name.
Men take responsibility for their mistakes and admit they were in the wrong. Mark Moore does something else: he either eliminates the evidence that he was ever wrong in the first place (as he did most recently) or he just lets his own falsehoods stand (as he has done in numerous weblog posts in the past).
Once again, we'll have to consider the source, Mr. Anonymous. You can sure dish it out when your name's not attached to it.
Pot, this is kettle, you're black.
Um, you won't see me anonymously hurling personal insults against someone who has the guts to post under their real name.
Mark Moore hurls personal insults against people with real names all the time. It speaks poorly of defenders of Mark Moore that they choose not to recognize this, and it speaks poorly of defenders of Mark Moore that they think that criticizing someone for inaccuracy, conspiratorialism, refusal to take responsibility for mistakes, and religious bigotry are just "personal insults." These behaviors are sins that merit criticism.
And if it is wrong for me to criticize the sinfulness of Mark Moore's behavior anonymously, it is wrong for others to criticize me anonymously (albeit on less legitimate grounds, in any case). The Mark Moore apologists can't seem to understand this elementary logical proposition. I guess this says something about the critical facilities of the average Mark Moore apologist; I suppose I could elaborate further if necessary.
...if it is wrong for me to criticize the sinfulness of Mark Moore's behavior anonymously, it is wrong for others to criticize me anonymously...
[In my best caterpillar voice:]
You?
Whooo... Arrre... Yooou?
Mark Moore and his apologist need to learn that the truth or falsity of what A says has nothing to do with who A is.
It looks like Mark has really got everyone stirred up. I haven't seen this many posts in some time.
People make mistakes all the time and this was no exception. I read this site often. I don't always agree with Mark on political issues but he is entitled to his opinion. I can also say I have never read anything Mark has written that was personally attacking someone. Mark admitted he made a mistake with the post so its time to move on.
...what A says has nothing to do with who A is.
Baloney. You don't even believe that, or you wouldn't mind signing your childish insults.
No one here has a problem with critiquing facts, but we can all see you using this opportunity to call into question Mark's character. Since it's a man's character you'd have us judge, let's see who the accuser is.
It is interesting to see that Mark Moore's apologist (12:16), has been reduced to babbling nonsense.
Most people can see that there is something absurd about an anonymous commenter repeatedly demanding another anonymous commenter's identity, but not 12:16.
Most people can see that there is a big difference between criticizing someone else's actions and issuing "childish insults," but not 12:16.
Most people would find it difficult to believe that one can look inside another's mind and know their true intentions ("You don't even believe that"), but not 12:16.
Most people can see the difference between criticizing someone else's actions and questioning someone else's character, but not 12:16.
Most people can see that, in any case, it is perfectly possible to judge a person's character while remaining anonymous. But not 12:16.
12:16, would you care to embarrass yourself further? Maybe you could cram two or three logical fallacies into every sentence, rather than just one.
Or you could just cut the logical fallacies immediately and go ahead and post your own name, since you apparently think you are logically or morally required to do so. Or does your logic exclude you from performance, in the same way that it apparently excludes Mark Moore from the requirements of civilized behavior?
However, I will commend you on one matter, 12:16: you managed to momentarily divert attention away from Mark Moore's religious bigotry, his repeated inaccuracies, and his allergic reaction to taking responsibility for what he posts. Congratulations!
Rick, if you don't think Mark Moore personally attacks people, you must not read this weblog very often. Or very carefully.
Anon, would you care to give me some examples?
I just clicked open the month of May and started reading. Rick, would you say that the late May post in which Mark Moore repeatedly suggests that Beebe is behaving in a dishonest fashion qualifies as a personal attack?
Please, don't egg him on. I'd rather wait for the next article by Mr. Moore.
Anon,
I think the appropriate question is, can we hold elected officials accountable by pointing out dishonesty or deception without it being considered a personal attack? If not then we won't have any political websites or newspapers in the country. Tim Russert wouldn't have had Meet the Press and there wouldn't be a CNN. By using your own logic aren't you doing the same thing you are accusing Mark of doing?
Rick,
My point was, when dealing with a person who has clearly identified himself in a forum like this, you should be willing to use your real name if you're going to get personal (e.g. boob, no credibility, bigot, etc). Otherwise, it's an unfair fight because the stakes aren't the same.
Heck, even a consistent handle is better than one anonymous loudmouth posting a dozen posts berating someone in particular.
Obviously, I like posting anonymously. Some of the best posts on any blog come from anonymous posters. I'd hate to see the privilege abused to where it no longer exists here. Plus, I thought this whole ordeal was overkill- probably someone who has a personal ax to grind taking it out on Mr. Moore in his own forum. Mark's behavior contrasted with the critic above shows who has the class.
Good question Rick. And while we are at it, the poster seems to be upset about some of my religious commentary. I defend orthodox Christianity as true, and therefore oppose as false religious doctrines which contradict it. To worshippers of the High God of Tolerance, this is a mortal sin.
So is everyone now required to accept the validity of any "religious belief", no matter how absurd? Are we now required to "respect" ALL religious beliefs?
Are the beliefs of Osama Bin Laden above rebuke? And if his are not, then where do you draw the line as to when it is no longer OK to criticize religious beliefs, and who gets to draw that line?
We are moving to a situation like Canada has, where pastors are being fined and threatened with imprisonment for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality. What was formerly known as "free speech" has been reclassified as "hate speech".
And that process starts with guys like this poster, who is so wrapped up into whatever has ahold of them that they can't even stand that there is someone out there who dares to say anything different than what they believe. It is not enough for them to simply not listen to it- they must seek it out and cow into silence those who express opinions contrary to their own. Those kind will act to shut you up in the name of "tolerance" and never even have a clue of the contradiction.
Rick, if you think that saying "Mike Beebe is dishonest" is not a personal attack, could you please explain what in my posts is a personal attack? Particularly, is calling someone a bigot a personal attack if calling them dishonest is not one? By your standard I am pretty sure that I have not made any personal attacks at all.
Mark's final comment demonstrates nothing except a serious lack of theological and social sophistication. Of course I never wrote that everyone is required to accept the validity of any religious belief, and no intelligent person would infer that I argued for anything like this. (I guess that leaves out Mark Moore, though.)
However, people who have some elementary degree of intellectual sophistication (again, this leaves out Mark Moore) will recognize that it is very bad manners to ridicule (for example) Mormonism by saying that Mormons believe in irrational things. Mark Moore believes in irrational things too, but since he isn't capable of understanding other people's perspectives, he doesn't understand that it is very bad manners to lampoon irrational religious beliefs generally. He thinks it's OK to ridicule others but objects when others ridicule his parochial views. That is precisely what makes him a bigot.
Since Mark Moore is so very intellectually and socially unsophisticated, he doesn't understand that the disastrous assault on free thought in Canada has its roots in a world view very much like Mark Moore's which privileges some world views and eliminates others from serious consideration. The process of government assault on minority views starts with Mark Moore's outlook, not with mine. Government needs to be neutral between religions, rather than favoring Mark Moore-style ideological bigotry. Mark Moore can't even figure out when we ought to tolerate diverse religions and when we shouldn't. It's not hard, Mark: as long as the religion comports with our obligations under civil law, we should tolerate it.
It is too bad that Mark Moore can't even figure out the difference between shunning and social disfavor (which I support) and censorship and trying to shut people up (which I oppose).
Poor Mark -- he can't even figure out the difference between a criticism of his ideas and an attempt to cow him into silence or shut him up. Mark, here's the bottom line: you live in a country that is in many ways at the pinnacle of Western civilization. Much of our cultural success has something to do with outward tolerance of religious diversity. Maybe you should look into that. But as long as you defend your right to be a bigot, I will defend my right to justifiably ridicule you.
I am enough of a man to avoid ridiculing the doctrines of religious people. Mark Moore is not.
1 Kings 18
25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire." 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. "O Baal, answer us!" they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened." 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
**************************
Matthew 23 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]
15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
**********************
Yes I ridicule false religious beliefs, and I like the company I keep when I do so.
Mark Moore can't even figure out when we ought to tolerate diverse religions and when we shouldn't. It's not hard, Mark: as long as the religion comports with our obligations under civil law, we should tolerate it.
"as long as the religion comports with our obligations under civil law" huh?
OK then I want to find out where you are coming from, here is a provision of Colorado law ......
Section 8. 24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden. No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation... shall publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or tuition or any accommodation, right [marriage], privilege [adoption], advantage, or convenience... on account of... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... [which] is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or solicited."
.........
that means landlords cannot refuse to rent their own property to homosexual couples on the basis that such relationships are a violation of their beliefs. Focus on the Family could not distribute in public literature that says what the Bible says about homosexuality. Owners of hotels would be forced to use it for homosexual "wedding" receptions, and on and on.
It is happening right now.
Do you feel that this law should be sustained or repealed?
Anon,
You continue to call Mark a bigot and I see no evidence of that. A bigot is someone who is intolerant. Is Mark being intolerant by disagreeing with Mormonism or any other theology?
You are coming off as an angry person who likes to throw the bigot term around loosely.
Isn't it only possible to be tolerant of ideas that you DISAGREE? By pointing out those disagreements doesn't make a person a bigot if it did you would also be guilty as charged.
You are violating your own principle of tolerance when you don't tolerate Marks moral views.
I am curious where you are coming from here. It certainly appears you are into Relativism.
Mark, again, all you demonstrate when you ridicule the beliefs of others is that you are a bigot. You haven’t demonstrated that other people’s religious beliefs are, as you say, “false.” You certainly haven’t demonstrated that Mormonism, the belief system you ridicule, is any more or less true than your own. All you have succeeding in doing is assuming what you would have to prove, which is of course a classic logical fallacy. The question of who heads the Arkansas GOP is a question of fact, which can be answered by evidence. That is how we know whether people who are talking about the Arkansas GOP are saying true things or false things. But there is no Court of Religion in which we can determine whose religious beliefs are true or false. Life would be a lot easier if we could go to the library and look up the answer to questions of faith. But we can’t, and so your suggestion that Mormonism is, as such, “false,” is very silly.
In addition to this fallacy, you also commit what I would call the “fallacy of fashionability,” which is that you are in good (fashionable) company when you ridicule the beliefs of others. There is a big problem here logically and theologically, assuming you are attempting to argue that you favor ridiculing the beliefs of others because other people you respect do so as well. What you have done here is move the justification of your beliefs away from God and towards the actions and intrinsic worth of other people. In a word, this is impious. It is very troublesome both on theological and on secular grounds. Furthermore, if you are attempting to convince me of the truth of your beliefs by your extensive references to the Bible, it is a non-starter largely because it is yet another logical fallacy.
Finally, you have asked me what I mean by “our obligations under civil law.” Here, I admit I could have been clearer. (I thought it was obvious from context that I do not mean that everyone in the world has an obligation to obey every law in the world. Because some of them contradict each other, this would be difficult or impossible.) Speaking generally, I understand our obligations under civil law in this context to encompass a structure of tolerance where we do not use force to write sectarianism into law or tolerate its use for similar purposes. You may wish to note that this does not commit me to any kind of tolerance of bin Ladenism, assuming that his beliefs are connected with the use of force in some relevant respect. The germ of this idea is in Locke’s Letter on Toleration, which you could read to learn about this idea if it is unfamiliar to you. I oppose the law that you reference, partially because it is sectarian. Again, we are in much more danger of a Canada-style repressive outcome from people like you who proclaim the wrongness of other faiths than from people like me who regard such discussion as extremely rude and to be avoided.
Rick, I am sorry that you have chosen to avoid responding to my questions. Obviously Mark is being intolerant not by means of his disagreement with other religions, but by his ridicule of them. I am sorry to hear that you think I am coming across as an angry person or a relativist. I do not think either is true. However, I think you are coming across as a person who has opinions about what I write and what Mark writes without having taken the time to read and think about them. Would you care to answer the questions I posed to you now?
Anon,
If Beebe is being dishonest then bringing that to attention isn't a personal attack, its a matter of fact. Are the Democrats yelling "Bush lied" bigots?
I believe that a person can point out differences in religious beliefs without being a bigot. I believe Mark has done that in the past. If I were to say I don't believe in the god of Islam but I do believe in the God of Christianity does that make me a bigot? If I don't believe in what Pentecostals teach, and tell you why, does that make me a bigot? You can't label everyone who disagrees with a particular religion or denomination a bigot, its simply just not the case.
Do you see my point?
As I said before, "Obviously Mark is being intolerant not by means of his disagreement with other religions, but by his ridicule of them." I do not believe that labeling anyone who disagrees with some particular religion or denomination as a bigot is correct or justified. Please note this post and the discussion it created.
http://arkansaswatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/eight-minute-cartoon-banned-by-mormon.html
It is perfectly possible to discuss differences of religious opinion and interpretation in a polite, civilized, and tolerant way. Mark Moore crosses the line on a routine basis.
I see your point about personal attacks. I also see that you never answered my question about whether I have made personal attacks against Mark Moore in this thread.
Anon,
By your definition yes.
I guess where I am confused is how exactly do you discuss differences in religion in a tolerant way? If I point out that the god of Islam is different than the God of the Bible am I being intolerant? If I say, as I believe, you can't worship the God of Islam and go to heaven, is that intolerant?
Yes, everyone who wants to know the background read the thread that he posted....
http://arkansaswatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/eight-minute-cartoon-banned-by-mormon.html
Obviously the same perp, and the same tactics: call people ugly names while at the same time effecting a great show of being the civilized and intellectual one.
I like to be polite too, but not at the expense of truth. I am not going to refrain from making offensive remarks about table manners at a gathering of cannibals. Civilization, Christiandom, is too precious and in too much danger to make fear of offending the barbarians at the gates a higher priority than knocking them off the gates as they climb in.
It has been said "if you are not prepared to fight for civilization, then be prepared to submit to barbarism". If we are too genteel to confront false theology forcefully, then the consequences are almost too terrible to contemplate.
There are many ways to confront false theology. Ridicule is one of them that is Bible-approved when the belief system really is so patently false and silly that attempting a serious intellectual critique of its problems just lends it more credibility than it deserves.
His claim that Mormonism and orthodox Christianity are both equally absurd in their claims is false, and on the thread he himself presented, you will see that he does not even try to defend that claim when pressed. Instead, he just increases the intensity of name-calling.
What incredible claims do I accept with as little evidence as the Mormons gold tablet evidence? What claim of orthodox Christianity is so little supported as that of Smith and his translations of ancient Egyptian documents in "The Pearl of Great Price".
I maintain that there is more evidence for the existence of God than there is for the claim that we can all be Gods.
My faith claims are better than Joseph Smith's because the evidence for them is better, not simply the result of bigotry.
PS- Rick, you are too kind to respond to his specific question on demand. Note that he never responded to my specific question on religion and "civil obligations" as it applies to the Colorado law.
Mark, the only thing you have succeeded in establishing here is that you are a poor reader and poor theologian.
I answered your question about the Colorado law. Of course, you have so little ability to read that you skipped right over the answer.
You also, hilariously, don't understand what faith is. Read Hebrews 11. Think about what it means. Faith is not based on material or physical evidence. Your suggestion that we are supposed to weigh faith claims based on evidence is literally senseless. You apparently didn't understand my remark that we have no Court of Religion. As far as I can tell, you don't understand why we don't have one.
It is remarkable the way you keep on displaying bigotry and theological ignorance. I suspect you have never given much thought to how religious differences should be resolved in a free society. Think about that for five minutes and then get back to us.
Rick, if you want to answer my question, feel free to do so. For the third time, you never answered my question about whether I have made personal attacks against Mark Moore in this thread. Please do not answer "by your definition, yes" because this answer is senseless. I didn't give you a definition, and furthermore the reason I ask you is that I would like you to use your own definition.
You answered the question about the Colorado law? How? With this....I oppose the law that you reference, partially because it is sectarian???
Please explain how the law I cited in my post of 8:19 on June 18th is "sectarian". To the contrary, it strips away the right of conscience from all sects, Christian, Muslim, and even LDS. It makes the government the final arbiter of who you can rent your property to or do business with.
You also, hilariously, don't understand what faith is. Read Hebrews 11. Think about what it means. Faith is not based on material or physical evidence. Your suggestion that we are supposed to weigh faith claims based on evidence is literally senseless.
I disagree. That is not what Hebrews 11 teaches. By faith we are assured of things not seen, but that does not mean we have no REASON for our assurance. Men of old who saw and heard the testimony of others of God's faithfulness, and even had their own relationship with God, trusted on that evidence to believe in God, even when the immediate circumstances they were in might indicate that God did not exist.
If the Word of the Lord said that He would gather up the children of Israel into their own nation again, they believed it. For two thousand years it looked like there was no way it would come to pass- unless you knew who God was. That last part is relationship-based, so it is a gift from God, but that does not conflict with it being evidentiary, for most who have it, what they know from the relationship is the biggest part of the evidence.
On a microscopic level, it would be like "I have known old Joe for a lot of years, and it may not look like his company is going to pull through, but I believe he will find a way to beat the odds". Faith is about trust, and there is a reason for trust. It is not blind, it just puts what evidence it sees in the object of trust above what evidence it sees in the circumstances opposing it.
Yes, I think I know what Faith is.
Here are a couple of scriptures that support the idea of faith being based on evidence, even though you don't seem to think much of using scripture to support beliefs (if you are attempting to convince me of the truth of your beliefs by your extensive references to the Bible, it is a non-starter largely because it is yet another logical fallacy)...
Acts 1:3"After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."
John 14 v9+ Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves"
Romans Chapter 1....
"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
Yes, I think I know what faith is.
****************************
assuming you are attempting to argue that you favor ridiculing the beliefs of others because other people you respect do so as well. What you have done here is move the justification of your beliefs away from God and towards the actions and intrinsic worth of other people. In a word, this is impious. It is very troublesome both on theological and on secular grounds.
When one of those people is Jesus Christ, the Pattern Son, God in the Flesh, Creator of all things that have been created, then there is intrinsic worth in the person. Of course, a Mormon may not see Christ that way, but that is a different argument. And what do you mean by "people YOU respect". Don't you also respect Jesus Christ and the Prophets?
It is remarkable the way you keep on displaying bigotry and theological ignorance. I suspect you have never given much thought to how religious differences should be resolved in a free society.
And it is remarkable how you think repeatedly calling someone bigoted and ignorant, along with vague fancy-sounding babble, is a substitute for logic and reason.
we are in much more danger of a Canada-style repressive outcome from people like you who proclaim the wrongness of other faiths than from people like me who regard such discussion as extremely rude and to be avoided.
The idea that you shy away from being rude is laughable. And to the contrary. It is people like you who attempt to cow people who stand up for absolute truth into silence that risk bringing Canada-style tyranny on us.
The folks in Canada who are silencing the churches are radical secularists, not Bible-believing Christians of any stripe. You paint the victims as the ones doing the oppressing! Your position is 180 out from reality. It is PC that is killing us, not people willing to stand up for Biblical truth.
And you obviously have no idea what I think about how religious differences should be resolved in a free society. You act like I want to pass a law saying everybody has to love Jesus and go to (an approved) church on Sunday. In reality, all the pressure is coming from radical secularists for Christians and those of other faiths like Mormonism, to conform under penalty of law.
I have a perfect right to ridicule anyone I think is ridiculous, especially if their falsehoods are hurting people, and you DON'T have a right to not be offended. Jesus offended a lot of people when He told the truth. They did not crucify Him because He was too polite.
Nor did they crucify Him because He couldn't back up His claims with evidence. He had the evidence, they were trying to suppress it.
I have made a personal decision, based on my beliefs of what the Bible teaches and what I know about human nature, that I don't want as a President a person who wants to be God. Mormon belief teaches that if you are good enough you can be like God. Ergo, I don't want to vote for a Mormon as president. I don't want to write it in the Constitution that a Mormon can't be president, I just want to be free to act on my beliefs and share them with others. If that keeps a Mormon out of the White House it is because they have not made their case to the population and addressed those concerns, not because we are using the force of law to bar Mormons from high office.
1. If you are really curious about what the word ‘sectarian’ means, you might consider using a dictionary. American Heritage says one meaning is “narrow-minded; parochial; characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.” It is too bad you are so unfamiliar with the word that you apparently think it means the “contrary” of its definition.
2. You can explain at whatever length you want that you understand what faith is. But when you admit that it is not solely based on evidence, you have conceded the argument. When you say “it just puts what evidence it sees in the object of trust above what evidence it sees in the circumstances opposing it,” you fatally undercut your own argument above that we are supposed to weigh faith claims on the basis of evidence. This is clearly an issue you simply haven’t bothered to think about in any serious way.
3. You then, once again, demonstrate that you just don’t bother to read what other people say. Of course I never said or implied that I shy away from being rude. I think people should be rude to ignorant bigots who ridicule the religion of others.
4. Then you demonstrate, again, that you haven’t even thought about the basic issues of political philosophy in a diverse society that the Canada and Colorado issues present. The threat to civil society is not posed by secularism or religion. It is perfectly possible to have a healthy society with both secular and religious elements. The threat to civil society is posed to people like you, who think they have a lock on “absolute truth.” You are no different from the Coloradans and the Canadians in this respect. They think they have a lock on absolute truth as well. Your diagnosis is: “It is PC that is killing us, not people willing to stand up for Biblical truth.” Dead wrong. What is killing us is people who hate and fear diversity and difference in a free society, and bigots like you who unembarrassedly circulate religious hatred rather than tolerantly coexist with others. You are much more like the Canadians and Coloradans than you understand, and I am honored to be 180 degrees different from you in this respect.
5. “You obviously have no idea what I think about how religious differences should be resolved in a free society.” Well, I have some idea: you think other religions should be ridiculed, you think cartoons containing religious hatred should be circulated, and you think you should proclaim that you have a lock on absolute truth. A most unpromising start!
6. Mark, I agree that you have a perfect right to be as hateful as you want. You have a perfect right to head out to California and set up a pornographic film production house and recruit your entire family as porn stars. Maybe someday you’ll learn that assertion of rights does not preclude doing wrong – in your case, being hateful, obnoxious, and bigoted. People who have given some thought to how a free, healthy, diverse society works do not always fall back on their absolute rights to provide justification for their actions. The Coloradans and the Canadians who try to rule others and make decisions that are properly left to the individual demonstrate how unfit they are to exercise any kind of political power. With your propagation of religious hatred and your plea that you have a lock on “absolute truth,” you accomplish precisely the same objective.
P.S. I doubt there is any intelligent person alive who would honestly look at my posts and call them "vague, fancy-sounding babble." In fact, I think you find what I write objectionable because it is, to you, painfully plain and clear.
When you say “it just puts what evidence it sees in the object of trust above what evidence it sees in the circumstances opposing it,” you fatally undercut your own argument above that we are supposed to weigh faith claims on the basis of evidence.
No. No it doesn't. If I have known Fred Jones to be an honest man all his life and Fred Jones says he did not steal my coffee from the utility closet, then I believe Fred Jones, even if he is the only one with a key to the closet. The evidence from his life outweighs the circumstances that I see indicating his in guilty. That is weighing faith claims on evidence, and what you know of a Person is evidence.
At any rate, I am content to let the readers, if there are any left, decide who has a better understanding of what faith is.
The threat to civil society is posed to people like you, who think they have a lock on “absolute truth.” You are no different from the Coloradans and the Canadians in this respect. They think they have a lock on absolute truth as well.
No they don't. They only absolute they believe in (speaking of secularists generally) is that there is no absolute truth. They don't believe in absolute truth. Like you, they would put it in quotes. They believe that the truth is relative, and that religion is OK as long as it doesn't have any moral content and you don't really believe it.
To the high priests of tolerance, the only thing that is wrong is telling someone else that they are wrong. It is the same attitude you have displayed here.
Furthermore, since I don't propose to make a law against spreading Mormon doctrine, my methods are the opposite of theirs as well. I don't want a law banning it, I just want to be free to tell people how bad it really is. I don't propose using the state to silence speech I disagree with. Your accusation that I am like the radical secularists who wish to use the state to silence dissent has no basis in fact.
You are not even defending the Mormon faith per se. All you are trying to do is heap so much uglyness and mud that people will be turned off and not even examine the content of this thread. For instance you never addressed my specific claims about Mormon doctrine and being like God, nor any of my other claims about the quality of the evidence. You just try to make the issue the fact that I dare to use my right to be critical of baloney.
What good is a right if it can't be exercised without blog vandals coming and smearing graffiti all over the thread?
This is what makes you evil. That you will not contend for any truth yourself, yet you condemn those who do.
If you were a Mormon and the issue of this thread was whether or not the claims of the Mormon faith deserved, on the strength of the facts for them, to be ridiculed, then I could bear your insolence. If you could show that the quality of evidence for those claims was strong enough that they deserved to be taken more seriously, then your arrogant drivel could be endured. Instead your position is that I am a bad guy because I really believe I know something, and that I insist that a specific something which contradicts with what I know is baloney.
Once one cuts through the verbosity, you are not challenging me on the basis that there is credible evidence to show that what I ridicule is in fact, not ridiculous. Instead, you object on the basis that nothing should be ridiculed, except ridicule!
You don't like it when I call something baloney, even when I am talking about a baloney sandwich!
Maybe before you spend a week posting here telling me what a bad guy I am for calling something BALONEY, you should first show that what I am talking about is not, in fact, baloney. But then, that would get into all of that "evidence" stuff which you seem to have such a disdain for vis-a-vi matters of faith. It would also get into what is true and right, and maybe even scriptural. You don't seem to like going there either.
With your propagation of religious hatred and your plea that you have a lock on “absolute truth,”
Though there is much that I do not know, there are some things regarding the knowledge of God that I believe I do know. That seems to bother you. Tough bananas. I want to know God better and want others too as well. Such knowledge can never advance in an environment where people are cowed out of making specific truth claims about God and His nature. Even the faith chapter, which you sort of referenced, says that to please God you have to believe at least two specific things about Him 1) He is, and 2) He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
OK, so in the course of seeking Him, I learned a few other things about who He is and who He is not. I am not, as the Canadians are, seeking to make the expression of opinions contrary to my own a violation of law, but the Bible teaches that in order to please God I must believe, really believe, specific things about Him.
As far as the "hatred" goes, I do hate false doctrines, though again I don't believe in using the coercive power of the state to silence their expression. Proverbs teaches that part of the reverent fear of the Lord is the hatred of evil.
Every passionate person hates something, those who love the Truth hate lies, those who love lies, hate the Truth.
People who have given some thought to how a free, healthy, diverse society works do not always fall back on their absolute rights to provide justification for their actions.
They do when the exercise of those rights is being challenged by the PC police such as yourself. At any rate, I am not merely falling back on my rights to free speech. I am saying that the things I claim with that speech are true and correct. Rather than challenge me on those points, your position is that because what I am saying when exercising my rights offends others then I should not say it, regardless of the truth or falsity of my claims.
I refuse your demands. If you want to debate the evidence that some claim of Mormonism that I find ridiculous is in fact credible, then let's get at it. Otherwise, buzz off. Your efforts to just throw so much manure in the debate hall that the audience will leave on account of the odor are growing tiresome.
For what it is worth, Mark, I agree and support the description/definition of "faith" that you explained. I think it is the correct one. What secularists and other anti-Christians fear most is that Christians will retake the historic position of an intellectual and rational faith. It is far easier to oppress, ridicule, and marginalize those whose beliefs are without a foundation.
The crowd that says "The Bible says it, I believe it, enough said!" certainly sound pious enough, but they have failed to realize the full Biblical imperative of the Greatest Commandment! That is: to worship God with all our MINDS. Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27
Christians are called to defend the truth by appealing to reason and evidence (Acts 26:25; 1 Peter 3:15). Acts 1:3, for example, says Jesus "gave many convincing proofs" as evidence for His resurrection. In Acts 26:25-26, after the Apostle Paul gives his testimony and outlines the gospel message, he is accused of being insane. Paul replies: "What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner."
In Acts 26, Paul uses logic to make his case for Christianity. He appeals to his own experiential testimony (noting how he used to persecute Christians), makes mention of the resurrection of Christ, and implies that many are aware of the events surrounding the gospel of Christ. Logically, Paul believes the Christian message because of the evidence, both experiential (his encounter with Christ) and evidential (the case for the resurrection, for instance, and the testimony of witnesses).
1 Peter 3:15 also appeals to logic: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." The Greek word translated as "answer" is apologia and was used in reference to giving a legal defense. In this passage, Peter calls readers "to give the reason for the hope that you have." Reasons presuppose the validity of reason and logic.
The appeal in Acts 1:3 to "many convincing proofs" again relates to logic because a reasonable appeal is made to the evidence for the resurrection. In other words, Luke, the author of Acts, is not asking for blind faith, but faith founded on logical inferences. The New Testament records that many people saw Christ after his death, that Christ proved he was raised bodily by eating food and by inviting doubting Thomas to touch him (John 21:12-13; Luke 24:38-43). These are all logical appeals to evidence and reason.
Thank you, Mark, for taking a stand on this point.
Deathrow Bodine
Mark, I guess it's too much to assume that you read what you post. The reason I put the term "absolute truth" in quotation marks was because you used it.
You are exactly like the radical secularists in that you obviously haven't given any consideration to how to coexist with people you disagree with. (Hint: religious hatred -- bad idea.) I oppose sectarianism. You obviously favor it as long as your sect is in the majority.
It is hilarious that you think I am like a graffitist or a vandal. Mark, you have set up a website that posts hateful religious cartoons on the Internet. And when others object, you claim it is bad manners! It is very strange to be criticized for my scent by someone who plainly long ago lost his sense of smell.
Then you call me evil because I oppose religious hatred. You are morally inverted. You use the term 'evil.' But you don't understand it.
You have completely failed to understand my argument. Over and over, you attribute arguments and views to me that I have never said and do not believe and that no reasonable person would infer, while refusing to engage wjat I actually post. Instead, you respond with nothing but insults.
You embarrass yourself further and further by missing the main point, which is that you privilege some incredible claims but ridicule others. Your behavior demonstrates nothing but a gigantic lack of intellectual integrity. If you want to cure yourself of this, you might start by explaining why, if I make fun of a baldheaded person, it is correct for God to summon several bears to maul or kill me and 40 of my friends. Maybe if you give a little thought to this exercise you will see how pointless and ugly it is for you to ridicule other people for beliefs that are difficult to rationally justify.
Post a Comment
<< Home