Scandal Seven Sure Statements for Steadily Spinning Scandals February 3, 2014 Darrell 196 Comments Ah, John. You never disappoint.
196 thoughts on “Seven Sure Statements for Steadily Spinning Scandals”
As a respite from the IFB inanity I submit an alternative Dr. John…
Yep, perpetual victims of the forces of evil. Any consequence for abuses and wrongdoings on their part is to be perceived as persecution from a godless world.
IF I am not mistaken – Johnny boy wrote this in DEFENSE of camera wielding Greg Neal of Berean Baptist, Fleming Island, FL.
All this is is a big stink about how some people don’t like fundamentalism and how some people have managed to escape it and call out the hypocrisies.
Looks like people have had fun with his points but have not responded. Therefore
#1. May I point out that murderers, adulterers, harlots, and child abusers have also been “criticized, critiqued, and censored”. What’s your point? It is the TRUTH of the charges that matter (ask your good buddy Greg Neal).
#2. Ah, the Internet; some people’s favorite whipping-boy. Thanks to the Internet, a “pastor” that abuses children in New York cannot just move to Oklahoma, and start a new church. His crimes follow him. If your IFB buddies, Mr Hamblin, were more interested in Holiness that Hero-worship, this wouldn’t be a problem.
#3. Would you care to cite some Scripture? The one that I recall is after Jesus said “No man can come unto me unless the Father draws him”. The Bible says that after that, many people turned back. Jesus turned to the disciples and asked “Will ye also go away?”. Jesus did irritate and annoy many of the religious leaders of His day, people much like Tom Neal and Greg Neal, your good friends.
#4. True, but pointless. Neither does a denial from a “pastor” mean that he is innocent. Think of the cover-ups of Dave Hyles, Matt Jarrell, and Bob Gray (FL). Very similar to your friend Greg Neal.
#5. You mean like “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife?” Bible principles like that? Can you discuss this with your friend Greg Neal?
#6. Let me fix this: A fundamental church that is reaching its community with the gospel, standing without apology for the “old-time” religion, and training the next generation to remain fundamental will see the community not answer the door on “soul-winning” nights, and will drive off their young people.
But really; as long as you defend people like Jack Hyles and Tom & Greg Neal; people who exalt self over Christ, you will never see God’s blessing on your ministry.
#7. I assume you mean this as a threat; that God will kill people who disagree with the pastor. There is no evidence of this being true. Would YOU like your every illness and misfortune be broadcast as proof that you are evil? It is only because the people who point out the truth (whom you mistakenly think of as your enemies) do not do the same to you that you don’t see the error of this.
If you would just admit the truth – that Greg Neal is a pervert, perhaps God would bless you.
Perhaps if you studied and asked the Holy Spirit to teach YOU something instead of spending all that time figuring out how to alliterate YOUR messages, you would be for more blessed.
I think I am discerning a trend in this post… 😉
1. Beware of superlatives and absolutes. As a critical thinker will point out, it takes a lot of research to back such a claim. Now let’s presume for the sake of argument that the claim is true. All this sentence says is that a class of persons exhibit property A. This is like saying “All mammals have a brain”. So, if you know any greatly used Christians, you can be sure they exhibit property A. On the other hand, just as it would be absurd to claim that fish are mammals because they have a brain, it is equally absurd to claim that anyone who exhibits property A is being greatly used by God. If you don’t believe me, just ask Monica Lewinski.
2. An argument consists of at least two sentences: one makes a proposition. The other defends it. Since this point (like, ahem, all the others) consists only of the former, there is no reason for any critical thinker to pay attention to it. At the end of the day it is nothing more than a pronouncement. The usual questions, like “by what metric”, or “by which standard”, or “according to what data set” are all left unanswered – for the very good reason that their isn’t any evidence or data behind this claim. It is sheer make-believe.
3. The grammar is clumsy enough that I may be misunderstanding this, but this is another claim of dubious logical consistency. The essence of the claim is “Substance X exhibits property Y; therefore, anything modeling substance X will exhibit property Y”. This fails the coherency test because it fails to define the scope of property Y and the definition of model. For example, if property Y is inherent to substance X, than any “model” exhibiting property Y might actually be substance X (I say might because their is a missing major premise, which I will leave to my august readers to figure out).
4. Again, very poor grammar. I think he meant that all news stories contain elements of story – namely bias and information prioritization based upon a set of presuppositions. However, the way it is written it actually means that a news story might be entirely fictional. This could be evidence of conspiracy-theory paranoia, but it is more probably evidence of sloppy and undisciplined writing.
5. See the opening to point one. I don’t suppose you would condescend to define Bible principles? Also, this claim just doesn’t stand up to common sense scrutiny. For starters, this claim presumes that obedience is the foundation of loyalty, which is just silly. Moses, Abraham, David – these men were all disobedient to Bible principles (although to be fair, they didn’t know that, since the Bible wasn’t written yet). Did it make them disloyal to those who held Bible principles? Hardly. In fact, David was probably more loyal after being confronted. Furthermore, we can all imagine simple scenarios where this doesn’t hold true. You have two American soldiers in a foxhole. One is a fundamentalist baptist, the other is a heathen, gay, pagan, tree-worshipping, druid. Does one turn on the other and abet Al Qaida? No. So, enough with the silly superlatives. But supposing for the sake of argument that the claim was true (here we go again)…see the rest of point 1.
6. Yawn. See point 2.
7. Once again, class A exhibits property X. Unfortunately for Hamblin’s stunning rhetorical strategy, property X happens to be exhibited by every human ever, since the current survival rate for human beings stands at 0%. So I’m not sure where captain brilliant was going with this one.
Wow, you’re good!
Despite my misuse of the word “their”…
FWIW, fundies most likely believe that Monica Lewinski WAS greatly used by God because she helped tarnish Bill Clinton’s image.
My point was more oblique. Fundy MOgs love to criticize Clinton for his antics with Monica; does she believe this makes him greatly used by God?
“Seven “Sure” Statements!”…is the headline.
#4 “A headline…does not mean that what is covered even remotely resembles the truth.”
Hoist with your own petard Dr. MOG.
“…the artillery of hell…” sounds scary.
Wait. Waitwait. I know this is old news, but I just realized–censored? When has this person’s preaching ever been censored? What is he calling censorship?
Also, anybody who has never been severely critiqued needs a severe critique, now, stat. How do you know you goofed up unless somebody points it out? Unless they have absolutely never made a mistake. I suppose some people like that exist, somewhere. Anyway, if you think of a critique as an attack, you shouldn’t be in a position of authority!
He probably thinks that critiquing his errors ignores his main purpose, which (in his mind) is so important that minor stuff shouldn’t be critiqued.
Criticism =/= censorship.
Downright cultish, methinketh.