NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/21602

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 5.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bessel.as.utexas.edu!bill
From: [e-mail] (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:30:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin
Lines: 109

Bill Gripp says he is not anti-Semitic, and I accept his statement.
I withdraw all comments I made that imply anything to the contrary,
and apologize to Bill.

I have not altered my position that it is illegitimate to attempt
to discredit someone's argument by appealing to personal characteristics
of that person, whether they be his religion, his beliefs, or whatever.
Neither Bill Gripp nor his defender has addressed that issue.
The fact that Bill was directly responding to Carl does not
alter the fact that his comment was directed towards the veracity
of what Avi said.

Finally, Bill Gripp commented:

#Since you find Avi so convincing, I guess you are the one standing with
#him on his statement that the Dead Sea Scrolls are EXACTLY the same as
#the current Tanakh (which resulted in a rare occasion where skeptics and
#Christians alike could unite in a common cause!).

You guess incorrectly. I did not say I found Avi convincing, only
that he had made reasoned arguments. I specifically intimated that
I might NOT agree with everything Avi said, and in fact there is
much that I do not agree with him on. My only point is that if
you disagree with him, let it be on the basis of reasoned arguments,
and not on the basis of Avi's person.

Bill

-------------------[Article on which I am commenting attached]-------


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Gripp) writes:
#In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William H. Jefferys) writes:
#>#> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Gripp) writes:
#>#> #In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
#
#>#> #>Amazing the contortions some Christians will go through to preserve the myth of
#>#> #>inerrancy, isn't it?
#>#> #
#>#> #It's obvious you haven't been following the "What did Judas betray?" thread.
#>#> #If you had, you'd realize that Avi is Jewish and rabidly anti-Christian.
#>#> .                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#>#>
#>#> This is not only ad-hominem but also anti-semitic.
#>#> This person (Bill Gripp) is close to being chucked
#>#> into my KILL file.
#
#So put me in, see if I care.
#
#
#>#All he's saying is that Avi isn't Christian, and he doesn't fit the
#>#Biblical Inerrancy Supporter Character Profile. If anything, *Carl* is guilty
#>#of a sweeping generalization, not that I care or anything. You are being a
#>#little bit shrill here with the anti-semetism stuff -- perhaps you should
#>#calm down. You must really be focused on finding anti-semites if you can
#>#totally take this person's message out of context so completely.
#
#Glad to see there is somebody out there who can understand English.  =B^)
#
#
#>By fixating on the word anti-semitic you have missed the
#>major point of my post. Here, let me help you out. I'll
#>delete the reference to anti-semitic, leaving everything else:
#
#>See? Avi had written what I thought was a reasoned
#>series of articles. He gave references to support
#>what he said. I may not have agreed with him, but
#>he was making his case in an appropriate way. Bill
#>Gripp's ONLY response was to attack Avi as a person,
#>not to attack his arguments. This is the logical
#>fallacy of the Argumentum ad Hominem. We don't need
#>it here.
#>
#>I also feel that Bill Gripp's remark was at least
#>insensitive. I happened to comment that it was
#>anti-semitic (or at least it appeared to me that
#>way--I'd be interested to know what the reaction
#>of any Jewish readers here, who are better attuned
#>to such nuances than I, might be.) In any case,
#>this comment wasn't my main point, and I'm sorry
#>if that has confused the issue.
#
#If you learned how to read, you'd see that my post was directed at CARL
#not AVI.  Carl disagreed with Avi's statement and ascribed this to
#"Christianity".  I was merely pointing out that 1) Avi is not Christian
#and 2) Avi has demonstarted anti-Christian bias.  The point was to show
#how foolish Carls's statement was, not to pass any judgement on Avi.  I
#never said that Jews are anti-Christian, I said that Avi was.  This is
#not anti-semetic.  I have had intelligent discussions with several
#"hard-core" posters to s.c.j. and none of them has ever accussed me of
#being anti-semetic.  Far from it.  Although we may disagree on religious
#issues, I have a deep respect for Judaism.
#
#If you follow Avi's posts on various threads you will see that he sides
#with skeptics against Christians when it comes to NT issues, with
#Christians against skeptics when it comes to OT issues.  Problem is he
#uses the same types of arguements to argue both sides, e.g. the NT is
#invalid due to inconsistancies, the OT is valid due to its lack of
#inconsistancies.  The OT is inspired by God, the NT isn't.  Etc.
#Although most "religious" Jews do not agree with Christianity (and I can
#understand and accept that) few exhibit the degree of outward (shall we
#call it) "zeal" demostrated by Avi.
#
#Since you find Avi so convincing, I guess you are the one standing with
#him on his statement that the Dead Sea Scrolls are EXACTLY the same as
#the current Tanakh (which resulted in a rare occasion where skeptics and
#Christians alike could unite in a common cause!).