they have no choice but to resort to personal attacks.
One only need to read here to see that no personal attack was made by me. I am unashamed of my conduct, because I’ve simply stated facts. In the post of mine that I linked to, one only need to read to see that Rod’s post takes his comments out of context as well as mine. That is patently dishonest.
Rod also says,
For some strange reason, all of these quotes put me in the category of being “uncharitable” and “a liberal.”
Yet he cannot find where I called him a liberal. I called his interaction uncharitable because he didn’t like my saying that his comments were self-contradicting. He then said in our Google+ discussion, in response to my statement regarding his self-contradicting comments,
By using the ‘you’re being hypocritical’ answer typical in conservative circles, I can only assume you have no real rebuttal to me.
You see, Rod wishes to make it seem as if I called him hypocritical. I did not. I simply stated that his logic was erroneous. There’s often a vast difference between hypocrisy and a logical fallacy. However, if the shoe fits, Rodney is certainly welcome to wear it.
I responded and bade Rodney farewell, which means I was exiting the discussion because I didn’t wish to become embroiled in an affair such as this has turned out to be.
No, I’m using the law of non-contradiction, a fundamental principle of logic.
Seeing you remain the same ROA who refuses to engage in charitable discussion, I bid you farewell.
To bid someone farewell means to tell them goodbye and that you wish them well. I meant only that, yet Rodney evidently felt that there was some nefarious intent behind my words, because he said,
Farewell? Like Piper on Rob Bell I see……….
Just exactly where have I been uncharitable, Jason? Did I resort to calling anyone names? Did I go after arguments you believe with all of your heart but refuse to be critical of? Of course! Thats your charity for you. Your inability to “convert” me or +Joel Watts to your Calvinist brand of fundamentalism. Pathetic really.
Again, I am just gonna assume you have no real rebuttal because you don’t; Language comes from humans. The end.
Honestly, sometimes I simply don’t think that it’s worth wasting my time to try to speak with someone who responds as Rodney did. That is why I tried to gracefully and quietly bow out of the discussion on Google+.
Rodney continues his blog and says,
Furthermore, my posts against fundamentalist epistemologies such as “Presuppositionalism” only state the awkward positions that famous racist presuppositionalists such as R.J. Rushdoony have held: see me on Presuppositionalism and Segregation [linked here]. My purpose is to show the Christian presuppositionalism is really a merri-go-round epistemology, which places epistemology over and against all else, and then places God second or third. Following the “LAWS OF PHALLUS, I MEAN, LOGIC” means following a rather circular logic that leads down the path of uncritical thinking, anti-intellectuallism, and reactionary politics. No siree. No thank you!
Rodney commits another logical fallacy by associating all presuppositionalists with Rushdooney. That is guilt by association, yet I have no association with Rushdooney. I’ve not read his writings, listened to his sermons, or watched his videos. Rodney continues and decides to get even more profane by insinuating that logic is somehow phallic worship, or something of the sort. And what does he know of my thinking, intellect and politics? Next to nothing is the answer, because Rodney doesn’t know me beyond some interaction on the web.
Rodney goes on to say,
This is not the first time, and I am sure it won’t be the last time, that a fundamentalist anti-intellectual has accused me of not following the “law of contradiction.”
Amazing. I never called names, yet am accused of calling names, but Rodney unabashedly calls me an anti-intellectual. Hmmm…methinks that there is a very smutted up pot speaking of the blackness of a kettle here. After all, it the one who seems to desire to reject logic and reasoning that is actually against the right use of the mind.
Rodney further says,
May I ask a question, if I may? Who set up this law? Who voted you to enforce this law? That’s all I ask. In the spirit of the police officer in Marvel’s The Avengers who asked Captain America, “Why should I take orders from you?,” I ask, WHO ARE YOU? Especially the fundamentalist blog I linked to in this post is a questionable authority on “rationality” and “logic” at best, when he is given to emotional rants against historical criticism and evolutionary science.
Who set up the law? I’ll give you a hint. Just read here. It’s a good start.
Who voted for me to enforce the law of non-contradiction? No one. Neither shall I try to enforce it. On the other hand, if you respond to me when I’ve not spoken to you, I may indeed tell you when your logic fails. That is what happened. Nothing more and nothing less.
Perhaps I am a questionable authority on logic and rationality. Actually, I’m no authority at all. Logic and rationality have their roots in God and are part of the essence of man as being the image of God. The authority is the Creator. Your beef is with Him.
Of course, Rodney finally shows what the true issue is when he speaks of “emotional rants against historical criticism and evolutionary science.” I suppose “emotional rants” must be in the eyes of the beholder, because I can see that Rodney was certainly not lacking in passion as he posted this, though his logic surely failed again. The reality is that I challenge these modern day shibboleths of historical criticism and evolutionary philosophy. That is what troubles Rodney so much.
This only gets worse,
The fact of the matter is this; It is this fundamentalist who has forgotten the source of truth. If you find the inventor of the Law of Noncontradiction, you will see it’s not god, but Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates. Are they god? Nope. Speaking of rationality, I find the term highly problematic, especially in this fundamentalist’s usage of it. For centuries, good Christians have used rationality as THE definition of God’s image in humanity, to separate us from animals. The likes of Thomas Aquinas, among others; my problem is that this definition is very limited, and excludes special needs persons. Plus, this exclusive view of rationality/the divine image in us all has been used to justify oppression; people who have been seen as not rational as Europeans (hint hint hint) were to be subjected to European colonial rule. Exclusivist European Rationality is a very imperialist mode of thinking.
Rodney doesn’t know what I believe about the imago Dei. He assumes, but does not know. He speaks of that which he doesn’t know, and he errs in that which he speaks.
Rodney also seems to find a European behind many of the world’s ills. Thinking people will realize that you can’t put all of the blame on one group of people. There’s a world of prejudice in Rodney’s statement.
Finally, Rodney says,
Yup, fundamentalists deny God’s own freedom of choice, to use particular histories and specific bodies IN time to tell God’s story.
The thing is, I do not deny God the right to use whomever He pleases to tell His story however He pleases. In fact, that is irrelevant to the subject, except for the fact that God is true and will not deny Himself- i.e. He will not contradict Himself. He will not lie.
The essence of this post is to show that there is no logic in Rodney’s reply, but there is much bigotry against Caucasians who use logic, believe the Bible is God’s Word without error, and refuse to bow to the “run-of-the-mill post-modern narrative theory of truth” as Rodney calls it.
This is my final say on the matter. Let whoever will say whatever they will. I am satisfied that from the beginning I spoke plainly and kindly, albeit in a straightforward manner. I have no reason to blush, except for the man who is unable to admit when he is mistaken and chooses rather to stoop to libel and slander.
So, I shall indeed say it in Piperian fashion now: farewell Rod Thomas. It would have been nice to have had your friendship, but since you only wish to be an enemy, I shall allow you to burn the bridge that you have already kindled. If you wish to build it via repentance and a show of true friendship, I’m always open to that.