« Attention: I just copied over the last post! --UPDATE-- | Main | I Know What I Want for Father's Day by Peter Lumpkins »

2010.06.07

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

selahV

Don, a marvelously fattening, delectably edible sandwich which originated via Brown's Restuarant in Louisville, KY. chek wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Brown

Mmmmmn,mmmmmn, good. selahV

Phillip

Dear Peter

Craig Daliessio

does it compare favorably with a Cheesy Western from The Texas Inn in Lynchburg?

Phillip

Peter,

In your last 4 substantive posts devoted to critiquing White, you raise some criticisms of him that, *if true*, would indicate problems with White’s interaction with you. Let’s assume that some of your characterizations of White (in the current post) are true for the moment, namely that:

“James White completely danced a side-step around the actual issue I raised. He did not answer. Nothing. He ignored.”

“White just did not read my lines carefully. Consequently, he drew unwarranted implications from what I actually wrote.”

“Because James White tends to misread what is actually written and proceeds to draw conclusions without necessary warrant.”

I would agree with you that ignoring relevant questions and arguments is going to show definite weakness for the case of the one who ignores / fails to respond. It’s usually an indication that someone is afraid to tackle the subject because he has no response that would not hurt his cause. It’s an example of prejudice, to ignore facts that hurt you while you’re defending your thesis. Also, I agree with you that misreading someone’s arguments/statements (and subsequently, then, misrepresenting then in your rebuttal) is unwarranted and shows a lack of credibility about the matter that one is addressing. Why should anyone trust what person P says about X when he fails to understand X and misrepresents X? These would be valid criticisms.

The problem I see here, Peter, is that *you* are just as guilty of these criticisms that you level against *White*. Let me argue for my claim here.

1. IGNORING one’s interlocutor: One of your problems is that White ignored your direct questions about the CT article’s claim that he “teaches” on Islam at GGBTS. Peter, you have done this too.

In your 5-31 piece you blast White for saying that the Caners have no graduate study in Islamic theology or apologetics and attempt to rebut White by making several representations about how Dr. Caner’s Th.M. thesis and his doctoral dissertation were “academic” works that pursue a “rigorous scholarly understanding of Islam.” [You consider the doctoral dissertation to be a “more rigorous scholarly understanding of Islam” than the master’s thesis, which indicates that you view both as being rigorous and scholarly.] You even gave an image of the title page of the Dr. Caner’s dissertation, which gave the impression that you were, in fact, making these assessments of the nature of his work (as rigorously scholarly) and the subject of his work (in your words, “specifically in Islamic thought”) from the position of having *first-hand* knowledge of Caner’s two graduate writings.

I was suspicious of this for a few reasons, which I’ll get to below. I wondered if perhaps you were so eager to prove White wrong that you passed off your *uninformed opinions* about his graduate theses as if they were, in fact, *informed opinions/assessments.* But, instead of just assuming that you would do such a thing, I gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking a few days later in the combox:

“Do you have the whole dissertation, or just the title page?” Your response? Well, you *ignored it.* Avoidance.

So, a few days later, I asked a similar question: “At the time that you posted this this entry (5-31-10, 10:41pm according to your blog entry info), did you actually have in your possession Dr. Caner's complete doctoral dissertation, or just a portion of it, and if just a portion, which portion did you have at that time?” Your response? You ignored the question. You avoided committing yourself to a response.

You find fault with White when he ignores you; you’ve done the same thing yourself. Why ignore this question when it would take you less than 10 seconds to type “Yes, I had the dissertation in front of me when I posted my opinions” or “No, I didn’t”? You have since posted at least 4 other posts, typed a number of comments yourself, and moderated many more--surely it isn’t for lack of time. I suspect that the answer is that you did not have it, but that you’re too much of a Christian to lie and say that you did (and this would be a good thing!). It would be easier to just not saying anything and let the question get lost in the shuffle. Of course, I welcome you to answer the question now.

Someone might say, “Look Phillip, you’re just a nobody, and your question is completely irrelevant--that’s why Peter ignored it.” Well, let me respond to that. As a matter of fact, Peter’s response to the question is relevant to his *credibility* when he’s defending Dr. Caner against the criticisms of Dr. White. How so?

First, if Peter did not have the dissertation when he wrote the post, then he would be guilty of intellectual *prejudice*. It would mean that Peter only had the title page, and that his whole opinion of the work was based on *that alone.* This means that Peter has couched his opinion in the form of an *informed opinion* about the dissertation without having looked at any more than the title. If that's so, then he has literally “judged the book by its cover,” which is one of the expressions we use to say that someone is “prejudiced” about a matter. That raises a serious credibility problem.

But of course, I might be wrong. Maybe Peter did in fact have the dissertation when he posted his characterizations of it. Did he consult it before posting these comments? If not, the that’s just as bad as opining about it (and getting others to believe what he said) without having access to it. That would be a credibility problem.

Or, maybe Peter both had access to the dissertation, *and* he used it as the basis for his descriptions of the dissertation. If that’s the case, then he still has a credibility problem, because he has woefully mischaracterized the topic of the dissertation. Peter had written: “Ergun Caner’s doctoral dissertation pursued a more rigorous scholarly understanding of Islam—especially focusing on Islamic jihad contrasted with the Just War theory in the Christian tradition. Upon successfully presenting and defending his scholarship in a dissertation entitled, “Bellum Sacrum: The Development of the Holy War of the First Crusade in Light of Augustine’s Just War Criteria” (i.e. Just War vs. Holy War”), Ergun Caner was presented the prestigious doctor of theology degree September, 2003.” This is manifestly *not* the topic that Dr. Caner’s doctoral work addressed. Dr. Caner himself contradicts Peter on this point when he explains what his doctoral thesis was about: “Thesis: Bellum Justum vs. Bellum Sacrum. I examined the apolgetics of the “Holy War” and “Just War positions in Church History, and the ethical considerations.” (see here) Dr. Caner himself indicates that the topic of his doctoral work is the two opposing positions within *Church History* about how to approach the question of Christians in warfare. Some advocated a more modest approach (Augustine’s defensive just war theory), while others advocated a more offensive--rather than defensive--approach called “holy war” (like Pope Urban). Peter gets this utterly wrong--he thinks “holy war” in the title has to do with Islamic jihad. That is dead wrong. Caner’s research project is focused thoroughly on a Christian historical-theological question. So, if Peter did in fact consult Caner’s work, his understanding of it is so deficient that he is not a credible source of information on it.

In my next comment, I’ll demonstrate a few of the other items where I believe that you are guilty of the same shortcomings that you find in White.

Craig Daliessio

Phillip...please spare us. The mere mention of his name makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little.
Were you white house counsel during the Clinton years? This is a classic "depends on what "is" is" scenario.

peter lumpkins

Dear Phillip,

Thanks. I don't think you've demonstrated anything yet. And, I will ignore the question once again. Why? It remains remarkably irrelevant for two reasons.

a) Even if I did ignore your question for the reason you state, that says exactly jack squat about whether White did or did not ignore his difficulties with the assembled criticisms on this post, which is what this thread is about (including my update)

b) your question assumes that if I do not have the dissertation in question, a legitimate judgment about being rigorous scholarship cannot be posited, a bogus assumption since both schools from which Caner received his master & doctorate degrees have outstanding reputations for credible scholarship with rigorous demands.

Now, what I will suggest, Phillip, is you deal with either Part I or Part II if you'd like to "demonstrate" further. I have no interest in answering your criticisms of pieces I've posted elsewhere on other threads. Heaven help us, you could go on for days bringing up questions. Hence, if you think they're so significant, start your own blog with the many fallacies of Peter Lumpkins. Know you have my express permission to do so.

With that, I am...
Peter

Phillip

Craig,

“Phillip...please spare us.”

Pity that hearing the truth and following a logical argument is something you wish to be *spared* of.

“The mere mention of his name makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little.”

Which name, Caner? Lumpkins? :) Your intestinal problems are relevant...how?

“Were you white house counsel during the Clinton years?”

No, I was actually praying that the truth would come out and the manifold lies and deceptions would be exposed for what they were. It sounds like your heart breaks, too, when presidents lie and lack integrity. I’m glad to find an ally in this.

“This is a classic "depends on what "is" is" scenario.”

An assertion in search of an argument.

Cheers,
Phillip

peter

All,

Because White supporters have shown back up--especially one whose last post concerning me I recall was "Peter Lumpkins: Liar, Law-breaker, God-hater"--I have placed moderation back on. When I can stay close to my PC, I will take it back off. Candidly, I know few of White's supporters who do more than lob flaming bottles. And, sadly, that's the truth as I see it.

With that, I am...
Peter

Craig Daliessio

Why is it that no matter how cute the monkey, they always end up flinging poo?

Phillip

Dear Peter,

“I don't think you've demonstrated anything yet. And, I will ignore the question once again.”

Don’t you see that your second statement actually undermines your first one? The point of my comment was precisely to demonstrate that you sometimes *ignore* (evade, avoid, fail to address, etc.) things raised by your interlocutors when addressing them would undermine you. The fact that you admit that you will “ignore the question once again” *proves* my point--you ignored previously, and you promise to keep doing so. All I can say is, thanks for making my point for me.

“Why? It remains remarkably irrelevant for two reasons.”

*Remarkably* irrelevant, eh? Let’s see if your reasons hold water.

“a) Even if I did ignore your question for the reason you state, that says exactly jack squat about whether White did or did not ignore his difficulties with the assembled criticisms on this post, which is what this thread is about (including my update).”

Your first attempt to justify dodging the question misses the mark in two ways. First, you assert my question (whether you had Caner’s dissertation when you tried to offer informed opinion about it) is irrelevant because it doesn’t speak to whether *White* ignores difficulties. What a relief to know, then, that my comments were not even remotely offered to address that issue. So you’re firing the charge of “irrelevance” at a non-existent target. My comments, rather (if you go back and re-read it carefully with a desire to represent it correctly), have been offered as an assessment of what *you* wrote in *this very post*, to wit:

“James White completely danced a side-step around the actual issue I raised. He did not answer. Nothing. He ignored.”

If this is a valid criticism of someone’s debate strategy (and I agree with you that it is), then it tends to undermine *you* as well as those you criticize, since I’ve demonstrated (and you’ve admitted) that you’ve done the same thing. In other words, you are applying a double-standard here: “I get to accuse JW of side-stepping issues and can call him on it, but nobody gets to point that out to me. [Or, if they do, I’ll just dismiss them as irrelevant and/or ignore their question.]” You say that the point of this thread is to discuss White’s avoidance; your criticisms rest on some assumptions that render your criticisms vacuous; how is my *pointing this out* supposed to be irrelevant? You’re not suggesting that a discussion on your blog is relevant only when your interlocutor agrees with your premisses, are you? That’s not asking for a discussion; that’s asking for a cheerleading section.

The second problem with your first response (a) is that you say you’ll ignore it because it doesn’t speak to *this thread.* That’s a red herring, Peter. I had asked you to man up and answer the question *before* this thread ever started, on June 2 and June 4, so to suggest that the present thread is a reason you’re justified to evade the issue is, well, unjustifiable and incoherent. [Unless you believe in backward causation, appealing to the nature of my comments in a future post as the basis for not answering questions in a prior post is illogical.] So I call your bluff: if you won’t post your answer to my question *here* because you say it’s not relevant to *this* thread (wrongly, I believe, for the reasons mentioned above), then let’s see you post it where you should have posted it all along--on the thread where I initially raised the question two times (and, I might add, without any ad hominems and personal insults).

Now, let’s look at your second reason (or excuse) for refusing to answer a simple yes/no question: “b) your question assumes that if I do not have the dissertation in question, a legitimate judgment about being rigorous scholarship cannot be posited, a bogus assumption since both schools from which Caner received his master & doctorate degrees have outstanding reputations for credible scholarship with rigorous demands.”

First an observation: you’ve employed the same strategy here that I have employed in my comment above. I made a critique of you. You point out that there’s a flaw in the assumptions that I bring to the criticism. To which I say: Bravo! This is precisely the form of argument that I made above: You had made assertions about JW, and I challenged the consistency of your assumptions to make the claims you make. Sauce for the goose...sauce for the gander. Aren’t you glad I’m not just reduced to merely looking at your response and labelling you irrelevant? :)

Second, your “response” is only a partial response--it’s selective in that you *evaded* the more significant criticism I raised about your credibility with respect to Caner’s thesis and dissertation. I had pointed out *two things* (not just the one you attempt to rebut), namely, that: [1] you led your readers to believe you had *personal* knowledge of the contents and quality of the research projects (when you apparently did not--which is intellectual prejudice), and *more importantly*, [2] where you try to summarize the thesis of the dissertation, you completely mischaracterize the its topic and focus. My [2] was actually a more substantive criticism; it demonstrates that you *dogmatically* asserted that you knew what the two works were about (when *neither* was in fact about Islamic thought but rather about Christian thought), and that you *dogmatically* asserted that it rebutted White’s comment that he and Emir had no graduate study in Islamic theology/apologetics. You were wrong about the topic and you were wrong to misinform others about the topic, and by so doing, you have demonstrated yourself to be an unreliable source of information about this. And this is true, *even if* you are correct when you say that I have a bogus assumption about SEBTS and UNISA’s reputation for scholarship. Can you (and will you) admit at least this?

Now, you suggest that I bring a bogus assumption to my question, namely, my saying that “that if [you] do not have the dissertation in question, a legitimate judgment about being rigorous scholarship cannot be posited, a bogus assumption since both schools from which Caner received his master & doctorate degrees have outstanding reputations for credible scholarship with rigorous demands.” There are several problems with your response, Peter.

1. No one has the right to position himself as having an *informed judgment* of the quality of a specific thesis or dissertation *on the basis* of the general reputation of the school at which it was written. At the *most*, you might be able to *guess* at the quality of a specific piece of work based on the school’s reputation, but this is a far cry from the dogmatic pronouncements you issued about its quality. If you think that someone can make a *legitimate* judgment / assessment of a work based on anything other than actually taking it in hand, reading it, and critically evaluating it, then you’re naive (and ill-suited to commend the works of others, or otherwise to provide negative assessments for others to accept). By parity of reasoning, *any* scholar who writes a book review of the latest publications coming from university presses like OUP, Yale, Harvard, Princeton and says, “I highly commend this work as a solid, academic, rigorously scholarly tome *because*, after all, OUP, Yale, Harvard, and Princton are known to have high standards for rigorous scholarship,” that reviewer would be laughed right out of his scholarly career and deemed a fraud. Especially if it were determined that he offered his opinion of the book without having looked it over personally.

2. As well, there is a significant difference between institutions’ *reputations* for credible scholarship with rigorous *demands*, and the actual work produced by someone inside those institutions. Do you seriously think that just because an institution *demands* rigorous scholarship, the student’s actual academic output is guaranteed to meet the level of demand? Has every paper that you received a passing grade on actually met the demand for rigor? Maybe you could say this, but I can guarantee you that when you look at graduate schools with good reputations, not every academic paper, thesis, or dissertation meets the demands. You can’t know that it has without consulting it. By parity of reasoning, I could just as easily say, “Look, Peter, you’ve mentioned that you aren’t sure that James White has the academic qualification or, given the recent interactions with you, the moral qualifications, to be teaching at GGBTS. But hey, we all know that GGBTS requires, yea demands, of its professors high moral character and rigorous academic qualifications; therefore, it’s legitimate for me to assert dogmatically that JW *is* qualified and *should* be teaching there.” You would think it a travesty to be such a blind White devotee--and you would be right! You have to look at the specific case before you can make a legitimate judgment. Otherwise, it’s blind prejudice and grasping at straws.

Finally, I’ll deal with a few throw-aways in your last paragraph. First, you say, “I will suggest . . . you deal with either Part I or Part II.” As I showed above, my entire comment above was a discussion of a claim you made in *this* thread (Part II). So what’s the problem--you didn’t like it that I cut too close to the bone? Second, you say, “I have no interest in answering your criticisms of pieces I've posted elsewhere on other threads.” Now there’s an interesting take. You have on many occasions challenged your interlocutors to point you to *specific* evidence when they make a general criticism of how you do x, y, or z. If someone were to comply with your demand for specific evidence (which I’ve done by providing examples), he would have to go to a variety of your posts and comments outside of the current thread to establish a pattern. As a matter of fact, I notice in *this* thread no fewer than 13 times you refer your readers to specific things written *outside of* this thread to make your case. So which is it? Do we both follow the same rules, or is there a double standard where I have to be ham-strung and follow one set of rules, but you get to follow a different set? Third, and finally, you say, “Heaven help us, you could go on for days bringing up questions.” I’m sorry, but I can’t take this one seriously. In my first comment I asked 8 questions. Please note this carefully--7 of the 8 were either rhetorical (not requiring an answer), quotations of previous questions given for the purpose of citation, or set-up questions where I provide the answer myself. [Try the “find” function and look for all my question marks.] The *only* question that I directly asked you was this one:
Why ignore this question when it would take you less than 10 seconds to type “Yes, I had the dissertation in front of me when I posted my opinions” or “No, I didn’t”?

It took me about 20 seconds to type it originally, and about 5 seconds to copy and paste it here with italics. It would take you about 10 seconds to respond to it. The talk about going “on for days” is just another red herring. The question still stands, however. Will it still stand unanswered by you?

Warmly,
Phillip

peter

Phillip,

Perhaps you did not understand what I've made plain to at least two commenters: this thread is not about *me* nor will I allow it to go that direction.

Thanks but no thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

Phillip

Peter,

My comments were not about *you* but about your *argumentation* and the fallacies of them *in this thread*. I’ve made several *arguments* to this effect and have made no personal attacks on you (notwithstanding your recent response which makes it sound like my comment that you won’t publish was an ad hominen--please be clear about that).

It’s a pity that you choose to hide these facts from your readers--this is the pattern that I mentioned in the most recent comments that you spiked, along with rational argumentation supporting it. So be it. You prove yet again that comments on your threads are only for the purpose of confirming your opinions instead of challenging them. I had hoped that you’d be better than the man you accused White of being. It appears that if I were to come a-flaming and issuing personal attacks, I’d get a response. When I build a rational case with facts, I get ignored. Your laments about wanting people to back up assertions and stop the personal attacks is specious--you should not pose as something you’re not.

Cheers,
Phillip

peter

All,

I attempt to be patient with commenters.  Sometimes I admittedly fail. Hopefully, most times I succeed.

Phillip (commenter above)  thinks it pitiful I'm "hiding" from the readers the "facts" of argumentation he's presenting, which supposedly, he assures, demonstrate I commit similar fallacies, the very fallacies about which I accuse White.

To the contrary, I have and will continue to keep threads running along without allowing it to be side-tracked by appeals to "You too!” strategies, which, the way I see it, is basically what Phillip and some others have tried to do on this thread.  Those who pursue "You too!" tactics apparently think if the one who's making a point (i.e. me in this case) can be shown to commit the fallacy too (i.e. "you too!"), the argument becomes moot.

Allow me to give a clear example:

Person A argues smoking tobacco is bad for you, giving several reasons why, and concludes  therefore, B, tobacco should not be consumed.  However, come to find out, Person A is a chain smoker. Hence, C, because Person A does not follow his own advice, we should not listen to Person A since he is firmly a hypocrite.

On the surface, this sounds reasonable enough.  However, the issue is, does Person A’s failure to live up to the arguments he presented void out the arguments he made?  The obvious answer is, no, it does not. The argumentative case concerning tobacco rests on whether or not the conclusions drawn are warranted by the premises offered. Person A may very well not live up to his own standard, but such a failure does not necessarily undermine his argument (Granted it may if Person A offered himself as a genuine illustration of consistently living up to the standard he presents). Even the worst sinner imaginable may argue the most cogent case possible.

From my perspective, this is the warp and woof of Phillip’s (along with a few others) point on this thread. Indeed even if I commit fallacies of argumentation—even the same fallacies concerning which I’ve accused White—nothing changes pertaining to whether or not James White employs unfair debate tactics.  In order to answer that question, his tactics must be examined not mine.  And, the answer will stand whether or not I have my own fallacies with which to contend. 

It is for that reason I continue insisting that this thread will not be made about me.  The question on the table so far as I am concerned is James White’s tactics and whether or not my points are well taken.  To ignore this issue and focus on me or my argumentation is to simply avoid the subject at hand.

I hope this helps.

Hence, with that in mind, I’m going to post Phillip’s wordy comment, the comment I’m allegedly “hiding” from the readers at SBC Tomorrow. 

Know I have no intention of answering line-by-line Phillip’s comments.  You can make up your own mind whether his points are valid.

With that, I am…

Peter

peter

Phillip,

Know I’m relatively unconcerned whether you think I’m posing as something I’m not.  As for exchange on my site, those who’ve followed me the last few years are well aware whether I allow comments only for the purpose of confirming my opinions instead of challenging them.  So far as I know you’re new to this site and will just let that stand as an uninformed slight.

Nor were the words I wrote implicating you in making personal attacks toward me.  If you will recall, I wrote I had made it “plain to at least two commenters: this thread is not about *me* nor will I allow it to go that direction.”  I did not accuse them of personal attacks; consequently, it should have been clear I was not accusing you either. 

On a more serious note, you write your lengthy comment, “The fact that you admit that you will “ignore the question once again” *proves* my point--you ignored previously, and you promise to keep doing so. All I can say is, thanks for making my point for me.” 

Begging pardon, Phillip.  Your claim was not I simply ignore but I ignore when addressing them [questions] would undermine me.  That is not why I ignored your question.  I ignored your question because it was irrelevant.  So much for me making your point for you, Phillip.

Next, you object to the 2 reasons I offer for not answering your question.  The first reason was my denial your question was relevant to dealing with criticisms toward White, the point of this post.  After conceding you were not answering concerning White but focusing on me [read, me and my argumentation], you come back with “So you’re firing the charge of “irrelevance” at a non-existent target.” 

Well if you insist, Phillip.  Perhaps I am.  Thanks for admitting you’re not addressing the issue of the thread—James White & the assembled criticisms toward him [read, toward him and his arguments]  but attempting to make me [read, me and my argumentation]  the target. 

You justify the “non-existent target by suggesting “My comments, rather (if you go back and re-read it carefully with a desire to represent it correctly), have been offered as an assessment of what *you* wrote in *this very post*…”   Really?

Leaving aside the fact I do “desire to represent correctly” your words, Phillip--why you think it necessary to mention such seems a little premature if you ask me--the way I read your comments, Phillip, is not to offer an “assessment” of my questioning James White’s debate strategy.  Rather it has been to try to play “gotcha” with a question about Caner’s dissertation. It’s that simple.  Indeed you even said the question was not all that important anymore but now are once again “calling my bluff” to “man up” and answer it. I wouldn’t answer it now if you promised me a years worth of Starbucks.   

The fact remains, had you wanted to “assess” my criticisms of James White’s “debate tactics” I find so disturbing you would surely have dealt with what I wrote in Part I.  There I posted a telling list of not so flattering ways White addresses his opponent.  And, I also anticipated at the end of Part I,

“In Part II, I intend to engage what few points James White actually made in his critique of my pieces here”

followed by this is Part II,

“ With that out of the way, I do want to briefly respond to some meaningful criticisms White offered to the piece I posted here.  James White’s critique is here. The first meaningful criticism White makes in his piece with my name attached is well into his post…” (emphasis added).

The issue on which you chose to focus, Phillip, is found in the very section where I have least concern about the way White responds.  How convenient to pull from there my rhetorical query about White’s avoiding the issue I raised while ignoring the entire first part which contained the massive verbal abuse to which James White tortures his critics.

May I make a suggestion?  If you’re going to “assess” my questioning of White’s strategy, would you please do so fairly?  Or, to use your words above, “if you go back and re-read it carefully with a desire to represent it correctly” you’ll find the least of my complaints about James White is whether or not he answers my questions.

Nor is it a red herring to insist a thread remain on target; that is, whether or not James White’s criticisms where either fair or my particular criticisms are accurate and/or relevant.  Your attempt to make the point that I commit fallacies also sounds like you have me where you want me. 

In reality, Phillip, as I’ve already admitted more than once, even if I concede guilt on all your counts, nothing remotely is answered concerning James White.  This is classic tu quoque nonsense dressed up in excessive verbiage as my former comment explains.

Finally, if you think I’m wrong on my judgment concerning Caner’s scholarship and/or have no “right to position himself as having an *informed judgment* of the quality of a specific thesis or dissertation *on the basis* of the general reputation of the school at which it was written” or that I’ve “guessed” at the quality of their work, be my guest, Phillip. You’re thinking so does not constitute it being so. Such is definitively not a fallacy in reasoning it is a difference in judgment.

Now as for the remainder of the comment, nothing I see is worth my time. Please don’t exceed the 2,000 word limit.  You’re almost there.

With that, I am…

Peter 

Craig Daliessio

Peter,
Yesterday I decided to take a peek at the beloved Ms. Kaufman's blog to see her reaction to my recent blog series about the Caner matter. (had written three articles on my personal blog last week) No mention of me in particular, although they had been hitting the blog by the dozens. However I did see one excruciatingly disturbing entry on Ms. Kaufman's blog that I think you and the other folks who frequent your site need to know. Kaufman has taken to finding out where Ergun will be speaking this summer and is publicly approaching the church members, via email and post, about their apparently (as she sees it) disgust and disappointment with their pastors for "inviting this man knowing he is a liar". I nearly chewed my laptop into bits. having failed to persuade anyone who didn't already want to be persuaded, concerning Dr. Caner, she has now taken the position that she knows better that local pastors, what is best for their churches.
I can think of a few dozen biblical mandate she is violating here. Their desperation is obvious and their effectiveness is waning. I wanted your readers to be aware of this because many are pastors and this is a ploy she could use on them at some time.

Frothing at the mouth...

The comments to this entry are closed.