Some time ago, Frank Turk came here to defend the practice of changing gender references in Bible translations for no linguistic reason at all. For instance, some translations have changed "brothers" to "brothers and sisters". This is a very new practice, not indicated by the language or the text and some say it's motivated by pleasing feminists, female pastors, and homosexual groups. In fact, Frank used to say that. But now one of his friends thinks it okay. So, Frank thinks it's just fine now and if you have a problem with it, you're a stupid fundamentalist who drools in your grits wears a straw hat, lives in some rural place not nearly good enough for learned folks like him, walks barefoot, chews stems of wild grass, and deserve to die a slow and painful death because you smell bad, couldn't possibly be educated, don't know the languages, only read the King James, and aren't nearly as cool, hip, and spiffy as he is, and you're messing up the gene pool too, YOU STUPID HILLBILLY, YOU!!!!!
Oh, yeah--you're an unloving bigot, too, and he's not.
Well, now he doesn't seem to want to debate anyomre.
Hummmmmm.
Oh, but wait! He REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY DOES WANT TO DEBATE!!!
Yeah, he really does. He says so..................as long as he runs the debate and has control over how much evidence I can bring in. Too much evidence in his words will make it a "feud". So evidence is bad. Yup, only bigoted, stupid, bakka-chewing, snake-hanlin, fundies git all stuck on eveedents, I guess. What really smart folks want is as little evidence as possible. It allows much more freedom of thought, you know.
Hummmmmmm. What to do, what to do...
So this is my public request for Frank Turk to be man enough to keep his word.
Frank, I don't mind if you're too busy right now or if you'd like time to do research. That's absolutely fair. We can schedule it a year from now, but keep your word or admit you don't want to keep your word. I haven't hidden or run from you.
Phil Perkins. PS--If you call yourself a fundamentalist or not, you're welcome here any time you wish. You won't be derided, subjected to the bigotry of folks like Frank Turk. The same goes for anyone. The only people derided here are those who purposely lie, no matter what they call themselves or even believe.
Posts
19 comments:
Mr. Perkins, I get the impression that you are slightly paraphrasing Mr. Turk.
Any chance of reporting your interactions verbatim?
Oopsie, I didn't read your rules. The is Shay. Neil Shay.
Mr Perkins, you've chosen to censor my question.
Which of your rules did I not follow?
If in fact I did follow all your rules, then why did you censor me?
Your credibility is enhanced if you consistently apply your published moderation rules. The flip side of course is that your credibility suffers immensely if you don't.
I will repeat my question. It appears that you have paraphrased Mr. Turk. Could we see what he said verbatim? The Biblical support for this question is Deuteronomy 5:20.
Have a blessed day, brother.
Bug,
Guess what I did yesterday. I'll get back to you questions either tonight or tomorrow.
Phil.
Seriously--take a guess.
painted your house?
Bug,
So does that mean you don't know?
I'm clueless, in many ways.
Buggy,
So are you lying now or were you lying when you wrote, "Mr. Perkins, you've chosen to censor my question"?
Mr. Perkins.
Neither time. I am clueless about many things. And I believe that you had chosen to censor. But being fallible, I will ask you if I have made an error, and if you say I did, then I will offer a sincere apology for my mistake, and I will ask your forgiveness.
I will ask you that question, as soon as we clear out the question that is already in the queue.
Have a good evening!
Buggy,
Well now, we can both play gotcha, can't we? It's ungodly, isn't it?
Yes, you lied. Four times now. In the case of accusing me of censoring you, you've now admitted you have no idea what I was up to the day you left the first three comments. So you have no idea when I first saw your comments. Thus you have no idea if I censored you or not. I could have been out of town for all you know. (It was late that night, after your censorship accusation.)
In the case of the implication that I've lied about Turk, you lied about that, too. I see you have a blogger account, so you're familiar with blogger. You could do a search to see what he claimed here if you wished. You either did and lied outright or you didn't care to look yourself and decided to lie about me anyway without any evidence whatsoever. In court that's called perjury and you go to jail. In God's kingdom that's a sign of hatred for God. Prov. 14:2. That's a biblical warning you ought take to heart.
And now you've lied again by holding to a fake sincerity about being sorry if you "made an error", all the while sticking with the accusation you admit you can't document in anyway--sticking with the "error". (I guess you want it both ways--you're sorry for being wrong, but you were right--What color is the sky in your world?)
If you don't want to read what Turk has already written, you can wait for the debate. I'll be producing Turk quotes as it suits the topic. He's been dishonest in all sorts of ways.
I banned Turk for coming here and pretending to know the languages. I asked him at least three times if he knew the languages. He refused to answer, but continued to give comments as if I'd not asked the question. So I banned him for being dishonest. Then he answered, after being banned with three other comments I refused to publish because of the ban. (I warned him ahead of time.) In the fourth unpublished comment he finally came clean.
Turk admitted the deception, but like you, he insisted his pretense wasn't a lie somehow. He's special, you see. He can pretend to know the languages, but that's not a lie. I wish I was special like that. I wouldn't have to pay my bills.
And now you have more in common with Frank Turk, than a bent for pretending to know things you don't.
Finally, you lied when you called me "brother", didn't you? I checked your profile. You're Frank's buddy or internet buddy and you intended to come here to nail me.
You pretended otherwise.
Why can't folks like you just admit who you are and be honest? You're probably not a Christian, Neil. God doesn't act like that and godly men don't act like that. Matthew 7, Prov. 14, I Cor 5-6, I John, etc.
Aren't you embarrassed? I'd be.
I know you try to be sneaky, but I could smell you in your first comment, just by your tone.
I know I've nailed you hard here, but I'm serious and you should be, too. Look at what you've done and try to make sense of that in light of Who God is. Did the apostles, prophets, Jesus, or God Himself try to be sneaky like that ever? You could point to what Nathan did not David, but Nathan didn't lie. He told a parable.
Do you see the hypocrisy here? If you sincerely want to talk about that email me personally, but you will have to repent of the deception. I know that's the way things are done by Frank and some of the guys who comment at Pyro, but it isn't godly. And if you just got caught up in his style, I'll understand that. But the deception ends right here and now. That just doesn't go.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Buggy,
Since you're anxious to defend the godliness of Frank Turk, explain lying about knowing the languages. Also, explain theses quotes:
"...so someone other than your wife and your parole officer will read (what you write)..."--Frank Turk
"You're a great fool, and to make you look more foolish will require little or not effort."--Frank Turk
Sound like a godly man seeking truth?
Don't say yes, You'll just be lying again.
Mr. Perkins.
Phil-
Could you quantify the amount of evidence needed to sufficiently present your side of the debate?
Thanks,
Mike Luddy
Mike,
Three answers to your question.
1. No, because this will cover a lot of ground, some of which will be up to Frank.
2. No, because the same advantage is given to both. If both have good evidence, who cares?
3. No, because the very nature of truth doesn't allow for an artificial limit. If we were in a gymn or auditorium, time would limit us. We aren't.
Try this: Name any human endeavor centered around discerning something important that practices artificial limits on the evidence. There may be practical limits, like funding or time, but that's not the case here.
Law, history, science, military intelligence, medicine?
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Phil,
1. Does 'a lot' mean indefinite? Surely there must be some limit to the amount of ground to be covered.
2. I don't understand this defense. If a finite amount of time to make your case is a 'disadvantage' it is an equal disadvantage to both. Regarding who cares, it appears that nearly everyone cares. Even if the two of you were willing to debate this till the end of your lives, I don't know anyone willing to spend the rest of their life reading a debate by fallible men on a single subject.
3. I was under the impression that the topic of the debate was gender neutral translations, not all truth. Is there any limit, artificial or otherwise, to the amount that could be said on the topic of gender neutral translations?
Regarding the final challenge- every debate discerning something important (law, history, science, military intelligence, medicine) had an end at some point. Regarding human endeavors- it doesn't appear that anyone is implying that the two of you should stop pursuing the truth of this matter, merely that the two of you should stop debating each other on the truth of this matter at some point in the future.
Thanks,
Mike Luddy
Mike,
I'll answer you, but tell
Frank that if he wants these questions answered he could just email me. Wouldn't that be easier?
You're wrong on six counts.
First, I've never claimed the pursuit of certain truths have no end. God is uncaused. I don't have to do any research on that because it's logically necessary. I objected to an arbitrary limit. You read that already.
Second, many of these pursuits don't have an end found yet. You said science has ended. Really? Not even any particular scientific theory is set in stone. Remember Newton? That certainly seemed settled. Epistemologically speaking, science can never fully explain anything. All that changes with advances in science is the detail of the explanations, but a final explanation of any physical phenomonon, process, event, or thing can't be achieved without resorting to the final explanation--God--and skipping all the steps in between. Depravity makes even that not a likely outcome any time soon. And even without sin, I believe real God-followers value all truth, avoiding only that truth which may lead to temptation or taint. If you don't understand what I've said so far on this, just refer to the ongoing pursuit of a "theory of everything" among physicists. Even if the theory of everything is found, some egghead will ask why it works that way. He will be called a religious nut and killed immediately. Each explanation is always only partial, because each one only goes a small step toward the root cause or causes, depending on your view. Each discovered cause has to be explained. And each cause, under further study usually turns out to be not quite what it was thought to be when first discovered, ala Newton.
And, if you still don't believe science still continues on just about every subject, explain what a cause is. No, not the definition as something that is necessary for another thing. Explain how a cause causes, without reference to Scripture or God.
I'd say science isn't likely to be finished even by next Tuesday or Wednesday. What do you think?
Theology isn't limited, either. Have you figured all there is to be known of God? Tell the rest of us, please.
Historical research still continues, too. It's hard to find something in creation that fits your category.
Third, the disadvantage isn't equal by very definition. Excluding evidence always clouds truth or stops further confirmation of it. Thus, only the obscurantists and obstructionists obscure and obstruct. Hence, the nouns. Remember Galileo and the Catholics? The Catholics obscured and obstructed. If no natural limit (short of the exhaustions already mentioned) is present, an arbitrary one can only be explained by obscurantism and obstructionism to truth. MEism has practiced obscurantism all around as a defense against evolution and philosophical materialism. They've lost the debate because of it. If an active apologetic had been embraced MEs may not be seen as stupid as they currently are.
Fourth, your assumption that each debater has truth as his aim is just an assumption. Turk told me in emails that he didn't care what thesis I chose, he'd debate against it, so Frank isn't about truth. He's just angry because I've exposed him so much. Folks like Frank, who just enjoy arguing aren't even to be allowed in the assembly, unless they repent. Did you know that?
You would if you read your Bible.
Fifth, you don't know the thesis we've discussed in emails, do you?
Sixth, if the disadvatage was equal, why do you care?
Turk is the one who's changed the terms over and over and I can prove it with quotes. If I let it go for a week or two he answers and pretends to misremember what was last said. Dishonesty is a problem, I guess. I haven't changed the terms I've agreed to once. He was the first to ask for a debate. He wanted me to take a thesis that was ridiculous. I wouldn't agree to defend something I don't believe. After that, all the changes have been Frank's. Have you grilled him?
Be frank, not LIKE Frank. Honesty is a requirement here. It's okay to have a hidden agenda, just not a hidden one. That's lying. Come out and say it.
Be holy,
Phil Perkins. PS--I'm FOR gender neutrality in translation.
Phil,
I could tell Frank, but since I've never had any correspondence with him I don't think it's my place to do so.
I don't think I properly articulated my point regarding the length of the debate and the pursuit of truth. My point was not that the pursuit of truth should have some end, or that all "debate" on what the truth is has ended or will even end soon. My point was merely that a debate between two individuals on a specific subject should have an end. I'm not even saying that the two individuals should stop pursuing the truth of that subject, or even that they must never address the subject with each other again in the future.
Regarding the fifth count, I only know the thesis posted on Frank's blog from a thread of emails which he claims is "all the e-mails he and I have traded on this subject since he emerged from silence.".
I don't have any hidden agenda. I don't even know Frank. I merely have read his blog a few times. From what he has posted on his blog, it appears that he's asking you for a concise thesis and a determined limit to the length of the debate. He even claims that he's offering you the first and last word along with your choice of a moderator. From what you have said on your blog it appears that Frank won't debate unless he runs the debate. Those two accounts of the debate don't line up. I'd like to know which account of the debate discussion is true.
Thanks,
Mike Luddy
Mike,
It looks like I owe you an apology for assuming you were sent here by Frank. I've run into that, so please forgive me. People who do that are dishonest. I apologize.
It will have an end, but not until the topics are fully covered. They are BIG topics. He initially wanted a 10-block limit for each and he DID want to be both the moderator and a debater. Just read his initial chanllenge here: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=26748896&postID=552739687359811835
He pulled that in some of the emails, too. Here's a quote from an email on 02-10-09 just one day before I did this post: "My offer to you was to have an exchange in D-blog format up to 10 questions -- even if you sent up your own blog and got your own moderator to referee. You can even have the opening statement and the last word. One thesis, 10 questions each, 10 answers each. Word limits to answers and questions. That's a debate rather than mere bickering."
On the 11th he said, "No open-ended exchanges. Q&A format, word limits -- you can choose the # of questions and the word limits. That's how I always engage with people, and for you to ask for an open-ended exchange demonstrates only two things: [1] you think having the last word makes you right, and [2] you think wanting structure in the exchange is cowardice. My opinion is that you can have the first and last word, and the reader can decide from a structured exchange that follows a clear method of give and take who has the better grasp of the facts and the stronger conclusion."
Earlier he offered carte blanche, without him moderating. Here he wanted to go back to time limits and hints that it's some sort of big conconcession for him not to moderate. And this isn't the first time.
And he wants a Q/A format. The problem with that is he never answers any question he doesn't like. Read him here and Pyro. If it's a question that embarrasses him, he simple pretends he didn't read it. That's what he did with the languages. He did the same thing with the Deut. 18 question at Pyro. If the question makes his position look bad, he pretends it doesn't exist.
I can't be that dishonest.
"D-blog" is his blog or one of them. That makes him the moderator. Did he include that email?
I don't know what he's up to at his site, I've never been there, but I can imagine he's not been totally honest.
Has he admitted over there that he doesn't know the languages? He lied about that over here a lot. I asked and asked and he refused to answer.
Why? He admitted it later, but I'd already banned him.
Again, I apologize for a bad assumption.
Please read the debate. It will be very informative on a number of things. I'm really anxious to get this material before the folks.
Phil Perkins. PS--Again, I apologize for the bad accusation. I already have a site set up.
Mike,
Here's a question: Turk wants this debate severely limited. I don't.
Why are my reasons for my position a "defense"? Are Turk's reasons a defense?
Phil.
Post a Comment