[Vision2020] What is relative moralis

[Captain Kirker]

DJ,

As you know, words mean nothing to Wilson. He changes definitions like a 
snake sheds skin, and Wilson’s use of the word “Christian” illustrates the 
point.

You see, he wants to define “Christian” sacramentally, but the RPCUS used 
this definition to prove his heresy. That’s when he equivocated, muddied the 
waters, and claimed that he still holds the Westminster Confession of Faith. 
But Doug knows that his sacramental definition of “Christian” contradicts 
Westminster, and that he and Westminster cannot both be true. Therefore your 
request for a non-Christian response predicated on Doug’s slithery lexicon 
precludes anyone from answering, because Doug has no fixed definition. You 
might as well limit your question to Klingons.

Now Doug’s serial equivocating brings us back to our previous example. When 
Doug said that God hates racism and will judge it on the last day, but Jesus 
used racial insults and called a woman “nigger,” he impaled himself on the 
horns of a dilemma. It hurts just to think about it. Wilson’s two statements 
are as far apart as heaven and hell. One is biblical Christianity; the other 
is KKKhristianity.

Doug must now choose one of two options:

(1) He can deny his first proposition (God hates racism) to maintain his 
second proposition (Jesus was a racist), and bring instant ruin on himself.

(2) He can repudiate his second proposition (Jesus was a racist) to affirm 
his first proposition (God hates racism), and essentially admit that he 
committed blasphemy. (This of course would open another can of worms. But it 
will never happen: Douglas Wilson never admits wrongdoing; it’s always 
someone else’s fault.)

So Doug’s standard method of operation is to slip off point by lubricating 
every word in the Good Book. Wilson calls this lubrication process 
“plausible deniability.” Doug the Bubba Jones calls it “terminological 
differences.” The Bible calls it lying. Safeway calls it Vaseline.

And this brings us back to our previous conclusion. Douglas Wilson cannot be 
a moral relativist because Douglas Wilson has no morals at all.

Cordially,

Captain Kirker



>From: "bubba jones" <bubbajones9763@hotmail.com>
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] What is relative moralis
>Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:37:27 +0000
>
>Thanks for the enlightenment.  I have another question that follows.  What 
>do non Christian's (as defined by Doug Wilson) use as a standard by which 
>to say something is wrong?  Don't yell at me, I'm just asking because I 
>want to know.
>
>Thanks to all the Christian's that wrote but I really don't want to hear 
>from you.  I think I know what you would say.
>
>B. Jones

_________________________________________________________________
High-speed users—be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet 
Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1