[Vision2020] Laying it to rest...

[Ted Ryan]

Captain Kirker,

I have no points to concede.  It has become clear that neither you nor I
will be convinced in this forum of the others' convictions.  I do believe
you to be in error, and I believe it strongly and would be glad to take this
up in person should the opportunity arise.  I think that I need to lay this
to rest, there is some history here among you all to which I am not privy
and it is obviously causing a stir.  So for now, I will break from this
discussion.

I do appreciate the efforts in your last post and will consider your points
carefully.

For now, good night,

Ted Ryan

>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Captain Kirker <captain_kirker at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Vision2020] Teds brown nose just got longer
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Message-ID: <20040902145526.11341.qmail at web90004.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> Ted asks:
>
> I am not sure about the "too many misrepresentations." You have not asked
me about them, why not? What have a misrepresented?
>
> I have not asked you about your misrepresentations to avoid redundancy on
this list. Several people have already engaged you, but like the Wolfman you
have obfuscated. However, since you asked, here is a short list of your
misrepresentations. Each quote comes from separate posts of yours:
>
> August 13-"And don't forget that the reason we are even having this
'debate' is information taken from a local church through unethical means."
>
> Your statement is false; the minutes were not taken through unethical
means, and you have the burden of proof to show otherwise.
>
> August 13-"But that isn't even the point, why are we allowing this to
continue on the basis of documents obtained falsly?"
>
> Once again, your statement is untrue; the documents (plural) were not
obtained falsely, and they weren't obtained falsly either.
>
> August 14-"Those responsible for the error in the original pamphlet have
already admitted to the error and have taken the steps to correct it. Why
are we still talking about it? Can't we accept their apology and move on?"
>
> No, we cannot. Those responsible for the error admitted to "sloppiness,"
denying the charge of plagiarism. But since the definition of plagiarism is
not predicated on "intent," their admission is a lie. And as SSAIW says,
>
> "Where there is sin, let us freely confess and forsake it. But because we
have resolved to abandon sin, this must include the sin of believing a lie."
(Wilkins and the Wolfman, SSAIW [Moscow: Canon Press, 1996] 8, emphasis
original.)
>
> Ted, I do not want to commit the sin of believing a lie. Do you?
>
> August 24-"And yet you seem to forget that they [Wilkins and the Wolfman]
also call for slaveries end."
>
> This is untrue. They never called for slaveries [sic] end. However, after
extolling the wonders of the South's peculiar institution for 39 pages, they
wrote,
>
> "None need lament the passing of slavery. But who cannot but lament the
damage to both white and black that has occurred as a consequence of the way
it was abolished? We are forced to say that, in many ways, the remedy which
has been applied has been far worse than the disease ever was.
>
>      The issue of slavery was used to provoke a revolution in 1861. That
revolution has continued to this day, and slavery has increased in our land
as a result. It is time for us to stand and declare the truth about slavery
and to expose the failures of the abolitionist worldview. Having done this,
we must go on to proclaim the only truth which can set all men truly free
from slavery-the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ibid., 39.)
>
> Follow the implications. Wilkins and the Wolfman believe they told the
truth about slavery and they stand opposed to abolitionism.
>
> August 27-"We have another internal communication of CC brought wrongfully
into a public forum."
>
> Your statement is untrue, and as before, you have the burden of proof.
>
> September 1-"FOR THE FOURTH TIME, I AM NOT DEFENDING SLAVERY AND I AM NO
ADVOCATING FOR ITS RETURN. I thought this was clear. My original post was
only meant to point out the misunderstandings, mangling and quotations out
of context of the original pamphlet [SSAIW]."
>
> You may not be defending slavery, but Wilkins and the Wolfman did. The
following quote, taken from the SSAIW, states the authors' thesis:
>
> The institution of slavery has so blackened the Southern position that
nothing about the South can be viewed as good or right. Slavery is
considered to be such a wicked practice that it alone is sufficient to
answer the question of which side was right in that unfortunate war. The
fact that the South practiced slavery is enough to cause many moderns to
feel they do not even have to listen to the various biblical and
constitutional arguments that swirled around that controversy. Consequently,
to have a closed mind on this issue is to be cloaked in virtue.
>
>      How could men have supported slavery? The question is especially
difficult when we consider that these were men who lived in a pervasively
Christian culture. We have all heard of the heartlessness-the brutalities,
immoralities, and cruelties-that were supposedly inherent in the system of
slavery. We have heard how slave families were broken up, of the forcible
rape of slave women, of the brutal beatings that were a commonplace, about
the horrible living conditions, and of the unrelenting work schedule and
back-breaking routine-all of which go together to form our impression of the
crushing oppression which was slavery in the South. The truthfulness of this
description has seldom been challenged.
>
>      The point of this small booklet is to establish that this impression
is largely false. (Ibid., 7, 8)
>
> Again, consider this sales' copy for SSAIW, posted on the Canon Press
website:
>
> How is it that a pervasively Christian culture could have supported
slavery? While opposing the South's abuses and racism, this essay seeks to
correct some of the gross slanders of that culture. It explains Scripture's
defense of a form of slavery against evangelicals who are embarrassed by it.
>
> Don't be embarrassed, Ted, open your mind and concede the point. The
authors of SSAIW co-plagiarized their monograph to defend the Southern
institution of slavery.
>
> So, you are guilty of at least one misrepresentation. You have assumed,
incorectly, something about me and in the very same post accuse me of
misrepresentation?
>
> My incorrect assumption does not constitute a misrepresentation. However
your representation as such does. Furthermore, my assumption has nothing to
do with your multiple misrepresentations.
>
> I have no quarrel with you, can't we discuss these issues with more
civilality?
>
> I thought we were.
>
> Is it so important that you bash someone nearly every time you post?
>
> I have not bashed anyone. Now, if you have any decency, please make the
appropriate restitution for your falsehoods. Otherwise your brown nose will
push through the Wolfman's abdomen.
>