[Vision2020] Metzler tries to reverse the diarrhoea diaries

[Taro Tanaka]

Fair enough, Paul. Two examples come to immediately to mind, but others 
could be cited. 1) Metzler's refusal to accept at face value Andrew 
Sandlin's statements concerning his church's decision to withdraw from the 
CREC and his willingness to publicly entertain slanderous speculations about 
various individuals and their motives in connection with that, including the 
clear implication that numerous leaders in the CREC are thoroughly corrupt 
and little more than yes-men to Wilson; 2) ditto with regard to Ligonier 
Ministries and Don Kistler.

-- Princess Sushitushi

Paul Rumelhart wrote:

Not that I care one whit about whatever theological points Mike Metzler
is bringing up that you object to, but if you are going to lambast
someone for not responsibly corroborating something you could at least
provide some evidence that this is the case.  Even a simple example
would help.

Paul

Taro Tanaka wrote:

>As a "tragedy of errors," Mike Metzler's Pooh Stink just goes from bad to 
>worse. He claims he wants to be responsible in his "exposes" of evil in the 
>church, yet he has carried plenty of stuff over the months that cannot, in 
>the nature of the case, be responsibly corroborated. Basically, he has just 
>been trusting his infallible nose. His Pope is his nose: Pater Nostril. Now 
>even Metzler's anesthetized olfactory system is setting off alarms at some 
>of the stuff that he has been passing along of late and he is belatedly 
>backpedaling and issuing caveats to his readers. That's all good and well, 
>as far as it goes, but what about all the other stuff that has been passed 
>on simply because it passed his sniff test? The fact of the matter is, 
>Metzler has no way of reliably gauging whether or not he is sinning against 
>his Christian brothers and sisters with MUCH of what he passes on. It's 
>just his best guess. Just blast away with the old shotgun and hope that 
>most of the pellets hit the bad guys and not innocent people. And if that's 
>not how it works out, well, at least your intentions were in the right 
>place . . . right? But then there's that old saw about the road to hell 
>being paved with good intentions.
>
>.. . . That's responsible reporting? Responsible stewardship of words? 
>Obeying the ninth commandment? Horseshoes, hand grenades, and hearsay . . . 
>is it enough to be "mostly right" or "right most of the time" when your 
>ministry is essentially muckraking? It is easy enough to spew forth a lot 
>of crap, but it is very hard to suck it all back in once you have released 
>it into cyberspace.
>
>Mr. Metzler, none of this would have been a problem if you were simply 
>addressing your words to God in prayer: He can sort out truth from fiction, 
>even when you can't. But before you publish things online, you had better 
>know the difference and be able to prove it. Anything less falls short of 
>what our Lord demands. I hope you learn and profit from this experience. 
>Otherwise you may have to answer for a lot of "collateral damage" in the 
>day of judgment.
>
>-- Princess Sushitushi

_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.com/