[Vision2020] Trinity Festival protest

[g. crabtree]

I wasn't aware we were "engaged in an academic" debate either. I can't provide the "fabricated quotes" you ask for because you rarely include quotes. You use paraphrased he-said or she-saids and you quote from sources that are reviews, once removed from of what is actually presented. I assume that this is deliberately done to make refutation somewhat more difficult

As to a few of the statements you made that I believe are in error:

"oh, sure, in 500 years, when everybody's
Christian, execution will be mandatory, but there will, of course, be
very few homosexuals at that point, so it will merely be a sad, rare,
eventuality."

Again, paraphrase almost certainly and decidedly at odds with articles I have quoted previously.

 I recommend _Her Hand in
Marriage_ or _Reforming Marriage_, in which Doug discusses how a woman
is to pass as chattel between her father and her future husband.

Quite simply it does not.

Arranged marriages are the ideal to which they aspire, followed by an
interminable pregnancy interrupted by cleaning house and
non-consensual sex.

Stupid, vicious, and incorrect.

the official stance, as told to me by Wilson himself:

"Men haven't sufficiently oppressed women; therefore, God judges us by making men's sons effeminate." 

More paraphrase presented as fact. Note: "official stance as told to me by..."

I hope that this satisfies your request.

Compliantly,
g





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: "Warren Hayman" <whayman at adelphia.net>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Trinity Festival protest


> On 8/12/07, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mr. Schou,
>> Considering your penchant for overblown rhetoric and fudging the facts on
>> this topic you will have to forgive me if I do not accept your every
>> utterance as though it were revealed truth.
>>
>> Your "long" post seems to be equal parts guilt by association, accusations
>> of past ill considered remarks with no reference, citation, or context, and
>> your own unique spin as applied to the purported statements of others.
>> Hardly the sort of thing that is going to do a more effective job of
>> convincing me of the imminent harm that will befall our community from the
>> dread CC than the "thousands" of other rants you have gone off on before.
> 
> First of all, Gary, I wasn't aware that we were engaging in an
> academic debate. Would you at least indicate which quotes you believe
> I fabricated? Or perhaps one of the Christ Church hangers-on that lurk
> on Vision 2020 might correct me?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then I guess I have to go ahead and answer your charges, which
> alternate between slamming your palms down over your ears and shouting
> 'nuh-uh!' at the top of your lungs and casting vague aspersions about
> my character, honesty, etc, and then refusing to say anything specific
> when pressed.
> 
> So. Let's start with Grant and Wilkins. I suppose that, under most
> normal circumstances, the fact that he spends a great deal of time
> with Grant and Wilkins (and Sandlin), preaches with them, conducts
> seminars together, would merely be disquieting and not necessarily
> probative evidence of anything in particular. I'll remind you of two
> things, though: first, that what was being protested was Trinity Fest,
> at which Wilkins was a featured presenter, and, second, there have
> never been any protests at anything other than Trinity Fest and its
> antecedent, the "History Conference"
> 
> It's not the case, however, that Doug is only responsible for the
> behavior of his co-religionists when he presents with them. Doug is
> founder and moderator of the CREC, as well as the originator (with
> Steve Wilkins) of the sacertotalist variety of Presbyterianism --
> called "Auburn Avenue" or "Federal Vision" theology -- to which they
> all adhere. It would be a curious thing indeed if Doug disagreed so
> fervently on a topic that is of such importance with his
> co-religionists, given that he, in fact, exercises a great deal of
> authority  over them.
> 
> As for "context," I can do one thing: cut out paragraphs, as fairly as
> possible, that express the relevant view. I cannot reprint books for
> you, Gary. I would repeat my recommendation that you read them for
> yourself, as well as my recommendation that you do your best to avoid
> paying for reading them.
> 
> I'll repeat, if it'll turn your straw man back into a haystack, that I
> don't believe Christ Church is of any "imminent harm" to anyone other
> than women and homosexuals who have the misfortune to be born to its
> members, as well as those who choose to leave their "movement." They
> are not, at the moment, lurking under liberals' beds, waiting to jump
> out and burn us all at the stake. But i "imminent harm" is the
> standard required to merely disagree (loudly, publicly) with someone's
> political beliefs, you had best stop responding to this thread, as I
> daresay I'm not in any danger of causing "imminent harm" to anyone.
> 
> -- ACS
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070812/0b9fc2fc/attachment.html