[TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird

[Judy Taylor]

From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean:   You said > How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places?   What's the strawman?        I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places."   jt: And I asked if Jesus looked for the Father in all the wrong places not to twist anything you had said but because Jesus is the example left us to follow. I would think that if this is normal Christianity for us that we would see it in him and in his disciples. Who is doing the twisting here?   You said > During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father.   What's the strawman?        I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be."   jt: This is interesting because we very recently were discussing how his flesh was sinful - so are you saying that He was God encased in sin?   You said > I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it.   What's the strawman?        I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there."   jt: I was not intimating that you are pantheistic Bill. When I hear a statement such as "Jesus is Lord" over everything, it is meaningless to me if there is not a subjecting of thought, renewing of the mind and obedience in everyday life. I know Corrie Ten Boom used to say "Jesus is Victor" and "there is no darkness so deep that He is not deeper still".  She said this from her own life experience in a German prison camp, so yes he is in the fire with his people but worldly philosophies???   You said > It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi.  How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time?   What's the strawman?        I did not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest it. I have never said something so ludicrous.   jt: What is one doing then when they spend hours and hours listening to him and trying to "interpret" or figure out what he was saying? He is now dead so what does it matter what he said - whereas Jesus is alive and we have yet to plumb the depths of His Word.   I said, "Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equipped him to speak to the problems present in Enlightenment mentality?"  Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do not put blasphemous words in my mouth. I have always kept Christ in the center of my theology and conversations, and I have always put whomever I am speaking of, whether it be Polanyi or Torrance or Calvin or Athanasius or Kruger, in the periphery and soundly in submission to Christ. Please be a little more careful with your words.   jt: I'm not shunning Polanyi Bill (now who is putting words in someone's mouth); I'm just more interested in God's Word than I am in his words.   You said > Jesus didn't speak the words of any philosopher, he only said what he first heard the Father say - He spoke God's Words and we are to do the same because he left us an example that we should follow in His steps. Not the steps of Polanyi.   What's the strawman?         I did not say that Jesus spoke the words of any philosopher; I said he spun the philosophy of his day, and did so in a way to radically alter its intent.   jt: Jesus didn't spin philosophy - He spoke the Word of God - the same Word that was given to Moses and spoken by the prophets from Genesis to Revelation. Trying to mix it with worldly reasoning is like trying to mix oil and water. It won't work will leave ppl "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of Truth" Thomas Aquinas tried it when he attempted to blend scripture with the teachings of Aristotle. It didn't work then and doesn't work now.   Please read my words: "Long before Christ walked the earth, Confucius instructed his followers with these words: 'Do not do to other people what you would not have them do to you.' I think it's just too great a coincidence to imagine that Jesus was unaware of Confucius when he told his followers, 'Do unto others what you would have them do to you.'   jt: This is not a take on Confucius, it is the "royal law of Love". Confucianism is part of the broad road.   My point is this: Jesus took the philosophy of his day, no doubt a popular convention, and spun it just enough to radically alter its intent. One could be completely passive in life, spending every day doing nothing, and still satisfy Confucius' demand;  --  not so with Jesus. It takes action to please him: "Do unto others ..."       jt: No Jesus did not work anyone else's philosophy and he did not spin the first thing. His Kingdom is not "meat and drink" or good works alone. It is "righteousness, peace, and joy, in the Holy Spirit" something Confucius was totally ignorant of.           What's the strawman?         Secondly, I did not say to follow in Polanyi's steps; I did say, "I do not worship Polanyi. I worship Jesus Christ. But I do admire Polanyi's contribution, just like I admire others for their contributions."   jt: What if "his contribution" changes the landscape and gets ppl off the narrow path that leads to life by adding to and taking from the Word of God?   Judy, this is ridiculous. These are all in just one of your posts. Look over some of your others. In other words:   Silly woman, scarecrows are for birds. Your strawman is lazy; he's sleeping on the job. Ravens are roosting on his shoulders. He needs to get the boot. Promptly.   jt: I don't relate to this strawman concept, at this point it's just another diversion and more accusation; there is no way I can relate to all the philosophy, enlightenment teaching, the Nicene fathers, et al in your head Bill. but I am a student of God's Word and what I write is  either Truth or it is not. If you can show me by God's Word where I am wrong - then hopefully we can start to communicate.   judyt         ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:59 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Confucius, Polanyi etc. From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I said >   I like looking for our Lord in all the "wrong" places. It doesn't surprise me to find him working in strongholds normally given to the other side. Jesus made it his career doing this.   jt said >  How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places?     First of all, I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be.   jt: During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father.   I said I like looking for him (the Lord) in all the "wrong" places. By that I mean places not commonly frequented by highly stuffy religious types, places like university lecture halls and science forums. I am always amazed, when I go to those places, to find that Jesus is already there, laying the groundwork for the sharing of the Gospel. I think he thinks he would grow old waiting for most high brows to meet him at "church."   jt: I'm glad you believe you find him there Bill because I sure can't see him in much that comes out of those places.   Judy, I guess what I'm really saying is that I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there.   jt: I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it.. He was Lord over those who crucified Him.   That's what disturbs me about your attitude. Why in the world should Christians be content to concede any strongholds to the devil? There's just no getting around it, as long as we are in this world philosophy and science are going to be major players in shaping the way people think (Christian people included). I say, why be afraid?   jt: I'm not saying to concede any ground God wants to take, nor do I advocate fear which in itself is sin but there was a time when Jesus told his followers to "leave them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind"   Go there and be amazed to discover that our Lord can hold his own in any climate. Start changing the tide. Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equipped him to speak to the problems present in Enlightenment mentality?   jt: It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi.  How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time?   I think if you will bear with me a while, you'll begin to realize that your thoughts are not as genuinely biblical as you imagine. They too have been influenced by philosophy. If I'm wrong, you lose nothing but a little time. If I'm right, well, you'll know what you've gained.     jt said >   Was [Jesus] a student of any kind of philosophy that you know of?   I do not think I would characterize Jesus as a "student" of philosophy, just like I do not characterize myself in that way. I do know this, however, that Jesus did not shy away from opportunities to challenge the conventions of his day. Allow me one example. Long before Christ walked the earth, Confucius instructed his followers with these words: "Do not do to other people what you would not have them do to you." I think it's just too great a coincidence to imagine that Jesus was unaware of Confucius when he told his followers, "Do unto others what you would have them do to you."   jt: Hey a stopped watch is correct twice a day and Satan has been around a long time and he has heard a lot also. He puts a little poison on a lot that is true.  Do you believe that what is true is the same as truth when it comes by way of the father of lies?   My point is this: Jesus took the philosophy of his day, no doubt a popular convention, and spun it just enough to radically alter its intent. One could be completely passive in life, spending every day doing nothing, and still satisfy Confucius' demand;  --  not so with Jesus. It takes action to please him: "Do unto others ..." Here's the short of it: Jesus was not intimidated by philosophy. Why should we be?   jt: No, Jesus does not manipulate, nor does he spin anything.  The Kingdom he came to present is entirely new and "if any man be in Christ he is part of a new creation".  Not just a rehash of the old.  The old has been judged. The new has come and we need to learn the new language.   Instead, he stood it on its head. He did not say, Oh my gosh, Confucius said so and so, and so I'd better stay away from there. No! He took him on and set him straight. With Christ as our Lord, we can be doing the same thing today. Thanks to people like Polanyi, some of us are.   jt: Jesus didn't speak the words of any philosopher, he only said what he first heard the Father say - He spoke God's Words and we are to do the same because he left us an example that we should follow in His steps. Not the steps of Polanyi.   judyt   "Man in his pomp is like the beasts that perish"     From: Judy Taylor From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Your question was prompted by a comment I had made to Judy, pointing out the Aristotelian nature of her holiness doctrine. She didn't recognize Aristotle's influence on her thought. My guess is that neither did you. But I did, and I pointed it out to her.   jt: Bill sanctification/holiness is scriptural and the NT was not around in the days of Aristotle.    I did this not to attack her or to belittle her but to help her to maybe begin to realize that one does not need to study philosophy to be captivated by its lure. It is just as often the unsuspecting one who is hurt by philosophy as it is the one who makes it his prerogative to know. The point is, however, that I was not promoting philosophy over the Bible when this all began; instead I was awakening a sister to the silent whispers of Greek thought, when you wrote me to inquire about the philosophical underpinnings of my own theology.   jt: Could be that western thought is influenced by the Romans and Greeks; however, we are to die to all that and put on the mind of Christ.   I said, "if I were to say I adhere to a philosophy, I would look to the breakthroughs of Michael Polanyi." Why did I say that? I said it because I understand Polanyi and I know what he has done to free all thought, and especially Christian thought, from Enlightenment rationalism.   jt: The mind of Christ will do just as much to free us from Enlightenment rationalism so why do we need to come by way of Polanyi?    I wrote to the best of my ability, and I wrote for you and your fellow TTers to read. Please, get your dictionary out, put it beside you, and begin to work your way through it. It won't hurt you. And if you learn a new word or two, then, so what, that won't hurt you either.   jt: Thanks for being well meaning Bill; but can we justify the use of our time this way?   Beyond that, I do not worship Polanyi. I worship Jesus Christ. But I do admire Polanyi's contribution, just like I admire others for their contributions. I know I must "work out" my own salvation (to quote Judy, and partially quote Scripture),   jt: Hey! don't give me credit for that, I got it from the apostle Paul who wrote "So then mty beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:12,13)   but I am not so enamored as to think I have to do it all myself. Nor am easily I intimidated -- I like looking for our Lord in all the "wrong" places. It doesn't surprise me to find him working in strongholds normally given to the other side. Jesus made it his career doing this. Why should it stir you to discover the same?   jt: How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places?  Was he a student of any kind of philosophy that you know of?   Grace and Peace, judyt