From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:03:35 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <01050133.krusns@distant.uucp> edw%distant@bts.com writes:
#
#In article <85133@ut-emx.uucp> (sci.skeptic), bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) writes:
#> In article <1992Dec7.190924.2567@bony1.bony.com> billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:
#> #In article <1f6oefINN16i@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
#> #
#> #>Amazing the contortions some Christians will go through to preserve the myth of
#> #>inerrancy, isn't it?
#> #
#> #It's obvious you haven't been following the "What did Judas betray?" thread.
#> #If you had, you'd realize that Avi is Jewish and rabidly anti-Christian.
#> .                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#> 
#> This is not only ad-hominem but also anti-semitic. 
#> This person (Bill Gripp) is close to being chucked 
#> into my KILL file.
#
#> When I read an article, it doesn't matter to me who 
#> or what the author is, but only if what is said is truthful.
#> It helps a lot if I can verify what is said from reliable
#> sources.
#
#> But if the argument is that I shouldn't listen to 
#> other people because they are Jewish, or Christian, or
#> Moslem, or Atheist, or anti-[any of the above], or whatever
#> other imagined faults may be found with them, then the 
#> opinions expressed are not worthy of respect.
#
#What are you, the Thought Police? I don't understand how you misinterpreted
#this statement so badly. Let's look at it one more time...
#
#> #>Amazing the contortions some Christians will go through to preserve the myth of
#> #>inerrancy, isn't it?
#> #
#> #It's obvious you haven't been following the "What did Judas betray?" thread.
#> #If you had, you'd realize that Avi is Jewish and rabidly anti-Christian.
#
#All he's saying is that Avi isn't Christian, and he doesn't fit the
#Biblical Inerrancy Supporter Character Profile. If anything, *Carl* is guilty
#of a sweeping generalization, not that I care or anything. You are being a
#little bit shrill here with the anti-semetism stuff -- perhaps you should
#calm down. You must really be focused on finding anti-semites if you can
#totally take this person's message out of context so completely.

By fixating on the word anti-semitic you have missed the
major point of my post. Here, let me help you out. I'll
delete the reference to anti-semitic, leaving everything else:

#> 
#> This is ad-hominem. 
#> This person (Bill Gripp) is close to being chucked 
#> into my KILL file.
#
#> When I read an article, it doesn't matter to me who 
#> or what the author is, but only if what is said is truthful.
#> It helps a lot if I can verify what is said from reliable
#> sources.
#
#> But if the argument is that I shouldn't listen to 
#> other people because they are Jewish, or Christian, or
#> Moslem, or Atheist, or anti-[any of the above], or whatever
#> other imagined faults may be found with them, then the 
#> opinions expressed are not worthy of respect.

See? Avi had written what I thought was a reasoned
series of articles. He gave references to support
what he said. I may not have agreed with him, but
he was making his case in an appropriate way. Bill
Gripp's ONLY response was to attack Avi as a person,
not to attack his arguments. This is the logical
fallacy of the Argumentum ad Hominem. We don't need
it here.

I also feel that Bill Gripp's remark was at least
insensitive. I happened to comment that it was
anti-semitic (or at least it appeared to me that
way--I'd be interested to know what the reaction
of any Jewish readers here, who are better attuned 
to such nuances than I, might be.) In any case,
this comment wasn't my main point, and I'm sorry
if that has confused the issue.

Bill
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic