From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Organization: LA&W RR
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 19:46:55 GMT

In article <85379@ut-emx.uucp> 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.

So put me in, see if I care. 


>#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.

Glad to see there is somebody out there who can understand English.  =B^)


>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:

>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.

If you learned how to read, you'd see that my post was directed at CARL
not AVI.  Carl disagreed with Avi's statement and ascribed this to
"Christianity".  I was merely pointing out that 1) Avi is not Christian
and 2) Avi has demonstarted anti-Christian bias.  The point was to show
how foolish Carls's statement was, not to pass any judgement on Avi.  I 
never said that Jews are anti-Christian, I said that Avi was.  This is 
not anti-semetic.  I have had intelligent discussions with several 
"hard-core" posters to s.c.j. and none of them has ever accussed me of 
being anti-semetic.  Far from it.  Although we may disagree on religious 
issues, I have a deep respect for Judaism. 

If you follow Avi's posts on various threads you will see that he sides
with skeptics against Christians when it comes to NT issues, with
Christians against skeptics when it comes to OT issues.  Problem is he
uses the same types of arguements to argue both sides, e.g. the NT is
invalid due to inconsistancies, the OT is valid due to its lack of
inconsistancies.  The OT is inspired by God, the NT isn't.  Etc.
Although most "religious" Jews do not agree with Christianity (and I can
understand and accept that) few exhibit the degree of outward (shall we
call it) "zeal" demostrated by Avi.

Since you find Avi so convincing, I guess you are the one standing with
him on his statement that the Dead Sea Scrolls are EXACTLY the same as
the current Tanakh (which resulted in a rare occasion where skeptics and
Christians alike could unite in a common cause!).

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic