A little bit more about Jason
Richard Forrest
to post my response on the relevant thread, but although it has
apparently been accepted, it has not appeared.
Jason Gastrich wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Jason Gastrich wrote:
> >> Richard Forrest wrote:
> >>> I've been trying to post this on the relevant thread, but it
keeps
> >>> being rejected. Let's see if it works here:
> >>>
> >>> Jason Gastrich wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snipped>
> >>>> It's more obvious than ever that the people who have been
> >>>> constantly hating you and me for no good reason are doing so
> >>>> because of our Lord and
> >>> Savior.
> >>> <snipped>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jason, I don't hate you. I despise you. The reasons why I despise
> >>> you (in no particular order) are
> >>> 1) You are a fraud. Your use of the term 'Dr' on you
publications,
> >>> when it is an unearned honorary degree obtained from an
organisation
> >>> with which you are closely connected is, in my opinionm
fraudulent.
> >>
> >> I'm legally able to use the title Doctor. Your accusation of
> >> "fraud" is false.
> >
> > When the title is awarded by an instituion of which your name is on
> > the accreditation document
>
> This is untrue. I've said time and time again that OCCM DOES NOT
accredit
> anyone.
I note that the phrase " that is a professional association only, not
an accrediting organization" has been added to SBC's web site. The
accreditation now appears to be by the "Worldwide Accreditation
Commission of Christian Educational Institutions". A search for this
organisation leads to sites which can best be described as 'degree
mills' and no reputable academic institution, Christian or otherwise.
However, a web search for "On-line Christ Centered Ministries" leads
back only to SBC. Changing the spelling to "Online Christ Centered
Ministries" leads to sites mainly run by Jason Gastrich or link pages.
An exception is the link to "The Illinois Theological Seminary Online"
which, according to their web site
(http://members.core.com/0E/42/tricolor/Seminary/Site/legalstatus.htm)
" has been certified by the Online Christ Centered Ministries (OCCM), a
Christian credentialing organization that recognizes and credentiates
online ministries with worthy, theological, ethical and evangelical
standards."
You may argue that "credentiates online ministries" does not mean the
same as accreditation, but to do so is twisting on a semantic nuance.
>OCCM is a professional membership association with a Board of
> Directors that votes on applicants.
>
But Jason, *you* are the founder and director of OCCM, and sit on its
board!
Could you explain on what basis it claims to be a 'professional
membership association'?
> >, it suggests
> >
> > fraud to me. If it is an honorary title normal practice is not to
> > assume the title. Whether or not you are
> >
> > legally entitled to use the title is a moot point. The fact that
you
> > use it to give yourself an aura of
> >
> > academic status you have not earned is, in my opinion, what
> > consititues the fraud.
>
> Fraud isn't even the right word to describe what your alleging. And
what
> your alleging is wrong; simply your opinion, but wrong.
>
It is *not* normal practice to use honorary degrees to imply an
academic standing which has not been earned. Whether this is legal or
not is a matter for the courts to decide. Whether or not this is
ethical is another matter, and one has to question why you are so
persistent in using the title on your web sites if not to imply an
unjustified academic status. I can see no reason other than to pretend
to an authority you do not posess in an attempt to decieve.
Perhaps you can offer an alternative explanation.
> >>> 6) You are a coward. You run away from any difficult questions,
and
> >>> accuse those who persist in questioning you of being
anti-Christian.
> >>
> >> I'm right here. This is another false accusation.
> >
> > So why not answer this question from Ken Shaw by addressing it,
rather
> > than hiding behing the excuse of poor scholarship?
>
> This is an absurd accusation. Even though Ken has CONSTANTLY cursed
at me
> and called me names - which none of "you people of integrity" can
seem to
> frown upon -
Looking down the thread in which Ken has been pursuing you, he has
always been polite though persistent. This is bearing false witness,
Jason.
>and I have STILL answered him time and time, again; in a polite
> and reasonable way. He just ignores my answers and keeps asking the
same
> questions.
He keeps asking the questions because your answer is completely
inadequate. He has demonstrated that the quote you are using cannot be
ascribed to the person to whom you ascribe it. Your only defence has
been to say that you trust your sources.
This is very poor scholarship to say the least, and hardly an adequate
answer. One of the first principles of research in any field is to
check your sources thoroughly, and try to find primary sources if
possible.
>
> > I offer this as evidence both of your arrogance and vanity:
>
> > "I've decided to humble myself and avoid using the title "Dr." on
my
> > usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree
> >
> > in 2005. Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from
a
> > Bible college that has been authorized to
> >
> > grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best interest of many if I
> > stopped using it for now.
> >
> > Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
> > considering Jesus Christ. It has been
> >
> > disheartening to see so many people ignore my Bible-based words and
> > reject the Creator while calling me "fake
> >
> > Dr." and related things.It is my pleasure to remove this burden of
> > stumbling from you. Far be it from me to
> >
> > keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's sacrifice for you
on
> > the cross.
> >
> > God bless,
> >
> > Jason"
>
> On the contrary, this is an example of my integrity. I made this
statement
> many months ago and I have kept my word.
You made this statement because you were heavily criticised for using
an academic title you had not earned, and stopped using to in an
attempt to avoid further criticism. The wording you use in this
statement, which implies that you did this for the sake of other people
on the forum, and using phrases such as "considering God's Son's
sacrifice for you on the cross." is sanctimonious hypocrisy of the
worst kind.
>
> >> You'd attack any Christian that came to the newsgroups and began
> >> defending fundamental Christianity.
> >
> > I have never attacked anyone on this or any other newsgroup for
their
> > Christianity, or any other religious belief.
>
> Really? Well, you and many others have been hostile to fundamental
> Christianity for no good reason.
I'm hostile to liars and frauds, Jason. I'm hostile to people who claim
moral superiority and show themselves to be lacking in integrity. I'm
hostile to people who claim qualifications they have not earned.
Let me give you an example of lack of integrity:
You list on your web site scientists whom you claim to be believers in
the biblical account of creation. Several people on the list are not
scientists. Several (by *your* definition of the term) are not
Christian. You even include Albert Einstein on the list. Do you
seriously claim that he believed in the Biblical account of creation?
If so, perhaps you could provide some evidence to that effect.
It would show your integrity if you were to modify the list, and
provide some evidence to show that the people on thatlist can
legitimately be included based on the parameters you state. A failure
to modify the list or provide and defend the evidence would show that
you don't care that what you put on your site is true or false, so long
as it can dupe the ill-informed.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
> --
<snipped>
RF
David
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
<snip>
> > >> I'm legally able to use the title Doctor. Your accusation of
> > >> "fraud" is false.
> > >
One of my favorite google posts was with regard to the degree mill
status of Gastrich's masters and honorary degree was by Don
(http://tinyurl.com/62heb). He followed the trail of accreditation
from degree mill to degree mill.
There is more at the following thread http://shorterlink.com/?2VN3O0
<snip>
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > > Jason Gastrich wrote:
> > >> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> 6) You are a coward. You run away from any difficult
> > >>> questions, and accuse those who persist in questioning
> > >>> you of being anti-Christian.
> > >>
> > >> I'm right here. This is another false accusation.
> > >
> > > So why not answer this question from Ken Shaw by
> > > addressing it, rather than hiding behing the excuse of
> > > poor scholarship?
> >
> > This is an absurd accusation. Even though Ken has CONSTANTLY
> > cursed at me and called me names - which none of "you people of
> > integrity" can seem to frown upon -
>
> Looking down the thread in which Ken has been pursuing you, he has
> always been polite though persistent. This is bearing false witness,
> Jason.
>
This is unbelieveable. Either, Jason has no ability to keep track of
facts in his head, or he's a pathalogical liar. If it's the first then
most of his scholarship is worthless. If it's the second, all of his
scholarship is worthless. Either way he loses.
<snip>
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > > Jason Gastrich wrote:
> > >
> > >> You'd attack any Christian that came to the newsgroups and began
> > >> defending fundamental Christianity.
> > >
> > > I have never attacked anyone on this or any other newsgroup for
> > > their Christianity, or any other religious belief.
> >
> > Really? Well, you and many others have been hostile to fundamental
> > Christianity for no good reason.
>
> I'm hostile to liars and frauds, Jason. I'm hostile to people who
claim
> moral superiority and show themselves to be lacking in integrity. I'm
> hostile to people who claim qualifications they have not earned.
>
> Let me give you an example of lack of integrity:
> You list on your web site scientists whom you claim to be believers
in
> the biblical account of creation. Several people on the list are not
> scientists. Several (by *your* definition of the term) are not
> Christian. You even include Albert Einstein on the list. Do you
> seriously claim that he believed in the Biblical account of creation?
> If so, perhaps you could provide some evidence to that effect.
In a previous thread (http://shorterlink.com/?RN4LO2) I was also trying
to follow his logic with regard to the list of 'creationist'
scientists. He has made one particular statement that is completely
outrageous. I'm still not really sure if he believes it, or whether
it was a statement to demonstrate an absurd comment.
Here is the quote from Jason in Theology web regarding his long list of
pre-19th century creationist scientists.
[Quote from Gastrich
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4899]
How about this one: If all of those people were alive, today, the
theory of the evolution of species would be a total joke and in utter
shambles. It wouldn't be taught in schools and everybody would know it
was false. The lack of those people and those kinds of people have
allowed scientists to make huge assumptions on false data, leading us
to countless evolutionists that reject biblical creation.
[END Quote]
So it seems that when Einstein said:
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
limits."
He was thinking of Gastrich's logic.
David
Jason Gastrich
>>>>>> questions, and accuse those who persist in questioning
>>>>>> you of being anti-Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm right here. This is another false accusation.
>>>>
>>>> So why not answer this question from Ken Shaw by
>>>> addressing it, rather than hiding behing the excuse of
>>>> poor scholarship?
>>>
>>> This is an absurd accusation. Even though Ken has CONSTANTLY
>>> cursed at me and called me names - which none of "you people of
>>> integrity" can seem to frown upon -
>>
>> Looking down the thread in which Ken has been pursuing you, he has
>> always been polite though persistent. This is bearing false witness,
>> Jason.
>>
>
> This is unbelieveable. Either, Jason has no ability to keep track of
> facts in his head, or he's a pathalogical liar. If it's the first
> then most of his scholarship is worthless. If it's the second, all
> of his scholarship is worthless. Either way he loses.
>
> <snip>
I have already apologized to Ken. I got him confused with Don Kresch.
72 different people have posted 372 messages in the Evidence of God's
Existence thread I started a few days ago. Several of them swore at me.
It's a little difficult to keep track of everyone.
Sincerely,
Jason
Regards,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
David D.
Well that certainly explains it.
Your usnet threads are like fractal patterns. Just out of interest why
do you reply to people who swear at you? Heated discussion are great
but many of yours spiral into useless noise.
Maybe stick to one thread at a time?
David
Jason Gastrich
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
I already approached Rev. Jose about this on 11-26-04. Here is our
correspondance.
Dear Dr Gastrich,
Per your request, the links were taken from our site.
Please check it out:
http://www.freewebz.com/indepthseminary
www.itseminary.com
Again, thank you for your assessment on the matter.
In Christ,
Rev. Jose Oliveira.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Gastrich
To: illinoist...@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 11:45 AM
Subject: Hi
Hi Rev. Jose,
I pray that you are well.
I've noticed that you have OCCM's banner on your site. It looks very
good. We are happy to have your school as a member. However, I also
noticed that you have a link called "Accreditation" on
http://www.freewebs.com/indepthseminary/. This link goes to
http://members.core.com/0E/42/tricolor/Seminary/Site/legalstatus.htm where
it talks a little about OCCM.
OCCM is not an accrediting body as far as academics are concerned. We are
a professional membership association for those that are proclaiming the
true gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot confuse people by calling anything
we do "accreditation." Also, the use of the words "credential" and
"credentialize" are confusing.
Please ammend your site and let it reflect what we actually do. I write
you this letter because someone approached me today and brought this to our
attention. It really doesn't matter who approached me because this is a
valid issue, but when they said not to mention them, I thought I should
mention them. All I know about this person is their Yahoo Messenger ID is
drsearevalojr.
Please use words like "authenticated, member, membership, member in good
standing, certified member, and approved" and avoid using accreditation and
credential or credentialize.
May God richly bless you and your ministry.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
Since this still hasn't been fixed, I will contact him, again.
>> OCCM is a professional membership association with a Board of
>> Directors that votes on applicants.
>>
>
> But Jason, *you* are the founder and director of OCCM, and sit on its
> board!
> Could you explain on what basis it claims to be a 'professional
> membership association'?
OCCM's Board analyzes the beliefs of applicants and if they believe in the
biblical gospel of salvation, then we approve them. If they don't, then we
do not.
>>> , it suggests
>>>
>>> fraud to me. If it is an honorary title normal practice is not to
>>> assume the title. Whether or not you are
>>>
>>> legally entitled to use the title is a moot point. The fact that you
>>> use it to give yourself an aura of
>>>
>>> academic status you have not earned is, in my opinion, what
>>> consititues the fraud.
>>
>> Fraud isn't even the right word to describe what your alleging. And
>> what your alleging is wrong; simply your opinion, but wrong.
>>
>
> It is *not* normal practice to use honorary degrees to imply an
> academic standing which has not been earned.
I'm not using my honorary degree to imply an earned, academic standing.
> Whether this is legal or
> not is a matter for the courts to decide.
Yes, and they already have decided. SBC is legally able to confer degrees.
> Whether or not this is
> ethical is another matter, and one has to question why you are so
> persistent in using the title on your web sites if not to imply an
> unjustified academic status. I can see no reason other than to pretend
> to an authority you do not posess in an attempt to decieve.
I'm using the title because it was given to me by SBC. I'm implying an
honorary doctorate degree status. I've never told anyone any differently.
> Perhaps you can offer an alternative explanation.
>
>
>> >>> 6) You are a coward. You run away from any difficult questions,
> and
>>>>> accuse those who persist in questioning you of being
>>>>> anti-Christian.
>>>>
>>>> I'm right here. This is another false accusation.
>>>
>>> So why not answer this question from Ken Shaw by addressing it,
>>> rather than hiding behing the excuse of poor scholarship?
>>
>> This is an absurd accusation. Even though Ken has CONSTANTLY cursed
>> at me and called me names - which none of "you people of integrity"
>> can seem to frown upon -
>
> Looking down the thread in which Ken has been pursuing you, he has
> always been polite though persistent. This is bearing false witness,
> Jason.
I've already apologized to Ken for confusing him with Don.
>> and I have STILL answered him time and time, again; in a polite
>> and reasonable way. He just ignores my answers and keeps asking the
>> same questions.
>
> He keeps asking the questions because your answer is completely
> inadequate. He has demonstrated that the quote you are using cannot be
> ascribed to the person to whom you ascribe it. Your only defence has
> been to say that you trust your sources.
This is your opinion. With all due respect, you guys haven't earned my
respect. I find your motives and actions highly questionable. Therefore, I
trust the web sites and sources that support and authenticate this as a
Madison quote over your words.
> This is very poor scholarship to say the least, and hardly an adequate
> answer. One of the first principles of research in any field is to
> check your sources thoroughly, and try to find primary sources if
> possible.
This is your opinion. You think very highly about your opinion and the
opinions of those that I merely consider and even question. It's just the
way it is.
If I had to list the people from talk.origins and alt.atheism who have won
my respect and trust, it would be a very small list. I don't trust people
that harrass me, call me names, swear at me, tell me I have bad intentions
and motives, etc.
I did what I needed to do. I did a good thing for the cause of Christ on
usenet and my testimony. End of story.
>>>> You'd attack any Christian that came to the newsgroups and began
>>>> defending fundamental Christianity.
>>>
>>> I have never attacked anyone on this or any other newsgroup for
>>> their Christianity, or any other religious belief.
>>
>> Really? Well, you and many others have been hostile to fundamental
>> Christianity for no good reason.
>
>
> I'm hostile to liars and frauds, Jason.
I'm not a liar or a fraud.
> I'm hostile to people who
> claim moral superiority and show themselves to be lacking in
> integrity.
I don't claim any moral superiority.
I don't lack in integrity. I do disagree with you and some of your friends
and I have a very hard time trusting you guys due to your harsh words and
actions.
> I'm hostile to people who claim qualifications they have
> not earned.
No you're not. Don't lie. You're hostile toward me because you don't like
me and you reject God. Yes?
Show me other hostility to people with honorary doctorates and I'll believe
you.
Incidentally, I'm working hard to earn my Ph.D. in Biblical Studies and
should have it by May of 2006. At that time, out of curiosity, will you
jump from the "hate him because of the honorary degree" boat into the "hate
him because of the 'degree mill' degree" boat?
I really like LBU and I'm learning a lot. It matters little to me if people
don't like the school for the flimsy reasons I've seen. However, it's
surely not a degree mill by any stretch of the imagination.
> Let me give you an example of lack of integrity:
> You list on your web site scientists whom you claim to be believers in
> the biblical account of creation. Several people on the list are not
> scientists. Several (by *your* definition of the term) are not
> Christian. You even include Albert Einstein on the list. Do you
> seriously claim that he believed in the Biblical account of creation?
> If so, perhaps you could provide some evidence to that effect.
>
> It would show your integrity if you were to modify the list, and
> provide some evidence to show that the people on thatlist can
> legitimately be included based on the parameters you state. A failure
> to modify the list or provide and defend the evidence would show that
> you don't care that what you put on your site is true or false, so
> long as it can dupe the ill-informed.
Once again, I do not trust you or your friends. Until I do, don't expect me
to take any advice from you guys.
I'm adding free.christians to this post, so I won't miss it.
Ken Shaw
>
>
> I'm not a liar or a fraud.
>
Jason,
You told a lie about me and Farrel Till. That you apologized doesn't
change those facts.
You post long passages from copyrighted material and don't provide a
reference to the original source. This is plagiarism and is a very
serious form of lying since it makes it appear that the passage is your
original work.
You use out of context, deceptively edited and completely made up quotes
for propaganda purposes. This became dishonest when questions were
raised on these quotes and you failed to establish the accuracy of
material you present as the truth. As a matter of fact you persist even
when I and others provided you evidence that these quotes were untrue or
deceptive. Instead of taking steps to correct your site you question my
and others motives. I fail to see how your behavior in this matter can
be portrayed as that of an honest person.
This is more than sufficient evidence to brand you a liar in my book.
Ken
Victor Eijkhout
> It really doesn't matter who approached me because this is a
> valid issue, but when they said not to mention them, I thought I should
> mention them.
I beg your pardon?!
V. "at least you're honest about it"
--
email: lastname at cs utk edu
homepage: www cs utk edu tilde lastname
Mark Isaak
<usene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm not using my honorary degree to imply an earned, academic standing.
What, may I ask, *is* the earned academic standing that you imply by
using the title "Dr."?
>[...]
>I don't lack in integrity.
Your website still states that Lord Kelvin, Fabre, and Einstein
believed the creation account of Genesis. That is false in all three
cases (and, no doubt, in the cases of several other people you list).
That these people did not believe a six-day creation is not hard to
find. So you make claims based on shoddy, practically nonexistent
research, and you are slow to correct your errors. If that is not a
lack of integrity, then your standard for integrity alone shows your
lack of integrity.
Incidentally, you spelled Kelvin's name wrong.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Tom McDonald
> Jason Gastrich <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It really doesn't matter who approached me because this is a
>>valid issue, but when they said not to mention them, I thought I should
>>mention them.
>
>
> I beg your pardon?!
>
> V. "at least you're honest about it"
I was at the point of writing an "attaboy" to Jason. Then I
came to this.
There was no need whatsoever for Jason to mention that it was
brought to his attention by anyone specifically; and certainly
none whatsoever for him to ignore a request for confidentiality.
If this is how he treats such requests, I fervently hope that
he learns ethics if he ever counsels people. It is especially
disheartening as, IIRC, Jason's undergrad degree was in
psychology.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Jason Gastrich
Certain ministries have certain pests that are constantly after them. I
thought this person may be one of those people.
There was no good reason, in my opinion, for keeping silent about this
person's name. In fact, I made it clear to them that I did not feel
comfortable withholding their name. It didn't seem honest to me.
On the contrary, I obviously keep my counseling between me and whoever seeks
counsel. That is a different issue, though.
Tom McDonald
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>>Victor Eijkhout wrote:
>>
>>>Jason Gastrich <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It really doesn't matter who approached me because this is a
>>>>valid issue, but when they said not to mention them, I thought I
>>>>should mention them.
>>>
>>>
>>>I beg your pardon?!
>>>
>>>V. "at least you're honest about it"
>>
>>I was at the point of writing an "attaboy" to Jason. Then I
>>came to this.
>>
>>There was no need whatsoever for Jason to mention that it was
>>brought to his attention by anyone specifically; and certainly
>>none whatsoever for him to ignore a request for confidentiality.
>> If this is how he treats such requests, I fervently hope that
>>he learns ethics if he ever counsels people. It is especially
>>disheartening as, IIRC, Jason's undergrad degree was in
>>psychology.
>
>
> Certain ministries have certain pests that are constantly after them. I
> thought this person may be one of those people.
Might have been. That is irrelevant, since you could and
should have made the point of correcting ITS in any case. There
was no reason to say anything about how it came to your
attention. However, if you had to say something, a simple "It
has been brought to my attention" would have, should have, sufficed.
>
> There was no good reason, in my opinion, for keeping silent about this
> person's name. In fact, I made it clear to them that I did not feel
> comfortable withholding their name. It didn't seem honest to me.
From what you wrote, the person asked not to be identified.
Your feeling uncomfortable honoring that request, apparently
based on your assumption that s/he might not have been honest,
should not have mattered. Unless you know more about the one
who brought this to your attention than you've told us, it was
your suspicion of the person's motives, not any proof (as you
constantly ask from others) that any hanky panky occurred, or
was intended.
In situations like that, I tell the person I can't promise
confidentiality; and that if they still wish to tell me, they do
so knowing that. If they've already told me, I ask them if it
is OK to use their name or other identifiers. If they say "no",
I don't use it. Period.
Again, you need not have said word one about *how* the issue
came to your attention. That you did what you did is the kind
of thing that makes it difficult for people to trust you.
>
> On the contrary, I obviously keep my counseling between me and whoever seeks
> counsel.
I have a background in counseling and family therapy. I'm very
good at keeping confidential things confidential. When I was
working as a therapist, I made it my business to be circumspect
and respectful of the confidences of others, whether in frankly
therapeutic relationships, or in the rest of my life. The
therapeutic relationship can be fragile, and one is well advised
to conduct one's entire life as though clients/patients were
watching.
I also have done a fair bit of news reporting. The same holds
there. If someone requests confidentiality and I can't promise
it, I tell them and *they* decide. It's basic Golden Rule
stuff, Jason.
> That is a different issue, though.
It may be different, but in my mind it is certainly related.
Dana Tweedy
"Jason Gastrich" <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KvBCd.46035$nP1....@twister.socal.rr.com...
snipping
>> He keeps asking the questions because your answer is completely
>> inadequate. He has demonstrated that the quote you are using cannot be
>> ascribed to the person to whom you ascribe it. Your only defence has
>> been to say that you trust your sources.
>
> This is your opinion. With all due respect, you guys haven't earned my
> respect. I find your motives and actions highly questionable. Therefore,
> I
> trust the web sites and sources that support and authenticate this as a
> Madison quote over your words.
Jason, did it ever occur to you, that in only accepting sites that you
"trust" (ie. agree with you), that you are in effect placing blinders on
your eyes? In an earlier reply to me, when I pointed out that your use of
out of context quotations were dishonest, you claimed that you "trusted"
your source, despite being presented with the evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps you should consider that those you agree with are not necessarily
correct. Conversely, a person with an opposing view is not necessarily
wrong, or trying to harm you.
Instead of simply accepting blindly what you want to hear, it would be
wise to examine which position is supported by the evidence. It really
doesn't matter who you "respect", it's who has the evidence to back up the
claims that you should be listening to.
>
>> This is very poor scholarship to say the least, and hardly an adequate
>> answer. One of the first principles of research in any field is to
>> check your sources thoroughly, and try to find primary sources if
>> possible.
>
> This is your opinion. You think very highly about your opinion and the
> opinions of those that I merely consider and even question. It's just the
> way it is.
>
> If I had to list the people from talk.origins and alt.atheism who have won
> my respect and trust, it would be a very small list. I don't trust people
> that harrass me, call me names, swear at me, tell me I have bad intentions
> and motives, etc.
Again, you should consider that those who correct your misinterpetations are
not necessarily trying to harm you, and those who say what you want to hear
are not necessarily doing you any favors. May I suggest you examine which
side has the better evidence.
snip the rest.
DJT
Victor Eijkhout
> There was no good reason, in my opinion, for keeping silent about this
> person's name.
How about the fact that someone took a chance on your sense of decency?
V.
Jason Gastrich
That's your opinion. I disagree.
I sensed something suspicious when the guy told me not to tell Rev. Jose his
name. Since Rev. Jose has a member ministry, I decided to let him face his
accuser.
>> There was no good reason, in my opinion, for keeping silent about
>> this person's name. In fact, I made it clear to them that I did not
>> feel comfortable withholding their name. It didn't seem honest to
>> me.
>
> From what you wrote, the person asked not to be identified.
> Your feeling uncomfortable honoring that request, apparently
> based on your assumption that s/he might not have been honest,
> should not have mattered. Unless you know more about the one
> who brought this to your attention than you've told us, it was
> your suspicion of the person's motives, not any proof (as you
> constantly ask from others) that any hanky panky occurred, or
> was intended.
If it were me, I'd like to face my accuser. I gave Rev. Jose the same
respect.
If someone is bold enough to make a claim against someone, then they're bold
enough to provide their name; or in this case, their screen name.
> In situations like that, I tell the person I can't promise
> confidentiality; and that if they still wish to tell me, they do
> so knowing that. If they've already told me, I ask them if it
> is OK to use their name or other identifiers. If they say "no",
> I don't use it. Period.
You aren't the director of an organization, so you haven't been in my shoes.
> Again, you need not have said word one about *how* the issue
> came to your attention. That you did what you did is the kind
> of thing that makes it difficult for people to trust you.
That's your opinion.
Rev. Jose trusts me and even moreso, now. I care more about him and his
ministry, who holds an OCCM membership, than I do about the whistle-blower
that I've never spoken to, again.
People who are married know what it's like to keep secrets from someone
close to them; from someone they're really not supposed to keep secrets
from. I gave Rev. Jose the same respect I would show to a loved one.
>> On the contrary, I obviously keep my counseling between me and
>> whoever seeks counsel.
>
> I have a background in counseling and family therapy. I'm very
> good at keeping confidential things confidential. When I was
> working as a therapist, I made it my business to be circumspect
> and respectful of the confidences of others, whether in frankly
> therapeutic relationships, or in the rest of my life. The
> therapeutic relationship can be fragile, and one is well advised
> to conduct one's entire life as though clients/patients were
> watching.
Counseling and letting Rev. Jose know his accuser are two, very different
things.
> I also have done a fair bit of news reporting. The same holds
> there. If someone requests confidentiality and I can't promise
> it, I tell them and *they* decide. It's basic Golden Rule
> stuff, Jason.
Not sure if that's the Golden Rule.
>> That is a different issue, though.
>
> It may be different, but in my mind it is certainly related.
Hardly.
JG
Tom McDonald
Has Rev. Jose corrected the problem? The one both of you agree
exists (or existed)? That is the important issue wrt the
integrity of OCCM, and yourself as a director of OCCM.
If no one had brought this to your attention, would you have
ever found out about the problem? I'd think you'd have done due
diligence and check out how the OCCM certification was being
used. The 'whistle blower' did you, OCCM and ITS a service, no
matter what you may imagine about his/her motives.
You have shown before that Christians who think like you, whom
you trust, get treated better than others who do not think like
you. For example, when presented with evidence about an issue
regarding Madison, and an invitation for you to check it out for
yourself, you said you'd stick with a (at least) questionable
source because you trusted them. That's an appeal to authority,
which you've rightly noted elsewhere is a logical fallacy. You
did the same with quotes mined by Phillip Johnson, that were
shown to have outrageously perverted the meaning of their
authors. You trusted Johnson; so the quotes were in. (If you
have subsequently repented of this, and I haven't seen it,
please tell me and I'll apologize.)
Mike Painter
> Jason Gastrich <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> There was no good reason, in my opinion, for keeping silent about
>> this person's name.
>
strick standards dealing with confidentiality.
The upside is how fast and far Jason's behavior will spread among people who
might have turned to him for counceling.
Even with him keeping any critism of him aff his web sites the word will
spread.
Jason Gastrich
I emailed him about this, today. I trust that he'll get back to me, soon.
> If no one had brought this to your attention, would you have
> ever found out about the problem? I'd think you'd have done due
> diligence and check out how the OCCM certification was being
> used. The 'whistle blower' did you, OCCM and ITS a service, no
> matter what you may imagine about his/her motives.
>
> You have shown before that Christians who think like you, whom
> you trust, get treated better than others who do not think like
> you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the atheists at alt.atheism, for
instance, treat the other atheists FAR, FAR, FAR better than people of
differing beliefs?
It's a pretty natural thing for you to trust your friends more than you
trust your enemies. Isn't it?
> For example, when presented with evidence about an issue
> regarding Madison, and an invitation for you to check it out for
> yourself, you said you'd stick with a (at least) questionable
> source because you trusted them. That's an appeal to authority,
> which you've rightly noted elsewhere is a logical fallacy.
When the person arguing against the Madison quote has some credibility
issues, it plays a factor in my decision making.
> You
> did the same with quotes mined by Phillip Johnson, that were
> shown to have outrageously perverted the meaning of their
> authors. You trusted Johnson; so the quotes were in. (If you
> have subsequently repented of this, and I haven't seen it,
> please tell me and I'll apologize.)
I have admitted that his quote about the eye from Darwin should have been
made in context. It was misleading when it was taken out of context.
Regards,
Jason
Ken Shaw
>>regarding Madison, and an invitation for you to check it out for
>>yourself, you said you'd stick with a (at least) questionable
>>source because you trusted them. That's an appeal to authority,
>>which you've rightly noted elsewhere is a logical fallacy.
>
>
> When the person arguing against the Madison quote has some credibility
> issues, it plays a factor in my decision making.
>
What credibility issues to you claim I have? This is the second time in
3 days you have impugned my character, why do you continue to do this?
Ken
P.S. You guessed correctly Jason. I'm going to post this question in
reply to all of your posts until you respond.
David D.
Victor Eijkhout wrote:
> Jason Gastrich <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There was no good reason, in my opinion, for keeping silent about
this
> > person's name.
>
> How about the fact that someone took a chance on your sense of
decency?
This was quite a strange decision by Jason. Recently, jason replied
using e-mail to a post RF made on talk origins. RF posted the e-mail
on talk origins. Here is a link to enter the thread where this was
dicussed. http://tinyurl.com/3otpx
The details do not matter. What's interesting was jason's response to
RF when he posted what Jason had assumed was a private e-mail (note
assumed, he did not specifically ask for privacy).
QUOTE from Jason Gastrich
"I have no respect for you, now. Don't expect another thoughtful
reply. You can go back to your atheist cheerleaders, now."
END QUOTE from Jason Gastrich
Stones and greenhouses here?
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> You have shown before that Christians who think like you, whom
>> you trust, get treated better than others who do not think like
>> you.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the atheists at alt.atheism, for
> instance, treat the other atheists FAR, FAR, FAR better than people of
> differing beliefs?
>
> It's a pretty natural thing for you to trust your friends more than you
> trust your enemies. Isn't it?
Jason, does this mean you are taking your moral clues from Athiests now?
May I again point out that people who disagree with you are not necessarily
your enemies, and those who you agree with are not necessarily your friends.
>
>> For example, when presented with evidence about an issue
>> regarding Madison, and an invitation for you to check it out for
>> yourself, you said you'd stick with a (at least) questionable
>> source because you trusted them. That's an appeal to authority,
>> which you've rightly noted elsewhere is a logical fallacy.
>
> When the person arguing against the Madison quote has some credibility
> issues, it plays a factor in my decision making.
Why not look at the evidence? Shouldn't that be your standard of
acceptance, rather than your subjective ideas of "trust"?
>
>> You
>> did the same with quotes mined by Phillip Johnson, that were
>> shown to have outrageously perverted the meaning of their
>> authors. You trusted Johnson; so the quotes were in. (If you
>> have subsequently repented of this, and I haven't seen it,
>> please tell me and I'll apologize.)
>
> I have admitted that his quote about the eye from Darwin should have been
> made in context. It was misleading when it was taken out of context.
So, do you now agree that Phil Johnson has "credibility issues"? Have you
removed the out of context quotes?
DJT
lizzard woman
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qoXCd.1394$%e1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
|
| "Jason Gastrich" <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:jGNCd.59566$gd.2...@twister.socal.rr.com...
| snipping
|
| >> You have shown before that Christians who think like you, whom
| >> you trust, get treated better than others who do not think like
| >> you.
| >
| > Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the atheists at alt.atheism, for
| > instance, treat the other atheists FAR, FAR, FAR better than people of
| > differing beliefs?
| >
| > It's a pretty natural thing for you to trust your friends more than you
| > trust your enemies. Isn't it?
|
| Jason, does this mean you are taking your moral clues from Athiests now?
| May I again point out that people who disagree with you are not
necessarily
| your enemies, and those who you agree with are not necessarily your
friends.
Jason, in alt.atheism, you mentioned you were thinking of getting a Masters
in some scientific field (by which I'm guessing from your interest in
creation/evolution debates you mean either geology, paleontology, biology,
etc.). If you go through with this, you will almost certainly have to write
a thesis of original research that demonstrates you are competent to do
(mostly) independent research.
Based on what you have posted in the groups, I believe you will find that
the techniques you have employed to date for your research will be
unacceptable for a Masters from a secular university. These techniques
include not going with the original source, not trying to drill down to find
the original source, appeals to authority, etc.. And the difference between
accredited secular and non-accredited theological schools is NOT that the
secular schools hate Christians. It's that they have a certain standard of
scholarship that you will have to hew to if you intend to get a Masters in a
scientific field. (N.B. I'm assuming no unaccredited theological school
offers Masters in any hard sciences. I could be wrong.)
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
Mark K. Bilbo
Gastrich lept out of the bushes shouting:
> When the person arguing against the Madison quote has some credibility
> issues, it plays a factor in my decision making.
When the actual documents exist, the "credibility" of the person is
*irrelevant.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
Mark K. Bilbo
lept out of the bushes shouting:
> In our last episode <jGNCd.59566$gd.2...@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
> Gastrich lept out of the bushes shouting:
>
>> When the person arguing against the Madison quote has some credibility
>> issues, it plays a factor in my decision making.
>
> When the actual documents exist, the "credibility" of the person is
> *irrelevant.
Okay, that was phrased *very badly.
The point remains, we have actual documents to read. Dithering about the
"credibility" of someone quoting the document is pointless when you can
actually go read the damn document.
I've begun to think you just do not get this *at *all.
lizzard woman
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:WPqdnX2iYKc...@megapath.net...
| In our last episode <WPqdnUKiYKc...@megapath.net>, Mark K. Bilbo
| lept out of the bushes shouting:
|
| > In our last episode <jGNCd.59566$gd.2...@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
| > Gastrich lept out of the bushes shouting:
| >
| >> When the person arguing against the Madison quote has some credibility
| >> issues, it plays a factor in my decision making.
| >
| > When the actual documents exist, the "credibility" of the person is
| > *irrelevant.
|
| Okay, that was phrased *very badly.
|
| The point remains, we have actual documents to read. Dithering about the
| "credibility" of someone quoting the document is pointless when you can
| actually go read the damn document.
|
| I've begun to think you just do not get this *at *all.
I think Gastrich has a bunker mentality. He has decided that the bible must
be interpreted literally and therefore carefully shields himself from
anything that might cause him to question that position. His approach is
antithetical to doing research in that he has a result in mind before doing
the research. I suspect he feels that the entire secular university
enterprise cannot be taken seriously because they, of course, take a more
rational approach to research.
I get the mental imagine of this small group of biblical literalists,
including Hovind, Ham, Austin, Gastrich, etc. huddling together reassuring
themselves that they are right but knowing that there is an entire WORLD out
there who know that they are advocates, not researchers.
Tom McDonald
> Tom McDonald wrote:
<snip>
>>Has Rev. Jose corrected the problem? The one both of you agree
>>exists (or existed)? That is the important issue wrt the
>>integrity of OCCM, and yourself as a director of OCCM.
>
>
> I emailed him about this, today. I trust that he'll get back to me, soon.
I hope so as well. There seems to be a matter of honesty and
honor on the line here.
>
>
>>If no one had brought this to your attention, would you have
>>ever found out about the problem? I'd think you'd have done due
>>diligence and check out how the OCCM certification was being
>>used. The 'whistle blower' did you, OCCM and ITS a service, no
>>matter what you may imagine about his/her motives.
I'm curious as to whether you agree with the above, Jason.
>>
>>You have shown before that Christians who think like you, whom
>>you trust, get treated better than others who do not think like
>>you.
>
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the atheists at alt.atheism, for
> instance, treat the other atheists FAR, FAR, FAR better than people of
> differing beliefs?
I don't post or read there; but from my experience of threads
cross posted to groups I do read, treatment runs the full gamut.
Neither I nor other people of faith that I know of have been
treated poorly, in general, by them.
In any case, as Christians, we have been given standards as to
how we are to treat others. That shouldn't depend on the
behavior of non-Christians.
>
> It's a pretty natural thing for you to trust your friends more than you
> trust your enemies. Isn't it?
Yes. However, human nature is not supposed to be our highest
guide in these matters. If the evilest person I know corrected
my best friend, and it was possible to verify the facts in the
matter, *and* s/he was correct, I'd trust the evil one on that
issue. To do otherwise is to make idols of our friends.
If my worst enemy yells "Watch out for the car!" while I'm
crossing the street with my best friend, and my friend tells me
it's nothing, I for one would still look.
>
>
>>For example, when presented with evidence about an issue
>>regarding Madison, and an invitation for you to check it out for
>>yourself, you said you'd stick with a (at least) questionable
>>source because you trusted them. That's an appeal to authority,
>>which you've rightly noted elsewhere is a logical fallacy.
>
>
> When the person arguing against the Madison quote has some credibility
> issues, it plays a factor in my decision making.
As it should. But the issue can be independently verified, and
should be. That should be the primary factor in your decision
making. This is particularly so when it's your reputation on
the line.
>
>
>>You
>>did the same with quotes mined by Phillip Johnson, that were
>>shown to have outrageously perverted the meaning of their
>>authors. You trusted Johnson; so the quotes were in. (If you
>>have subsequently repented of this, and I haven't seen it,
>>please tell me and I'll apologize.)
>
>
> I have admitted that his quote about the eye from Darwin should have been
> made in context. It was misleading when it was taken out of context.
>
I'm glad.
Mike Painter
<snip>
> Jason, in alt.atheism, you mentioned you were thinking of getting a
> Masters in some scientific field (by which I'm guessing from your
> interest in creation/evolution debates you mean either geology,
> paleontology, biology, etc.). If you go through with this, you will
> almost certainly have to write a thesis of original research that
> demonstrates you are competent to do (mostly) independent research.
>
> Based on what you have posted in the groups, I believe you will find
> that the techniques you have employed to date for your research will
> be unacceptable for a Masters from a secular university. These
> techniques include not going with the original source, not trying to
> drill down to find the original source, appeals to authority, etc..
> And the difference between accredited secular and non-accredited
> theological schools is NOT that the secular schools hate Christians.
> It's that they have a certain standard of scholarship that you will
> have to hew to if you intend to get a Masters in a scientific field.
> (N.B. I'm assuming no unaccredited theological school offers Masters
> in any hard sciences. I could be wrong.)
http://www.liberty.edu/wwwADMIN/globals/dsp_v2_wwwindex.cfm?pid=184 may
offer such degrees. This is their math department:
"The Department offers courses not only in mathematics but also in physics
and other physical sciences such as earth science and astronomy."
I wonder if they accept proofs in the science classes and theory in the math
classes.
There used to be a catalog that told what courses were required but I can't
find it now.
I suspect to many people quoted from it.
David D.
> lizzard woman wrote:
<snip>
> > And the difference between accredited secular and non-accredited
> > theological schools is NOT that the secular schools hate
Christians.
> > It's that they have a certain standard of scholarship that you will
> > have to hew to if you intend to get a Masters in a scientific
field.
> > (N.B. I'm assuming no unaccredited theological school offers
Masters
> > in any hard sciences. I could be wrong.)
>
> http://www.liberty.edu/wwwADMIN/globals/dsp_v2_wwwindex.cfm?pid=184
may
> offer such degrees. This is their math department:
>
> "The Department offers courses not only in mathematics but also in
physics
> and other physical sciences such as earth science and astronomy."
I don't have a link but I'm quite sure that Liberty is accredited. In
the 'authentic' sense of the word.
Mark K. Bilbo
I'm starting to suspect something even worse. He does not seem to actually
be capable of understanding that there are physically existing documents
to compare these "opinions" to.
I'm beginning to suspect he's actually mystified as to what's going on...