Bert Thompson, the Church of Christ, and Creationism
Todd S. Greene
Hi, Robert Baty.
(Anyone else - Kevin Henke? - care to join in, please do so.)
My other main thread right now ("Most Creationist Christians Simply
Don't Care About 'Objective Reality'") is, I believe, starting to wind
down. So let's start talking.
I'm curious about your interest in Bert Thompson, and Abilene Christian
University, and Gil Yoder and so on. I'm surmising, though I could be
wrong and will await your comments, that you have some kind of
background with the Church of Christ. Hence, your interest in
creationism in that particular context. Please post here and tell me a
little about your background as it relates to the context of your
current interest in creationism and the Church of Christ.
My own background is that I was raised in the Church of Christ, and was
a sincere and devoted member of that denomination...
ooh, they hate it when I say that ;-}
....until I was 22 years old. It was then (the summer of 1983) that
various lines of my own education, personal study, and understanding
reached a climax with regard to my personal realization that critical
elements of what I believed were completely and totally wrong.
I wrote a lengthy essay in explanation of how and why I had arrived at
that critical juncture (with respect to my religious convictions), and
presented this to the preacher of the church where I was a member. (He
and I were friends, and had discussed this subject - creationism - on
various occasions.) This was at the Church of Christ on Pontiac Drive in
Pontiac, Michigan.
Of course, the Church of Christ being what it is, I was soon
"disfellowshipped" because of my new "belief" in evolution.
My history before this was that, as I have mentioned in previous posts,
I have attended Abilene Christian University, and took several classes
in biblical studies there. (I'll admit the Greek was a little tough, but
interesting nonetheless.) Note that it was at ACU that I took a
one-semester astronomy class, to fulfill one of my requirements for
science credits (I was majoring in biblical studies at that time), and I
attribute to this class some ideas I learned that ended up being
critical catalysts in the evolution of my own thinking toward realizing
the fundamental fallacies of creationism. Just a little irony there.
(Of course, Bert Thompson was onto this kind of thing at ACU when he
wrote his book challenging, for example, the biology professor there who
was teaching evolution.)
So I can say I'm "well-versed" in the fundamentalist mentality with
regard to creationism and evolution, because I was there. That mentality
was mine, and I advocated creationism with the best of them. For my
major essay in Junior English in high school, I wrote a 30-something
page report about creationism (which, of course, looking back, all
constituted fallacious attacks on evolution). My reference material was
such books as *The Genesis Flood* (Morris & Whitcomb) and *Evolution:
The Fossils Say No!* (Gish), and also a book by the late J. D. Thomas (a
writer well-known in the Church of Christ) and some material by - guess
who? - Wayne Jackson (also a COC writer).
It was in 1978, after seeing a debate at Portland State University
between Gary Parker (I "miswrote" in an earlier post several weeks ago
that it was Richard Bliss, but this was about 21 years ago, the memory
of the name is not clear, and I think it was Parker not Bliss) and some
geophysicist at PSU about radioactive dating of the earth, that I first
began to realize that not everything was quite right with the YEC world.
I took profuse notes at that debate. Being in the middle of a calculus
class my senior year in high school (and doing well, thank you), I was
not intimidated by the math that the PSU professor was tossing into his
argument, a significant part of which revolved around isochron dating.
Parker was making illegitimate criticisms (David Plaisted, where are
you?), and I realized this.
The ACU astronomy class (fall/winter '79 or winter/spring '80, I can't
remember) focused my attention on the implications of interstellar (and
intergalactic) distances with respect to "deep time," and I'd say it
took me about a year after that before I really kissed my YEC beliefs
goodbye (quietly, I might add).
It took another two years for my thinking to progress on to theistic
evolution, and then, and only then, was it that I abandoned my
fundamentalist religious beliefs with regard to the Bible and God.
(Maybe Kevin Henke will post here about some of the evolution of his
personal history in this context.)
I've got to go right now, but let this serve as my short preliminary
introduction of myself as a prelude to discussing Bert Thompson in the
context of creationism in the Church of Christ, a fundamentalist
denomination.
_______________________________________________
Todd S. Greene
<tNgOrS...@usxchange.net>
"Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
let us learn together what is good." (Job 34.4)
uncle Joe
tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
> Hi, Robert Baty.
>
> (Anyone else - Kevin Henke? - care to join in, please do so.)
>
> My other main thread right now ("Most Creationist Christians Simply
> Don't Care About 'Objective Reality'") is, I believe, starting to wind
> down. So let's start talking.
>
> I'm curious about your interest in Bert Thompson, and Abilene Christian
> University, and Gil Yoder and so on. I'm surmising, though I could be
> wrong and will await your comments, that you have some kind of
> background with the Church of Christ. Hence, your interest in
> creationism in that particular context. Please post here and tell me a
> little about your background as it relates to the context of your
> current interest in creationism and the Church of Christ.
>
> My own background is that I was raised in the Church of Christ, and was
> a sincere and devoted member of that denomination...
>
snippitty do,dah day
The way i see it is that the church of christ is a counterfit church.
baptism doesn't save my friend. Only the blood of christ washes away the sin.
Now let me ask you this question, what is your best chunk of evidence you
have that supports the theory of evolution?
maff91
>In article <36f2491f...@news.usxchange.net>,
>tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
>
>> Hi, Robert Baty.
>>
>> (Anyone else - Kevin Henke? - care to join in, please do so.)
>>
>> My other main thread right now ("Most Creationist Christians Simply
>> Don't Care About 'Objective Reality'") is, I believe, starting to wind
>> down. So let's start talking.
>>
>> I'm curious about your interest in Bert Thompson, and Abilene Christian
>> University, and Gil Yoder and so on. I'm surmising, though I could be
>> wrong and will await your comments, that you have some kind of
>> background with the Church of Christ. Hence, your interest in
>> creationism in that particular context. Please post here and tell me a
>> little about your background as it relates to the context of your
>> current interest in creationism and the Church of Christ.
>>
>> My own background is that I was raised in the Church of Christ, and was
>> a sincere and devoted member of that denomination...
>>
>snippitty do,dah day
>
>The way i see it is that the church of christ is a counterfit church.
>baptism doesn't save my friend. Only the blood of christ washes away the sin.
>
>Now let me ask you this question, what is your best chunk of evidence you
>have that supports the theory of evolution?
<http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
<http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
rlb...@webtv.net
tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
>
>Hi, Robert Baty.
>
Dear Todd S. Greene,
I was kind of wondering when you might get around to posting your response.
I appreciate your effort.
I have made a concerted, but less than perfect, perhaps, effort to avoid
becoming part of the issue here. On numerous occasions others have tried to
make me into an issue, seemingly to avoid/evade having to call Bert Thompson,
Ph.D. and his fellows to account for their public errors.
I would allege to be a member of the church of Christ. While that would
suggest I believe in creation, I do not consider myself a "creationist" as
that term is popularly applied in today's culture. I discovered a long time
ago that I would not be the one to resolve the Bible/Science controversies.
However, is is clear that many a promoter from all sides will come calling
for me. So, to the extent I have the time, interest and skills I would do
well check out some of the details (others have proposed the practical
reality that "the devil's in the details").
It was in 1992 that Bert Thompson, Ph.D. came to my local congregation with
various errors which I spotted. We all make mistakes of course; that is not
the issue.
Ultimately, it just has turned out that the Maury story became one that
others apparently had not before seriously considered and is really the
easiest to use in testing some of the criticism of the "creation-science"
movement and its leaders. I had read the criticisms and had the opportunity
to, in part, make an empirical test. From my research, everybody else (i.e.
Gish, Morris, etc) were getting all the attention as the real leaders and
nobody was paying any attention to the lesser lights such as Bert Thompson,
Ph.D., or the impact this "ism" was having on the church.
The rest, they say, is history. The record on this site, seems to me, to
adequately document the reality of the justified criticisms of the movement
and memorializes an important detail in a very big puzzle.
The Abilene connection is a little off topic. As a matter of fact and law,
such schools are not "integral agencies" of the church(es) of Christ, and
that has been published and preached to me for as long as I can remember.
So it is of some concern to me when I find out that the Abilene schoolmen
secretly worked out a deal (through George Bush and Omar Burleson) with the
IRS which resulted in a secret little agreement whereby the government would
recognize Abilene Christian and others (i.e. Pepperdine - see the Kenneth
Starr connection?) as "integral agencies" of the church. That way, employees
that want to sign up as ministers can claim tax benefits just as though they
worked for the church. Millions and millions of dollars in taxes, no doubt,
are being evaded each year by this little deal (Revenue Ruling 70-549). That
means the basketball coach, math teacher, and cook and bottle washer!
In closing, I would note that my interests are quite limited and I have no
interest in pursuing a biography on this site. I can't compete with most of
the folks here. It just so happens I have an special interest in topics
relevant to this site and this is a place where "open, honest" debate might
be engaged.
Enough said, I guess. So, let's see what folks have to say about the public
issues. Some may choose to still try and talk about me, but I would not be a
particularly profitable discussion, IMHO.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
e-mail: rlb...@webtv.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Todd S. Greene
<123-190399...@maxtnt06-abe-92.fast.net>):
>In article <36f2491f...@news.usxchange.net>,
>tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
>
>> Hi, Robert Baty.
>>
>> (Anyone else - Kevin Henke? - care to join in, please do so.)
>>
>> My other main thread right now ("Most Creationist Christians Simply
>> Don't Care About 'Objective Reality'") is, I believe, starting to wind
>> down. So let's start talking.
>>
>> I'm curious about your interest in Bert Thompson, and Abilene Christian
>> University, and Gil Yoder and so on. I'm surmising, though I could be
>> wrong and will await your comments, that you have some kind of
>> background with the Church of Christ. Hence, your interest in
>> creationism in that particular context. Please post here and tell me a
>> little about your background as it relates to the context of your
>> current interest in creationism and the Church of Christ.
>>
>> My own background is that I was raised in the Church of Christ, and was
>> a sincere and devoted member of that denomination...
>>
>snippitty do,dah day
>
>The way i see it is that the church of christ is a counterfit church.
>baptism doesn't save my friend. Only the blood of christ washes away the sin.
I'm not about to get into a religious argument "Uncle Joe," especially
since I'm not even a member of the Church of Christ (and have not been,
as I stated, for over 15 years).
I will make this point: "What makes your denomination better than anyone
else's?" Maybe your denomination is just as counterfeit.
>Now let me ask you this question, what is your best chunk of evidence you
>have that supports the theory of evolution?
Start another thread or go to many of the other threads here in
talk.origins. Though certain details could come up here in this thread,
that is certainly not the thrust. Sorry to disappoint you.
Todd S. Greene
<7cumvk$2a4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>):
>In article <36f2491f...@news.usxchange.net>,
> tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
>>
>>Hi, Robert Baty.
>>
>>So let's start talking.
>
>Dear Todd S. Greene,
>
>I was kind of wondering when you might get around to posting your response.
>I appreciate your effort.
You can't claim my time like that. I work 45-50 hours a week, I have a
family of four children, and so on. Please don't be one of those kinds
of writers.
Surely it wasn't more than about a week. I don't have as much "free
time" as other posters here. And, remember, before I posted, I spent a
few hours (an hour this day, an hour that day, and so on) in DejaNews
looking up past posts about Bert Thompson, in order to try to understand
the context of your request.
>I have made a concerted, but less than perfect, perhaps, effort to avoid
>becoming part of the issue here.
I think some just see you as "obsessing" somewhat over one issue, one
man.
>On numerous occasions others have tried to
>make me into an issue, seemingly to avoid/evade having to call Bert Thompson,
>Ph.D. and his fellows to account for their public errors.
I did not see that in DejaNews, but, then, I was focusing on searches of
"Bert Thompson" so I surely could have missed that.
>I would allege to be a member of the church of Christ. While that would
>suggest I believe in creation, I do not consider myself a "creationist" as
>that term is popularly applied in today's culture. I discovered a long time
>ago that I would not be the one to resolve the Bible/Science controversies.
>
>However, is is clear that many a promoter from all sides will come calling
>for me. So, to the extent I have the time, interest and skills I would do
>well check out some of the details (others have proposed the practical
>reality that "the devil's in the details").
It is. Very much so.
This brings up a relevant point.
Trust and reputation.
Since I was raised in the Church of Christ, that was of course my
"default" area of trust. People writing as COC members automatically
gave them a level of trust on issues with respect to, say, an
"atheistic" writer. I read people like J. D. Thomas, James Bales, Wayne
Jackson, Arlie J. Hoover, Bert Thompson, and others with the prevailing
anti-evolution view of the COC. This, of course, in addition to the
typical creationist fare of Morris, Whitcomb, Lambert, Gish, Bliss,
Parker, and so on.
So these writers are writing from the same "worldview" as I had, so I
agreed with what they were saying on creationism and evolution. But as I
was becoming an adult and encountering specific bits of information that
directly contradicted creationism (pretty much just YEC, in the first
half of my transformation), such as the debate on radioactive dating and
the astronomy class that I mentioned previously, I would check into
these further, on both sides, and the creationists would come out on the
short end of the stick.
But, these were details, and people make mistakes, and the Bible is the
Word of God, and the creationists had the same "worldview" as I did. But
you can see their reputation was beginning to get a little tarnished.
This did not occur quickly. I'm not saying much in only three
paragraphs, but those three paragraphs are from about 1-1/2 years of my
life. It took a total of about 5 years for me to go from being an
out-and-out YEC to an evolutionist.
I had a paper published in *The Firm Foundation* in, I think, 1981, with
regard to human speech, and how it was so different with regard to
symbolic content from that of apes that it could not have evolved. (I
wrote it based on something I was studying in a social psychology class
at the time.)
But it was details, every step of the way. It was a whole bunch of
little things, here and there. It was things like when I was attending
Oakland University new Pontiac, Michigan (minoring in Physics, majoring
in Math) and going to Kresge Library there, actually being able to look
up many of the sources of the quotes of scientists in creationist
literature (this was back in the early '80s) and discovering that it
seemed almost standard practice for creationists to misrepresent what
the scientists were actually saying.
I remember doing things like what you are doing now, Robert. For
example, COC member Curtis Dickinson put out a regular newsletter that
my father subscribed to. He was, as is typical for creationists,
misrepresenting quotes from scientists in one issue I happened to read,
and to me with what I now knew the misrepresentations were pretty
egregious (but really nothing worse than the standard fare that gets
passed around from church bulletin to church bulletin). I wrote
something like a four- or five-page letter to the guy and explained in
detail what was wrong with his presentation of and comments on the
quotes.
Do you think I heard anything from or saw any kind of comment about it
in his newsletter?
Of course not!
Anyway, to get back to my point, you can see where going into 1983 I was
at the point where the reputation of creationists was not sitting very
well with me. At that time I was what I would call a "progressive
creationist." I had abandoned YEC, but still believed in a special
creation of humankind.
In my mind, the reputation of creationists had gone from spotless,
defenders of the faith against the atheistic tendencies of many in
science, to people who, at best, did not understand many of the details
of reality with respect to astronomy and geology, and who had
demonstrated to me that, though they professed dedication to truth, they
practiced shoddy tactics that allowed them to misrepresent information
on a routine basis.
The creationists had lost my trust.
This was not because I had checked out every little detail and found
them to be wrong. (I'm only one man!) It was because they were wrong on
much of the details that I *had* been able to check out, and had shown
me that they weren't being careful themselves to accurately represent
information and opposing arguments that I had taken the time to study.
Chronologically, this brings me to the beginning of 1983. My fateful
year.
Keep in mind that it was in, I think late 1981 or early 1982 that the
Arkansas "creationism equal-time" law was challenged in court and lost.
Up until this time, scientists were relatively quiet about publicly and
directly challenging what to them were people's religious beliefs. (How
many books do scientists take the time and effort to write against the
flat earth?) The Arkansas trial catalyzed a more active response by many
scientists to what they saw as illegitimate religious encroachment
against public education and science. Several books were published at
that time (and have continued to come since then, though there was a
"spurt" in the '82/'83 time frame).
In the early spring of 1983, I accidentally came upon the book *Creation
and Evolution* by Norman D. Newell. Wow! Were scientists breaking their
long relative silence? Indeed, they were. This led me to Philip
Kitcher's *Abusing Science*, and Douglas Futuyma's *Science On Trial*.
In addition, at that time I took an physical anthropology course taught
by Dr. Richard Stamps at Oakland University. (Dr. Stamps was an active
member in the Mormon church, which has in the past been rather
anti-evolution, but which has begun officially changing that position.
He and I had some personal discussions related to my own "crisis of
faith" and that time, and he helped me in talking about his own.) I took
the class, not for any college credits (because I did not need
anthropology -- though, of course, I received a grade of "A"), but to
formally study more about the physical evidence for human evolution from
a teacher I knew was not in any way biased by "atheistic tendencies."
The evidence was clear. My crisis was at the climax. I had gone over
enough information to make a proper determination, and my moment of
decision had arrived. I could remain intellectually honest (along with
dealing with the psychological pain of, in effect, losing my whole life;
and, did I mention yet that my father was a preacher in the COC), or I
could ignore what I had learned.
I believe in truth-seeking. I believed in it then, and now. To me,
truth-seeking was not something that depended on your personal feelings
about the results. The world is what it is regardless of what you think
about it.
So I chose to remain intellectually honest. I rejected creationism
altogether, realizing that it had nothing to stand on. And I realized
that creationists were doing nothing more than promoting propaganda at
the expense of truth, because of their concern for their religious
beliefs.
>It was in 1992 that Bert Thompson, Ph.D. came to my local congregation with
>various errors which I spotted. We all make mistakes of course; that is not
>the issue.
>
>Ultimately, it just has turned out that the Maury story became one that
>others apparently had not before seriously considered and is really the
>easiest to use in testing some of the criticism of the "creation-science"
>movement and its leaders. I had read the criticisms and had the opportunity
>to, in part, make an empirical test. From my research, everybody else (i.e.
>Gish, Morris, etc) were getting all the attention as the real leaders and
>nobody was paying any attention to the lesser lights such as Bert Thompson,
>Ph.D., or the impact this "ism" was having on the church.
>
>The rest, they say, is history. The record on this site, seems to me, to
>adequately document the reality of the justified criticisms of the movement
>and memorializes an important detail in a very big puzzle.
It is one detail among very many. My advice (remember, I'm speaking from
my own experience) is to not get caught up on one thing for too long.
Spend the time you need to get to the bottom of the specific matter
yourself, satisfy yourself about it, then move on. There are other
things to ponder, other things to study, other things to learn.
The Maury thing is one error about a matter of historical fact. It is,
indeed, an example of the recalcitrance of creationists in general to
"give ground" on even obvious, noncritical details. As you have pointed
out, if creationists won't "admit" even this, how can you expect them to
be honest when it comes to more substantive matters?
Take my (traditional) example of SN1987A showing that the universe is at
least 169,000 years old. If I can't get a (YEC) creationist to even
admit this much, a direct observation in the present of an event that
occurred in the distant past, then what reason is there to talk about
anything else? If he can't admit this obvious little detail, then he
shows that he is not genuinely interested in truth-seeking.
Trust and reputation. Today's creationists cannot be trusted. This is
the reputation they deserve.
>The Abilene connection is a little off topic. As a matter of fact and law,
>such schools are not "integral agencies" of the church(es) of Christ, and
>that has been published and preached to me for as long as I can remember.
>
>So it is of some concern to me when I find out that the Abilene schoolmen
>secretly worked out a deal (through George Bush and Omar Burleson) with the
>IRS which resulted in a secret little agreement whereby the government would
>recognize Abilene Christian and others (i.e. Pepperdine - see the Kenneth
>Starr connection?) as "integral agencies" of the church. That way, employees
>that want to sign up as ministers can claim tax benefits just as though they
>worked for the church. Millions and millions of dollars in taxes, no doubt,
>are being evaded each year by this little deal (Revenue Ruling 70-549). That
>means the basketball coach, math teacher, and cook and bottle washer!
The COC is somewhat unique in this regard, as you know, though non-COC
members reading this may not be aware of, in that the COC is a
"doctrinal stickler" with regard to non-biblical institutions. There
are, indeed, no "colleges" in the New Testament, and the New Testament
nowhere authorizes the church to establish colleges. So the COC, trying
to stick carefully with the New Testament, makes it such that these
schools truly are not formally affiliated with the church. They are
independent bodies. But in a legal sense, this does not mean that they
should not be afforded the same legal status as the church-affiliated
schools of all other denominations. I have to agree with ACU on this
one!
>In closing, I would note that my interests are quite limited and I have no
>interest in pursuing a biography on this site. I can't compete with most of
>the folks here. It just so happens I have an special interest in topics
>relevant to this site and this is a place where "open, honest" debate might
>be engaged.
>
>Enough said, I guess. So, let's see what folks have to say about the public
>issues. Some may choose to still try and talk about me, but I would not be a
>particularly profitable discussion, IMHO.
>
>Sincerely,
>Robert Baty
>e-mail: rlb...@webtv.net
I think maybe you mistake my intent. I just wanted to learn more about
you with respect to your interest *in the context of* the Church of
Christ in general and Bert Thompson in particular. (Especially since my
own background is from the COC, and I know something about Bert Thompson
from that time.) I am not expecting this to be done in one or a couple
of posts, but in several posts that can be carried on over time within
this one thread. I had thought that sharing my own personal history in
this context might be relevant as a prelude leading into this.
I had thought that our discussion would simply "evolve" in this thread!
And so, I shall say less about myself, and more to the topic of the
stated title of this thread, in my next post here.
Have a good week!
rlb...@webtv.net
tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
> On 19 Mar 1999 18:34:38 -0500 rlb...@webtv.net wrote (msg-id
> <7cumvk$2a4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>):
>
> >In article <36f2491f...@news.usxchange.net>,
> > tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
> >>
> >>Hi, Robert Baty.
> >>
> >>So let's start talking.
> >
> >Dear Todd S. Greene,
> >
> >I was kind of wondering when you might get around to posting your response.
> >I appreciate your effort.
>
> You can't claim my time like that. I work 45-50 hours a week, I have a
> family of four children, and so on. Please don't be one of those kinds
> of writers.
Dear Todd,
I apologize for a possible misunderstanding here. I only meant to express my
anxiousness for a response. I was not intending to press you or "claim your
time"; just anxious to get your views. I don't know of any others on this
site that have brought your perspective.
I'll keep watching to see how the thread develops. By the way, some of the
folks here have suggested someone prepare a FAQ relative to the things being
discussed here and in my previous efforts. I am certainly not up to it.
Maybe you've come to Talk.Origins for such a time as this?
I'll keep watching for such as you wish to post in your own time. Thanks
again.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
e-mail: rlb...@webtv.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Jody Johnson
> The way i see it is that the church of christ is a counterfit church.
> baptism doesn't save my friend. Only the blood of christ washes away the sin.
Counterfeit in what way?
As for baptism, no it doesn't save people; it is just one of the steps needed for
salvation.
Jody Johnson
> The Abilene connection is a little off topic. As a matter of fact and law,
> such schools are not "integral agencies" of the church(es) of Christ, and
> that has been published and preached to me for as long as I can remember.
>
> So it is of some concern to me when I find out that the Abilene schoolmen
> secretly worked out a deal (through George Bush and Omar Burleson) with the
> IRS which resulted in a secret little agreement whereby the government would
> recognize Abilene Christian and others (i.e. Pepperdine - see the Kenneth
> Starr connection?) as "integral agencies" of the church. That way, employees
> that want to sign up as ministers can claim tax benefits just as though they
> worked for the church. Millions and millions of dollars in taxes, no doubt,
> are being evaded each year by this little deal (Revenue Ruling 70-549). That
> means the basketball coach, math teacher, and cook and bottle washer!
I was unaware of that revenue ruling, but I am not surprised since Abilene and
Pepperdine are considered to be more liberal C of C schools. In fact,
Pepperdine's relationship to the church is practically non-existenet anymore. I
am a DLU graduate - I know, big shock.
Jody Johnson
> Hi, Robert Baty.
>
> (Anyone else - Kevin Henke? - care to join in, please do so.)
>
> My other main thread right now ("Most Creationist Christians Simply
> Don't Care About 'Objective Reality'") is, I believe, starting to wind
> down. So let's start talking.
>
> I'm curious about your interest in Bert Thompson, and Abilene Christian
> University, and Gil Yoder and so on. I'm surmising, though I could be
> wrong and will await your comments, that you have some kind of
> background with the Church of Christ. Hence, your interest in
> creationism in that particular context. Please post here and tell me a
> little about your background as it relates to the context of your
> current interest in creationism and the Church of Christ.
>
I don't know who Gil Yoder is. But Bert Thompson is, I believe, now
affiliated with Faulkner University (formerly Alabama Christian College); I
say that because his publications come from Montgomery, which is where the
school is located.
Not all C of C are YEC. I believe John Clayton strays from the literal
24-hour creation day theory. I know Hugh Ross is not a YEC, but I am not
sure of his church association.
Todd S. Greene
Greene) wrote (msg-id <36f2491f...@news.usxchange.net>):
>[snip]
>
>(Anyone [...] care to join in, please do so.)
>
>[snip]
>
>My own background is that I was raised in the Church of Christ, and was
>a sincere and devoted member of that denomination [...] until I was 22
>years old. It was then (the summer of 1983) that various lines of my own
>education, personal study, and understanding reached a climax with
>regard to my personal realization that critical elements of what I
>believed were completely and totally wrong.
>
>[snip]
>
>Of course, the Church of Christ being what it is, I was soon
>"disfellowshipped" because of my new "belief" in evolution.
>
>My history before this was that, as I have mentioned in previous posts,
>I have attended Abilene Christian University, and took several classes
>in biblical studies there [....] Note that it was at ACU that I took a
>one-semester astronomy class, to fulfill one of my requirements for
>science credits (I was majoring in biblical studies at that time), and I
>attribute to this class some ideas I learned that ended up being
>critical catalysts in the evolution of my own thinking toward realizing
>the fundamental fallacies of creationism. Just a little irony there.
>
>(Of course, Bert Thompson was onto this kind of thing at ACU when he
>wrote his book challenging, for example, the biology professor there who
>was teaching evolution.)
>
>So I can say I'm "well-versed" in the fundamentalist mentality with
>regard to creationism and evolution, because I was there. That mentality
>was mine, and I advocated creationism with the best of them. For my
>major essay in Junior English in high school, I wrote a 30-something
>page report about creationism (which, of course, looking back, all
>constituted fallacious attacks on evolution). My reference material was
>such books as *The Genesis Flood* (Morris & Whitcomb) and *Evolution:
>The Fossils Say No!* (Gish), and also a book by the late J. D. Thomas (a
>writer well-known in the Church of Christ) and some material by - guess
>who? - Wayne Jackson (also a COC writer).
>
>[snip]
>
>The ACU astronomy class (fall/winter '79 or winter/spring '80, I can't
>remember) focused my attention on the implications of interstellar (and
>intergalactic) distances with respect to "deep time," and I'd say it
>took me about a year after that before I really kissed my YEC beliefs
>goodbye (quietly, I might add).
>
>It took another two years for my thinking to progress on to theistic
>evolution, and then, and only then, was it that I abandoned my
>fundamentalist religious beliefs with regard to the Bible and God.
>
>[snip]
There are a few "John Claytons" in the Church of Christ. John Clayton,
whom I corresponded with at length in 1984 and part of 1985, is what I
would classify as a "progressive creationist." He accepts the ancient
age of the universe and the earth, but believes in the biblical concept
of "kinds," such that there has been no evolution between kinds. In
particular, of course, he believes that "human" did not evolve from
"non-human."
(A side note: What I've never understood about creationists is that they
shoot themselves in the foot with this "kinds" concept, because they
accept major evolutionary change - within "kinds" - and then turn around
and argue that genetics imposes some kind of limit, but the amount of
"change within kinds" that they already accept already argues against
the kind of "genetic limits" they would like to impose on evolution. And
the YECs in particular are crazy, because the *rate* of evolutionary
change they accept within "kinds" occurring in less than 6,000 years is
a truly phenomenal thing - far beyond anything proposed by any
evolutionist.)
Here are some on-line John Clayton references:
http://www.doesgodexist.org/AboutClayton/
http://www.doesgodexist.org/
You can tell from the URL, Mr. Clayton runs the "Does God Exist"
seminars. By the way, he is a member of the
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I would say (from my own admittedly
anecdotal experience) that YEC is by far the predominant position held
in the Church of Christ, so much so that even the progressive
creationists are sometimes bitterly attacked. See, for example, the
following online reference
http://www.bible.ca/dp-john-claytons-views.htm
which is not, in my opinion, untypical of people in the Church of
Christ.
Here's another site typical of COC views:
http://www.webcom.com/~kwm/avonheights/creation/creation_pages.htm
Take a look at this one:
http://www.startext.net/np/btcoc/dmdino.htm
where the guy flatly states "The Bible clearly teaches God created the
dinosaurs. They did not evolve into existence." And the Bible does
clearly indicate dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries, created on
the same day. Therefore human beings have lived on earth who saw
dinosaurs." And "The Bible describes creatures that are no longer on
earth. They are extinct. Such creatures actually once existed -- but the
scientists are wrong in their dating. They were not here millions of
years ago. They were here a few thousand years ago. The earth itself is
but a few thousand years old. Job lived in the patriarchal period,
perhaps before the flood, and saw these creatures with his own eyes."
Everything I just quoted from this guy is typical COC fare.
Now, here's a really weird part (though in my opinion, this is even a
little extreme for the COC):
[Job 41] Verses 18-21 clearly depict this creature as a
fire breathing animal. I've always thought that the
Medieval stories of the knight in shining armor riding
out to slay the fire breathing dragon was completely
mythological. But have you ever considered how many
different cultures have dragon like creatures in their
culture and in their art? Medieval Europe is not the
only place. How many times have you gone into a Chinese
restaurant and seen a dragon? Have you ever noticed the
dragon masks on the walls of Mexican restaurants? Many
cultures around the world have dragons in their
folklore. This text would suggest that these allusions
have risen out of actual historical circumstances. This
description cannot be dismissed as purely figurative
and symbolic. Figurative language doesn't work that way.
This is a creature that breathes fire and produces
smoke. No such creature appears to exist today. But we
do have biological precedence for light producing
creatures like the firefly, the bombardier beetle and
some other creatures. Dinosaur fossils even provide some
evidence of anatomical compartments that may have served
as mixing chambers for combustible chemicals.
This is truly fundamentalist literalism! (Don Keyes, where are you?)
(To Jody: I had thought Hugh Ross was Methodist, not COC, but I don't
have a clear memory on what denomination he is a member of. So you went
to David Lipscomb U., huh? Are you still a COC member?)
Anyway, I don't think any formal survey has every been done about the
COC with respect to creationism and evolution. But my experience is that
people in the COC are clearly anti-evolutionist, and predominantly hold
the YEC position.
Please, anyone else who knows better, correct me if I'm wrong.
I have also seen where anyone who did not hew to the YEC line frequently
comes under attack (such as John Clayton). I cannot imagine what would
happen to someone who attempted to claim not only that the earth is
billions of years old, but the global flood was a myth, and human
evolved from non-humans.
Actually, I can imagine. That was me. I haven't been a member of the
Church of Christ for about 16 years.
Well, I still haven't gotten to Bert Thompson (I AM getting there!), but
I gotta go for now...
rlb...@webtv.net
Jody Johnson <jo...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I was unaware of that revenue ruling, but I am not surprised since Abilene and
> Pepperdine are considered to be more liberal C of C schools. In fact,
> Pepperdine's relationship to the church is practically non-existenet anymore.
I
> am a DLU graduate - I know, big shock.
Dear Jody & Others,
For a more complete discussion of the revenue ruling you can go to the forum
entitled misc.taxes.moderated (as opposed to just misc.taxes). The main
discussion is on an expired thread entitled "Integral agency. . .". A current
thread was recently started which you might also find interesting and is
related. That thread is entitled "The Fame of Oscar Haimowitz".
There are also some thread around talk.origins that discuss this, but this
isn't really the forum for it, is it?
Honus
<snip>
> This is a creature that breathes fire and produces
> smoke. No such creature appears to exist today. But we
> do have biological precedence for light producing
> creatures like the firefly, the bombardier beetle and
> some other creatures. Dinosaur fossils even provide some
> evidence of anatomical compartments that may have served
> as mixing chambers for combustible chemicals.
>
> This is truly fundamentalist literalism! (Don Keyes, where are you?)
Todd, you forgot to mention that it was sparks from Dino's teeth that
ignited the combustible mixture. And no, people, I'm not kidding. It was
admittedly conjecture, but still...that's what I was told.
--
To reply via e-mail, replace the anti-spam "strangeflesh" with "net".
rwa...@worldnet.att.net
When I was a kid one of our cows foundered. By the time I got there Grampa
had already poked the cow with a knife (handsbreadth behind the ribs) and
let the gas out. The last time Thompson was in town (Fayetteville, NC)
giving a seminar. He described a special sharpened tube just for use on
foundering cows and how it shot a jet of flame if you lit the methane
coming out. And he used the fact that cows produce lots to methane to
suggest that herbivorous dinosaurs did also (which is highly probable) and
that some of these had the capability of belching up this this gas and
sparking it by crunching their teeth. And of course they existed into the
middle ages. He conviently omitted the fact that dragons are always
depicted as carnivores and often shown with wings.
Thompson also claims that the frozen mammoths of Siberia are so plentiful
the natives use them as dog food. About fell out of my chair when I heard
that.
>
> This is truly fundamentalist literalism! (Don Keyes, where are you?)
>
> (To Jody: I had thought Hugh Ross was Methodist, not COC, but I don't
> have a clear memory on what denomination he is a member of. So you went
> to David Lipscomb U., huh? Are you still a COC member?)
>
> Anyway, I don't think any formal survey has every been done about the
> COC with respect to creationism and evolution. But my experience is that
> people in the COC are clearly anti-evolutionist, and predominantly hold
> the YEC position.
>
> Please, anyone else who knows better, correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> I have also seen where anyone who did not hew to the YEC line frequently
> comes under attack (such as John Clayton). I cannot imagine what would
> happen to someone who attempted to claim not only that the earth is
> billions of years old, but the global flood was a myth, and human
> evolved from non-humans.
>
> Actually, I can imagine. That was me. I haven't been a member of the
> Church of Christ for about 16 years.
>
> Well, I still haven't gotten to Bert Thompson (I AM getting there!), but
> I gotta go for now...
> _______________________________________________
> Todd S. Greene
> <tNgOrS...@usxchange.net>
>
> "Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
> let us learn together what is good." (Job 34.4)
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
rlb...@webtv.net
tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
> "Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
> let us learn together what is good." (Job 34.4)
Dear Todd,
I got a cryptic message on my e-mail tonight with the subject "Someone has to
show people for who they really are". The message itself was simply an
internet address.
http://www.nettaxi.com/citizens/dp40/
Well, I clicked on it. Turns out, one of the protectors of Bert Thompson,
Ph.D. appears to want to make me the subject of his webpage. It is just
getting tuned up I guess. But it does indicate I am going to be the/a topic
of discussion.
I guess I am going to be famous. Maybe be held to a higher standard than
even Bert Thompson, Ph.D. is. Go figure. We'll see what develops.
You might want to check it out and post your impressions.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
e-mail: rlb...@webtv.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Todd S. Greene
(msg-id <36F7E02B...@nospam.com>):
>"Todd S. Greene" wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>>
>> I'm curious about your interest in Bert Thompson, and Abilene Christian
>> University, and Gil Yoder and so on. I'm surmising, though I could be
>> wrong and will await your comments, that you have some kind of
>> background with the Church of Christ. Hence, your interest in
>> creationism in that particular context. Please post here and tell me a
>> little about your background as it relates to the context of your
>> current interest in creationism and the Church of Christ.
>>
>
>I don't know who Gil Yoder is. But Bert Thompson is, I believe, now
>affiliated with Faulkner University (formerly Alabama Christian College); I
>say that because his publications come from Montgomery, which is where the
>school is located.
Here are some Gil Yoder references:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~jgy/
http://www.letusreason.com/
http://web.wt.net/~dgal/ht/
He is a COC member somewhere in the Houston, Texas area. He was a COC
minister up until a couple of years ago when he became a computer
network administrator. (Interesting career change.) He is the programmer
for the www.letusreason.com site.
Robert Baty's connection to Gil Yoder is through the "email discussion
group" that is conducted through the www.letusreason.com site (the
LURlist reference, if you visit the site). Robert had some discussion
about Bert Thompson's reference to an (inaccurate) story about an
oceanographer (Maury) who supposedly researched ocean currents based on
a biblical reference. (I don't pretend to know the details.)
>>[snip]
>
>Not all C of C are YEC. I believe John Clayton strays from the literal
>24-hour creation day theory. I know Hugh Ross is not a YEC, but I am not
>sure of his church association.
As I said in my other post after your post, there are indeed some
"progressive creationists" in the COC, like John Clayton.
However, Jody, since you are a member of the COC (as I was years ago),
you know as well as I do the "chilly" kind of reception (either hot OR
cold) that those who "stray" from traditional Young Earth Creationism
generally get.
To openly espouse anything other than YEC in the COC is to court
trouble, in my opinion.
John Clayton gets his respect from his "Does God Exist?" program and
seminars. I believe his progressive creationism is simply "tolerated."
But as a clearer indication of the "standard" COC position, how many of
the regular widespread COC publications (Firm Foundation, Gospel
Advocate, Spiritual Sword, etc.) have ever advocated anything but YEC?
How many of them have ever spoken in approval of even considering the
idea that the universe and the earth might be billions of years old?
If you know of any, please point them out to me. But I don't think there
are any. (Of course, as I have said, I have not been involved with the
COC in about 16 years. Has anything changed in 16 years? I would be very
surprised.)
(With regard to Hugh Ross, I do not believe he is associated with the
COC at all. As I get more into discussing Bert Thompson, I will have
more comments on Hugh Ross and others.)
Now, Jody, I'm curious: Do you consider yourself a young earth
creationist or an old earth creationist, or even (COC forbid!) a
theistic evolutionist? And if by chance you are not a YEC, are you
openly so in the COC you are a member of?
rlb...@webtv.net
tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
> On 19 Mar 1999 07:53:48 -0500 tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S.
> Greene) wrote (msg-id <36f2491f...@news.usxchange.net>):
>
> "Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
> let us learn together what is good." (Job 34.4)
Just a coincidence?
After posting my previous note, I was cruising the web again and noticed that
Bert Thompson, Ph.D. once again came out of hiding (his definition) and posted
another set of false and misleading claims.
Some may remember that Bert Thompson, Ph.D. posted a singular note on the June
1998 feedback pages falsely accusing me of accusing him of being malicious and
intentional in the spreading of his errors.
Well, now he has done it again. It is on the bulletin board
(http://oakcrestcoc.org) of the OakCrest church in Oklahoma City (if they
leave the note up). Bert Thompson, Ph.D. wrote:
"Several years ago, at the invitation of the elders of the McLoud, Oklahoma
Church of Christ (which at the time was Robert Baty's home congregation), I
presented a series of lectures on science and the Bible. Both during and
after the lectures, Mr. Baty took strong exception to a number of points that
I made (e.g. scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, the concept of a
relatively young Earth, etc.). Eventually, he even went so far as to join
with agnostic and atheists on the Internet in order to publicly berate and
belittle me (and numerous other members of the church nationwide with whom he
disagreed). Because his caustic criticisms were vented in such highly visible
venues (e.g., on the internet and via World Wide Web), because his attitude
became increasignly belligerent, and because he had brought public disrepute
on the McLoud congretation as a result of his statements and actions, the
elders of that congregation met with Mr. Baty and disciplined him-instructing
him to "cease and desist" in his public campaign against me and other
Christians. Shortly thereafter he left the church in McLoud and moved his
family elsewhere (those who are so inclined may feel free to contact the
elders of the McLoud congregation, or the minister, Wayne Price, for
confirmation of these facts? P.O. Box 760, McLoud, Oklahoma 74851; (405)
964-3370)."
The above account if false. I repeat: the above account is false. Details
available on request and may be posted here as time, interest, and opportunity
allows. Other comments he made on the bulletin board are equally false or
misleading as far as the history of this controversy is concerned.
I would encourage all interested parties to, indeed, contact the elders at
McLoud, or Wayne Price, and find out if they are going to be accomplices in
the continued false claims of Bert Thompson, Ph.D. I have always been
willing to "openly, honestly" discuss these things with Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
He has refused.
Todd S. Greene
<7djlpl$mf7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>):
>In article <36f8e090....@news.usxchange.net>,
> tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
>> On 19 Mar 1999 07:53:48 -0500 tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S.
>> Greene) wrote (msg-id <36f2491f...@news.usxchange.net>):
>> sxchange.net>
>>
>> "Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
>> let us learn together what is good." (Job 34.4)
>
Bert Thompson states:
Upon learning that certain of the statements in my lecture were,
in fact, incorrect, we then published the corrected version of
the Maury account not only in the monthly journal for which I
serve have served as editor for nineteen years ("Reason &
Revelation," 15[5]:39-40, May 1995), but also in a lengthy,
peer-reviewed article in the "Creation Research Society
Quarterly" (32[2]:82-87, September 1995). Interestingly, the
"CRSQ" editor even published Mr. Baty's attempt at a response,
accompanied by our counter-response ("CRSQ" 33[1]:22, June
1996).
To those who are not familiar with any of this (such as myself), did
Thompson, in fact, publish any corrections or not?
Why are you so dedicated to Bert Thompson in particular. In the Church
of Christ, there are literally thousands of promoters of fallacious YEC
beliefs, and there are dozens of people (not just Bert Thompson) who
avidly go after anyone who dares tread against the COC "party line." Why
your continued, dedicated interest with Bert Thompson in particular?
It just seems to me that, in the broader context of creationism and
evolution, we can go after Bert Thompson, since he is a YEC, on the
issues of astronomical and geological time (let alone paleontology and
evolution), and we can also go after him for his terribly prejudicial
discussion of evolution as a big Satanic conspiracy (as comes through a
little bit in what you quoted above).
Please don't take this the wrong way. I would just like some
clarification. I've seen how Bert Thompson is, but I can't say I would
make him, in particular, a hobby.
I feel like you are caught up in Bert Thompson's typical game of
confrontation and personality clashes (and his ad hominem approach of
"If you don't agree with me, you're either an atheist or a Christian
unduly influenced by atheism"), and it makes you so angry (justifiably
so) that you go after him for acting like such a jerk. But it seems to
me, and, of course, this is just my personal opinion, like you have let
him "eat you up" for too long.
Also, when you keep mentioning these "events" like this, then your
information needs to be complete, and well organized, and concisely
presented - for those who are not familiar with it. (This all happened
three or four years ago? What gives? Why is this still an issue?) I
searched Deja News through all of last year to the present and found
only miniscule references to this clash, but never a chronology or
description of the relevant events of the whole thing, should I be
interested in finding out about it. Is there some online page you can
refer me to that makes this kind of comprehensive presentation?
You have to keep in mind that very few in this forum are, or have been,
associated with the Church of Christ, so they do not understand the
context of the COC mentality, where everything from religious
instrumental music, to disputing that Moses wrote every word of Genesis
and Isaiah wrote every word of Isaiah, to drinking a beer is considered
unscriptural and sinful.
______________
Todd S. Greene
rlb...@webtv.net
tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
>
> Bert Thompson states:
> Upon learning that certain of the statements in my lecture were,
> in fact, incorrect, we then published the corrected version of
> the Maury account not only in the monthly journal for which I
> serve have served as editor for nineteen years ("Reason &
> Revelation," 15[5]:39-40, May 1995), but also in a lengthy,
> peer-reviewed article in the "Creation Research Society
> Quarterly" (32[2]:82-87, September 1995). Interestingly, the
> "CRSQ" editor even published Mr. Baty's attempt at a response,
> accompanied by our counter-response ("CRSQ" 33[1]:22, June
> 1996).
>
> To those who are not familiar with any of this (such as myself), did
> Thompson, in fact, publish any corrections or not?
>
> Why are you so dedicated to Bert Thompson in particular. In the Church
> of Christ, there are literally thousands of promoters of fallacious YEC
> beliefs, and there are dozens of people (not just Bert Thompson) who
> avidly go after anyone who dares tread against the COC "party line." Why
> your continued, dedicated interest with Bert Thompson in particular?
>
Dear Todd,
I am not much, and I can't do much. No doubt, Bert and his defenders would
prefer I didn't do anything to the little I have done. I think the problem
is I have done such as I have had time and interest and ability to do. This,
rather than what certain promoters would have preferred I do.
The Reason and Revelation article Bert mentions can be found on Bert's page
http://www.ApologeticsPress.org
Remember, he looked me in eye and presented the Maury tale in October of
1992. Then, after refusing to discuss the Maury matter with me, or consult
with me, or even communicate with me, he commissions Trevor Major to cover up
Bert's blunder(s). The R & R article is a Maury promotion and does not claim
to be an acknowledgement by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. of any errors, any
explanation of how he came to make them, or a retraction.
Where is there any personal and public statement by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
acknowleging the awareness that the sick-bed, bible-reading story if false
(one of his followers just recently published one of Bert's versions of the
tale on the internet, at two locations)? Where does he admit the statue he
described does not exist?
Personally, I find it quite curious that he is going around saying he
corrected his mistakes, but I haven't found where he specifically admitted
what those mistakes are.
The Creation Research Society Quarterly article may be a little harder to
come by (a synopsis is on the internet).
It is false that the CRSQ published my attempt at a response. The editor,
Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D., specifically refused to print any letter I wrote which
would have dealt with my concerns about the article and the CRSQ part of the
coverup. The letter which bears my name was presented to me by the editor
(after the editor refused to otherwise correct one specific problem in the
article which he could not evade). As far as it goes, the letter does
reflect my position. The article says nothing about Bert Thompson's role in
promoting the Maury legend. It does point its finger at others who dared to
err regarding Maury. It doesn't mention Apologtics Press either.
There are in TalkOrigins well known examples of such shenanigans by more
popular creation-science types.
I have had the opportunity to test the criticisms. Of course, since the 1992
appearance by Bert, his problems have only increased by his refusal to do the
right thing regading these matters.
Another Ph.D. put the Maury legend/statue story over on my daughter last
Spring. Those elders refused to advise their congregation of the error.
Why?
Compare what he has done with this to his recent publication of the long
day/NASA warning in the February 1999 R & R (also available on his webpage at
www.ApologeticsPress.org).
I can only wonder at how much trouble he might have gone to to cover this up
and send out his private investigators to get some "dirt" on me. I would
probably really be embarassed to have all my dirty laundry aired on the
internet, but what Bert has posted about me is false, and it only compounds
his problems. However, it is helpful in evaluating his place in
creation-science history. He's got to be right up there with Gish, Morris,
and others who have been "outed" already for such tactics as I now have my
empirical evidence of.
I have several volumes now of material. I would like to see some summary and
commentary, but when I think about it, it really would be a task. So, I just
chit chat about it as there is interest and time. Still, nobody has been
able to get Bert to come to the table to resolve these specific matters. He
seems content to take pot shots at me (which so far have been false
statements).
I could go on, and on, but I will await further indications of interest and
points which I should further consider.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
e-mail: rlb...@webtv.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
rlb...@webtv.net
rlb...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Well, now he (Bert Thompson, Ph.D.) has done it again. It is on the bulletin board
It has now come to my attention that Bert Thompson, Ph.D. is distributing
this "cheap shot" around the internet and who knows where else. I hope you
will bear with me here. Since he has made my personal and irrelevant
experience at McLoud a matter of public discourse, and has falsely
represented it, I am going to take this opportunity to post my notes of that
meeting here.
"Date: March 21, 1993
Time: 7:00p.m. to 9:00p.m.
I was asked by Jerry Dowell to attend this meeting. I did so.
This unilateral account is prepared for my records. Jerry Dowell indicated
that the elders had no desire to subscribe to any written account of this
meeting.
The substance of the meeting seemed to be that the Executive Director of
Apologetics Press has apparently threatened the elders of the McLoud church
that he will 'go public', whatever that means, if I don't stop trying to get
the Executive Director's errors corrected.
The elders indicated that the Executive Director may have usurped the
authority of two churches I have written to recently. They have indicated
the churches are not able to answer the simple questions I have put to them,
and now the Executive Director is apparently back in charge of the whole
affair.
The elders made it quite clear that they were not interested in any public
discussion of the public issues of concern to me. It seemed to be a matter
of little consequence to them whether or not the Executive Director said
anything that was true during his three days in McLoud as long as he affirmed
somewhere the eseentials of 'faith, repentence, and baptism' somewhere in the
course of his lectures.
One of the more curious aspects of the matter is the 'undercover' work that
has been going on for over two months, apparently. The elders claim that,
before I gave my announcement to Roy Beller in January, Wayne Price and the
Executive Director were already in communication and developing a file on my
private correspondence.
I guess its alright for the Executive Director to go sneaking around my local
congregation, but I am not at liberty to write to churches associated with
(unfortunately) his corporation.
The elders statements were not consistent regarding their communication with
the Executive Director. Their final position was that there was no written
communication to or from the Executive Director and the McLoud church. There
were allegedly only phone calls after which copies of my earlier
communication were simply forwarded by mail. This became an issue because I
explained that, if they thought they had a right to all my correspondence, I
wanted a record of all theirs.
I advised the elders that the Executive Director had 'written me off' a long
time ago and that my current correspondence was with two, autonomous, local
churches that could choose for themselves whether or not to respond. I can't
make them respond and don't plan to waste my time trying. Maybe my mistake
was failing to recognize that the Executive Director and his President are
the ones running these two churches and now threatening the McLoud church.
The elders suggested that nothing good could come from my interest in the
truth, or pursuit of the truth, on matters that don't concern a person's
salvation, whatever that means. I got the impression that if it is
controversial it must not be a matter to be concerned about.
It is not now clear to me whether or not the elders were to be reportingin to
the Executive Director to give account of themselves. I advised the elders
they could do what they wanted, but I recommended that they not presume to
speak for me. I advised them that, if it is relevant, they could remind the
Executive Director that he 'has my number' if he is interested in renewing
our personal correspondence on the issues in an effort tog et his errors
identified and corrected.
My impression was that the elders were not going to contact the Executive
Director further on this matter. Maybe 'secret agent' Wayne Price will do it
for them. Preachers seem to have a way of getting the word out about such
matters.
A copy of this memorandum has been provided to the elders (and Wayne
Price-RLB) for their information. They are welcome to add their own written
impressions of our meeting and provide me with a copy.
Contrary to Jerry Dowell's personal assessment of the worthlessness of my
efforts and concerns, this experience has prompted me to be much more
informed on the issues which I raised, but more importantly it has given me
much more insight into the unfortunate political situation affecting the
church and the power of the 'big names'.
signed: Robert L. Baty"
I received no written response to this.
While Bert's postings have a number of problems with truthfulness, I would
like to point out an easily verifiable point (if Bert actually proposes to
defend his posting). My notes above refer to a few correspondences. I would
allege that the references are to "snail mail". A few "snail mail" messages.
Let Bert post the evidence any internet/www activity on my part and you can
compare it to the date of the meeting. I think the falseness of this
particular aspect of his claim will then be clear.
Thank you for bearing with me in this matter. Flame me if you will, but,
since Bert has decided this is a matter of public interest, it seems
appropriate to post it here.
Jody Johnson
> On 23 Mar 1999 13:48:57 -0500 Jody Johnson <jo...@nospam.com> wrote
> (msg-id <36F7E02B...@nospam.com>):
>
> >"Todd S. Greene" wrote:
> >
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >> I'm curious about your interest in Bert Thompson, and Abilene Christian
> >> University, and Gil Yoder and so on. I'm surmising, though I could be
> >> wrong and will await your comments, that you have some kind of
> >> background with the Church of Christ. Hence, your interest in
> >> creationism in that particular context. Please post here and tell me a
> >> little about your background as it relates to the context of your
> >> current interest in creationism and the Church of Christ.
> >>
> >
> >I don't know who Gil Yoder is. But Bert Thompson is, I believe, now
> >affiliated with Faulkner University (formerly Alabama Christian College); I
> >say that because his publications come from Montgomery, which is where the
> >school is located.
>
> Here are some Gil Yoder references:
> http://home.sprintmail.com/~jgy/
> http://www.letusreason.com/
> http://web.wt.net/~dgal/ht/
>
> He is a COC member somewhere in the Houston, Texas area. He was a COC
> minister up until a couple of years ago when he became a computer
> network administrator. (Interesting career change.) He is the programmer
> for the www.letusreason.com site.
>
> Robert Baty's connection to Gil Yoder is through the "email discussion
> group" that is conducted through the www.letusreason.com site (the
> LURlist reference, if you visit the site). Robert had some discussion
> about Bert Thompson's reference to an (inaccurate) story about an
> oceanographer (Maury) who supposedly researched ocean currents based on
> a biblical reference. (I don't pretend to know the details.)
>
> >>[snip]
> >
> >Not all C of C are YEC. I believe John Clayton strays from the literal
> >24-hour creation day theory. I know Hugh Ross is not a YEC, but I am not
> >sure of his church association.
>
> As I said in my other post after your post, there are indeed some
> "progressive creationists" in the COC, like John Clayton.
>
> However, Jody, since you are a member of the COC (as I was years ago),
> you know as well as I do the "chilly" kind of reception (either hot OR
> cold) that those who "stray" from traditional Young Earth Creationism
> generally get.
>
> To openly espouse anything other than YEC in the COC is to court
> trouble, in my opinion.
>
> John Clayton gets his respect from his "Does God Exist?" program and
> seminars. I believe his progressive creationism is simply "tolerated."
>
> But as a clearer indication of the "standard" COC position, how many of
> the regular widespread COC publications (Firm Foundation, Gospel
> Advocate, Spiritual Sword, etc.) have ever advocated anything but YEC?
> How many of them have ever spoken in approval of even considering the
> idea that the universe and the earth might be billions of years old?
> If you know of any, please point them out to me. But I don't think there
> are any. (Of course, as I have said, I have not been involved with the
> COC in about 16 years. Has anything changed in 16 years? I would be very
> surprised.)
I don't know of any per se. My preacher lent me some John Clayton materials,
but didn't *warn* me about any of the ideas presented. Generally, I am
disappointed in the COC's lack of effort in combatting the topics. As I said, I
am a DLU grad, and I don't recall any lectureships, research, etc. on the
creation/evolution debate.
>
> (With regard to Hugh Ross, I do not believe he is associated with the
> COC at all. As I get more into discussing Bert Thompson, I will have
> more comments on Hugh Ross and others.)
>
> Now, Jody, I'm curious: Do you consider yourself a young earth
> creationist or an old earth creationist, or even (COC forbid!) a
> theistic evolutionist? And if by chance you are not a YEC, are you
> openly so in the COC you are a member of?
>
> _______________________________
> Todd S. Greene
> <tNgOrS...@usxchange.net>
>
> "Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
> let us learn together what is good." (Job 34.4)
I would say that I am still relatively open-minded about creation dates. I am
trying to educate myself on various key subjects in this whole controversy. One
member at my church has lent me a Hugh Ross book that he adheres to. This
person is an astronomy buff and he said this particular book has cleared up the
age thing for him - he believes in an old-earth. Frankly, I don't think anyone
in our congregation could effectively refute such a claim; we need more
education. So many folks blindly follow without questioning - especially here
in the buckle of the Bible belt. None of them have been challenged on the
subject.
A question, Todd: I gathered from your earlier posts that you are a
non-believer now, but you still quote scripture. Am I way off-base here?
rlb...@webtv.net
Jody Johnson <jo...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Generally, I am
> disappointed in the COC's lack of effort in combatting the topics.
Dear Jody, Todd, et al,
While it certainly has its down side, maybe my experience will provide some
empirical data to confirm both Todd's and Jody's allegations about what goes
on.
I have now learned that the Oakcrest church bulletin board deleted what might
have been a good discussion of these matters.
Bert Thompson, Ph.D., however, has posted a similar note on the Palm Beach
Lakes guestbook (if they leave it up along with my notes there). Their
address is http://www.pblcoc.org
I have heard nothing from Wayne Price, the McLoud church, or others
concerning my efforts to get to the bottom of the false claims about my
experience at McLoud as now proclaimed by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Of course, he
has yet to admit, explain, or retract the false claims he posted about me on
the June 1998 www.talkorigins.org feedback page as well (not to mention his
misrepresentation of this little controversy and its significance).
Could it be he is trying to divert attention away from his own problems to me,
and his minions are cooperating in the effort?
Just exactly what does it take to get an "open, honest" discussion about these
matters. Is it the case that, if Bert Thompson, Ph.D. says something is a
non-issue that is the end of the discussion and he should be allowed to return
to hiding (by his own definition)?
Todd S. Greene
<7e0lp3$qek$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>):
>In article <3703C532...@nospam.com>,
> Jody Johnson <jo...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Generally, I am
>> disappointed in the COC's lack of effort in combatting the topics.
>
>Dear Jody, Todd, et al,
>
>While it certainly has its down side, maybe my experience will provide some
>empirical data to confirm both Todd's and Jody's allegations about what goes
>on.
>
>I have now learned that the Oakcrest church bulletin board deleted what might
>have been a good discussion of these matters.
>
>Bert Thompson, Ph.D., however, has posted a similar note on the Palm Beach
>Lakes guestbook (if they leave it up along with my notes there). Their
>address is http://www.pblcoc.org
>
>I have heard nothing from Wayne Price, the McLoud church, or others
>concerning my efforts to get to the bottom of the false claims about my
>experience at McLoud as now proclaimed by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Of course, he
>has yet to admit, explain, or retract the false claims he posted about me on
>the June 1998 www.talkorigins.org feedback page as well (not to mention his
>misrepresentation of this little controversy and its significance).
>
>Could it be he is trying to divert attention away from his own problems to me,
>and his minions are cooperating in the effort?
>
>Just exactly what does it take to get an "open, honest" discussion about these
>matters. Is it the case that, if Bert Thompson, Ph.D. says something is a
>non-issue that is the end of the discussion and he should be allowed to return
>to hiding (by his own definition)?
>
>Sincerely,
>Robert Baty
It means that Bert Thompson enjoys his confrontational style when he is
employing it against others. But if anyone even tries to confront him,
look out!
I did look at your reference to Trevor's article on Maury in 1995. I see
what you mean. There is a tangential reference to the fact that the
popular story of Maury's reading of a Bible passage leading him to
discover "paths in the sea" is really just a popular myth. Nowhere is
there a anything by Bert Thompson personally acknowledging error on his
part.
I would only wonder if there was some small mention (like just a
paragraph or two) of something like this in the printed version,
something that is not in the online version?
______________
Todd S. Greene
Todd S. Greene
(msg-id <3703C532...@nospam.com>):
Nothing that a good introduction to historical geology wouldn't cure!
>> (With regard to Hugh Ross, I do not believe he is associated with the
>> COC at all. As I get more into discussing Bert Thompson, I will have
>> more comments on Hugh Ross and others.)
>>
>> Now, Jody, I'm curious: Do you consider yourself a young earth
>> creationist or an old earth creationist, or even (COC forbid!) a
>> theistic evolutionist? And if by chance you are not a YEC, are you
>> openly so in the COC you are a member of?
>>
>> _______________________________
>> Todd S. Greene
>> <tNgOrS...@usxchange.net>
>>
>> "Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
>> let us learn together what is good." (Job 34.4)
>
>I would say that I am still relatively open-minded about creation dates. I am
>trying to educate myself on various key subjects in this whole controversy. One
>member at my church has lent me a Hugh Ross book that he adheres to. This
>person is an astronomy buff and he said this particular book has cleared up the
>age thing for him - he believes in an old-earth. Frankly, I don't think anyone
>in our congregation could effectively refute such a claim; we need more
>education. So many folks blindly follow without questioning - especially here
>in the buckle of the Bible belt. None of them have been challenged on the
>subject.
It would be difficult to challenge such factual information as direct
observations of events that took place millions and billions of years
ago. The Andromeda galaxy, for example, is about 2.2 million light-years
distant from the earth. What this means, simply enough, is that we
observe that galaxy as it was 2.2 million years ago. This would be
difficult to do it the galaxy never existed 2.2 million years ago (if
the universe was only 6,000 years old).
>A question, Todd: I gathered from your earlier posts that you are a
>non-believer now, but you still quote scripture. Am I way off-base here?
You are not off-base. You "read between the lines" well. I am now a
non-believer, but I have not stated it. It has simply not come up until
now. All I have been discussing is my leaving the COC over evolution
issues. After leaving the COC, other studies led me away from Christian
belief altogether. I would now call myself a skeptic. (However, I am not
particularly interested in discussing "not being a Christian," or why I
think one should or should not believe in Christianity, or in theism and
atheism.)
My interest in participating in talk.origins is simply in the idea of
those who promote creationism, all the time proclaiming that "we must
follow the truth" (especially in the COC), while denying what the truth
really is. The young-earth creationists (YECs) are the most flagrant
hypocrites in this regard.
I despise hypocrisy. I despised it when I was a member of the Church of
Christ, and I despise it now.
In my posts, I frequently point out, contrary to what fundamentalists
like Bert Thompson would have you believe, that accepting evolution and
rejecting Christianity are two separate things. Which is why we have
theistic evolutionists.
Along these lines, I can highly recommend anything by Howard Van Till.
He is a member of the Christian Reformed Church, and an astronomy
professor at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
He is the author of *The Fourth Day: What The Bible and the Heavens Are
Telling Us About Creation* (1986?). He is a co-author of *Science Held
Hostage* (1988). He is the editor of *Portraits Of Creation* (1990).
Here are also various online references for you. Note that all of these
are sites by people who espouse Christianity (whether or not, as a good
COCer, you would actually consider them to be Christians). There is not
a non-believer oriented site among these!
God and Evolution, An Exchange (Van Till vs. Johnson)
http://www.origins.org/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html
American Scientific Affiliation
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/index.html
Affiliation of Christian Biologists
http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/ghess/acbhome.htm
Affiliation of Christian Geologists
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/acghome.html
Articles, Abstracts and Essays from Revival Theology Resources
http://www.geocities.com/~revival/origins.htm
Christians in Science (like the ASA, but in the UK)
http://www.tcp.co.uk/~carling/main_sci.html
Creation & Evolution
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~sjdando/CE.htm
Creation, Creationism, & Empirical Theistic Arguments Index Page
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM
Faith and Science (Catholic)
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~newman/sci-faith.html
Fellowship of Scientists (Science & Creation section)
http://solon.cma.univie.ac.at/~neum/christ/creation.html
Fellowship of Scientists (Science & Faith section)
http://solon.cma.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf.html
Reasons To Believe (Hugh Ross)
http://www.reasons.org/
Keith B. Miller (geologist)
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/index.html
Kenneth R. Miller (biochemist)
http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Miller.html
Steven Schimmrich (geologist)
http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/
Stand to Reason Commentaries -- Evolution (Gregory Koukl)
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/index.htm
Also, as you have noted my scripture quotes, you probably noticed that I
use them as clear messages.
It's been a busy night. Take care, and see you later!
_______________________________________________
rlb...@webtv.net
tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
> It means that Bert Thompson enjoys his confrontational style when he is
> employing it against others. But if anyone even tries to confront him,
> look out!
>
> I did look at your reference to Trevor's article on Maury in 1995. I see
> what you mean. There is a tangential reference to the fact that the
> popular story of Maury's reading of a Bible passage leading him to
> discover "paths in the sea" is really just a popular myth. Nowhere is
> there a anything by Bert Thompson personally acknowledging error on his
> part.
>
> I would only wonder if there was some small mention (like just a
> paragraph or two) of something like this in the printed version,
> something that is not in the online version?
> ______________
> Todd S. Greene
Dear Todd & Others,
I think Trevor's online version is identical to the printed version. However,
the CRSQ article is a much more thorough treatment. It is as if Bert & Trevor
were wanting to impress the CRSQ folks with Trevor's scholarship and let him
take all the credit (he didn't even mention the Bert who now is claiming joint
responsibility for the CRSQ article). And since Bert keeps erroneously
referring to my "feeble attempt" at a response to his article, I would suggest
you read the real story about that letter to the editor with my name on it.
I'll make additional comments about that as time allows and if necessary.
If I get time, I guess I'll post the text of that letter.
Consider what Bert wrote in his February edition of Reason and Revelation:
"Some well-intentioned soul posted the story on the Internet. Another saw
it, and sent it to a few (or a few hundred) people via an electronic address
book. Those people then forwarded it to to others, who sent it to still
others. Ad infinitum! Because of the serious nature of the situation (i.e.
the fact that false information is being used - albeit probably unwittingly -
to defend God's Word), I have decided to break with our policy of not
re-running articles in R & R, and to reprint (with some revisions in order to
include updated material) my May 1991 article exposing the false nature of
this story."
Now folks, pay attention. Bert took the above position regarding the
NASA/long day story that goes back farther than Bert's visit to McLoud.
When is Bert going to stop whining about how long ago he put that Maury story
over on me, which other are continuing to use (citing him as an authority) and
post on the internet, and do for the Maury story what he wants to take credit
for doing for the NASA story?
And yes, I am still waiting for Wayne Price to come forward, and state whether
or not he is going to endorse Bert Thompson's misrepresentation of my McLoud
experience. Hopefully, he will truthfully be a factor in documenting Bert's
misrepresentation of those events.
maff91
>In article <370431e4...@news.usxchange.net>,
> tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
>
>> It means that Bert Thompson enjoys his confrontational style when he is
>> employing it against others. But if anyone even tries to confront him,
>> look out!
>>
>> I did look at your reference to Trevor's article on Maury in 1995. I see
>> what you mean. There is a tangential reference to the fact that the
>> popular story of Maury's reading of a Bible passage leading him to
>> discover "paths in the sea" is really just a popular myth. Nowhere is
>> there a anything by Bert Thompson personally acknowledging error on his
>> part.
>>
>> I would only wonder if there was some small mention (like just a
>> paragraph or two) of something like this in the printed version,
>> something that is not in the online version?
>> ______________
>> Todd S. Greene
>
>Dear Todd & Others,
>
>I think Trevor's online version is identical to the printed version. However,
>the CRSQ article is a much more thorough treatment. It is as if Bert & Trevor
>were wanting to impress the CRSQ folks with Trevor's scholarship and let him
Why would anybody want to impress CRS?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html
Creationism is only used by fundamentalist religion business.
bigd...@my-dejanews.com
Honus <hon...@earthlink.strangeflesh> wrote:
> Todd S. Greene wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > smoke. No such creature appears to exist today. But we
> > do have biological precedence for light producing
> > creatures like the firefly, the bombardier beetle and
> > some other creatures. Dinosaur fossils even provide some
> > evidence of anatomical compartments that may have served
> > as mixing chambers for combustible chemicals.
> >
> > This is truly fundamentalist literalism! (Don Keyes, where are you?)
>
> ignited the combustible mixture. And no, people, I'm not kidding. It was
> admittedly conjecture, but still...that's what I was told.
>
Todd,
I wonder what these guys think about godzilla....
Stuart
> --
> To reply via e-mail, replace the anti-spam "strangeflesh" with "net".
>
>
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
rlb...@webtv.net
Dear folks,
What follows is the actual text of the letter Bert Thompson, PH.D. describes
as my feeble effort to respond to the Maury article in the CRSQ. The letter
is in the June 1996 CRSQ. As previously noted, I didn't write it!
"While I am not a member of the Creation Research Society, I read with
interest the article about Matthew Fontaine Maury in the September 1995
issue. I believe there are some errors in the article which need to be
corrected. On page 86 the author wrote: 'Lewis, at the close of his
biography, quotes a lengthy passage from the Richmond Times written y
Virginia Lee Cox.' It is not correct that the author quoted Mrs. Cox; it was
actually a publisher's note inserted in Lewis's book (Lewis, 1927, pp.
251-252).
The article does not explicity state that Mr. Maury was a young earth
creationist,but the fact that this story appears in the Creation Research
Society Quarterly certainly gives that impresssion. That this is not the
case can be seen from a book compiled by his daughter Diana Fontaine Maury
Corbin (1888, pp. 158-160). The book contains on these pages a letter to The
Southern Churchman written in 1855. Mr. Maury wrote:
'I pass by the history of the creation as it is written on the tables of the
rocks and in the Book of Revelation, because the question has been discussed
so much and so often, that you, no doubt, are familiar with the whole
subject. In both the order of creation is the same. First the plants to
afford subsistence and then the animals, the chief point of apparent
difference being as to the duration of the period between 'the evening and
the morning.' A thousand years are in His sight as one day, and the Mosaic
account affords evidence itself that the term 'day', as there used, is not
that which comprehends our twenty-four hours. It was a day that had its
'evening and morning' before the sun was made.'"
Now, that is the letter presented by the editor of the CRSQ, Eugene Chaffin,
Ph.D. after some contentious correspondence about his need to correct the
errors. He apparently was unaware of the facts noted above. It was as much
as he was prepared to do, so I let him put my name to it, unaware of his
secret deal with Bert & Trevor.
Additionally, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that Bert Thompson,
Ph.D. and Trevor Major were unaware of Maury's "old earth" view. Why else
would they have tried to canonize him rather than simply do for his legend
what Bert is trying to do for the NASA/long day legend?
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
e-mail: rlb...@webtv.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Todd S. Greene
<7e3u10$ikb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>):
Wait a minute. Are you trying to say that you wrote a letter to CRSQ
that was rejected, but that the CRSQ editor substantially rewrote and
you agreed to put your name to? Or are you saying that you never wrote a
letter to CRSQ at all for purposes of publication, but the CRSQ editor,
instead of making your requested corrections, wrote up something that
you allowed your name to be put to so at least something would be said?
I'm trying to understand this clearly.
On a related topic, do you consider yourself a young-earth creationist,
and old-earth creationist, or a theistic evolutionist?
Finally, with Bert Thompson spreading this rumor about you having
trouble at this congregation you were (are?) a member of, if you believe
it is relevant, I think you should draft a formal "take the high ground"
letter, that you can easily slap addresses on and mail out to the
various congregations where Thompson is spreading these rumors. And
remember that chronology I asked you about a few posts ago? If you make
that up nicely and concisely (and, again, "taking the high road"), you
should not only be able to easily stop him in his tracks, but leave a
cloud over him for spreading rumors.
The feeling I always got about Bert Thompson from his writing (not ever
having personally encountered him), was, as I have stated elsewhere,
that he is a confrontational sort of guy, on a jihad that you wouldn't
want to be on the bad side of. The problem with people like that is the
tendency to ride "rough-shod" over people you disagree with, for no good
reason.
(You know, Liar Tony Pagano and I really go at it with our "rhetorical
slugfests," but this is a "virtual world" and I would never dream of
attacking Pagano in the real world by going after his reputation like
Thompson has been doing to you. But that is Thompson's standard method
of operation, and he will use it on those who criticize him as well as
those he thinks are doctrinally dangerous.)
But remember what you are doing. Take this in context. Recall what you
proclaim to be: a Christian.
Act as you think you should appropriately act.
______________
Todd S. Greene
rlb...@webtv.net
tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
> Wait a minute. Are you trying to say that you wrote a letter to CRSQ
> that was rejected, but that the CRSQ editor substantially rewrote and
> you agreed to put your name to? Or are you saying that you never wrote a
> letter to CRSQ at all for purposes of publication, but the CRSQ editor,
> instead of making your requested corrections, wrote up something that
> you allowed your name to be put to so at least something would be said?
>
> I'm trying to understand this clearly.
Dear Todd,
I am pressed for time, but wanted to post this response as soon as possible.
I am glad someone finally took note of this aspect of the story.
Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D., editor of CRSQ, and I had several exchanges. I tried
to get him to simply publish a note advising his readers that the claim
indicating Lewis endorsed the Maury legend was incorrect. He wasn't about to
allow a discussion as to how this article actually came to be written.
I also gave him that tidbit about Maury's "old earth" perspective which
nobody appears to have previously noted.
He made it clear he wouldn't print any letter to the editor I wrote, so I did
not write any such thing.
Ultimately, I asked him to simply affirm or deny the factual accuracy of
Trevor's claim about Lewis and the Cox article.
He refused to affirm or deny it. His response was the letter which was
submitted to me for publication. It did appear to be the best I could
expect, and as far as it goes I have no problem with its content. I thought
this was his way of meeting his public responsibility. He said nothing about
giving Bert & Trevor a pre-publication review and response.
Got to go. Will try to respond further as time allows.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
e-mail: rlb...@webtv.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
rlb...@webtv.net
> On a related topic, do you consider yourself a young-earth creationist,
> and old-earth creationist, or a theistic evolutionist?
No. I would like to see those issues resolved, but realize I am not going to
do and the folks fussing about it haven't resolved the differences. My
experience shows that many of Bert's misguided defenders have sought to get
my opinions exposed as though they are ready to pounce upon me, inquisition
style, and so further divert attention away from those public issues I have
tried to address. Don't you kind of figure he has representatives lurking on
this board to see what develops?
> Finally, with Bert Thompson spreading this rumor about you having
> trouble at this congregation you were (are?) a member of, if you believe
> it is relevant, I think you should draft a formal "take the high ground"
> letter, that you can easily slap addresses on and mail out to the
> various congregations where Thompson is spreading these rumors. And
> remember that chronology I asked you about a few posts ago? If you make
> that up nicely and concisely (and, again, "taking the high road"), you
> should not only be able to easily stop him in his tracks, but leave a
> cloud over him for spreading rumors.
I think the responsibility as it stands is clearly with Bert Thompson, Ph.D.,
Wayne Price, the McLoud church, and others so associated to correct this
aspect of the problem. Bert's note has gone out "round the world". Let the
folks who gave him the false information be identified, be called upon to
make their case or admit their error, and then let's see if Bert will do for
his false charges against me what he has tried to do for the NASA/long day
story. My personal circumstances aren't particularly relevant except as, as
Todd has most eloquently tried to explain, they represent a symptomatic
problem when bumpkins like me dare to question, and rightly so, popular
errors put over us. They have been specifically advised of their
responsibilites and I am waiting, perhaps in vain, for their responses.
Their silence, if maintained, will be sufficient for my purposes.
> The problem with people like that is the
> tendency to ride "rough-shod" over people you disagree with, for no good
> reason.
Everybody is good for something, and I guess I am a good example of how folks
like Bert Thompson, Ph.D. do like Todd suggests. And "rough" it has been.
My wife and children are more than ready to have this unfortunate episode
come to a reasonable conclusion. I am trained to put up with such nonsense,
but they have carried (or tried to carry)an exceptional load.
> Act as you think you should appropriately act.
I've tried, often times without much success as to appropriateness. However,
such circumstances merely seem to have provided more evidence of the double
standard at play. Many have been quick to attack me, while giving Bert a
pass. Except Bert is brought into the discussions about the public matters
and the same rules are applied to both of us, I see it a bit premature for
anyone to be concerned about my efforts ("feeble" as they might be).
By the way, I noticed that Gil Yoder is warning people about someone else
that looks like his webpage. It is www.letusreason.org Gil's is
www.letusreason.com Gil's concerns are about other matters, but check it out.
The www.letusreason.org site has the Maury misrepresentation on their
apologetics page under their scriptural reference on Psalm 8:8. Not quite as
bad as the legend thing, but a misrepresenatation about Maury's role. I will
leave it to others to try and clue them in and see what it takes to get them
to delete that (you guys could probably find a lot of other problems on the
site, but I was just looking for the Maury thing). The apologetics page
might be more completely referenced as www.letusreason.org/Apolo6.htm
I don't want to monopolize this thread. I am hoping for an "open, honest"
discussion by others interested and informed about the topic(s). I might be
able to provide relevant facts, but I prefer the analysis of competent others
(I have about exhausted my efforts at analysis).
rlb...@webtv.net
rlb...@webtv.net wrote:
> In article <7e2ne2$gr8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> rlb...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > If I get time, I guess I'll post the text of that letter.
Dear folks,
To those who haven't the time to look it up, I am also going to give you the
text of the response to the letter in the CRSQ which bore my name (although I
didn't write it). The following from the same June 1996 CRSQ was attributed
to Trevor Major (Bert Thompson's subordinate at A/P).
"First, whether C.L. Lewis quoted the Times article is, admittedly, a matter
of ambiguity. Immediately after Lewis presents an in-text quote, the type
size changes and we read the following: 'Publisher's Note: Permission has
been granted to print the following portion of Miss Virginia Lee Cox's
description of the Maury Monument soon to be erected in Richmond, Virginia'
(p. 251). The article is printed in the same type, and includes Miss Cox's
reference to the son's reading of Psalm 8:8 (p.252). Did the publisher add
this quote without Lewis' approval or cognizance? Did Lewis request this
quote, for which the book's publisher had to get permission? But more to the
point, does this really make any difference? The fact is this: the broad
distribution of Lewis' biography has ensured the popularity of Cox's version
of this incident.
Second, my article neither explicity nor implicitly stated anything about
Maury's view on the age of the earth. Nor does the fact that my article was
published by CRSQ imply anything--one way or the other--about any views Maury
m ay have held on the subject, since on occasion within the pages of CRSQ
proponents of old and young earth positions have been discussed without
mentioning their particular views on the earth's age. In submitting my
article to this journal, I have neither stated nor implied that Maury would
have agreed to all the bylaws of the CRS. Interestingly, however, Maury did
argue that the dry land appeared the second day, and that this 'account of
Revelation' was the same as the 'account which Nature has written' (1859,
p.203). Perhaps he took the word 'day' to mean something other than 24
hours, but as yet I have not seen any attempt in his writings to reconcile
Genesis with evolutionary theories. Maury's life stands out because of his
high regard for both science and Scripture, as my article discussed at
length, but this does not mean that I agree necessarily with all his
interpretations in either field."
That's it. Curious, isn't it? How many times did Trevor claim the article
was his? Four? But Bert Thompson, Ph.D. is now trying to take (joint) credit
not only for the article but also for the letter above! Trevor isn't talking
and Bert just takes pot shots from his hiding place. Since I know I didn't
write the letter with my name on it, I would kind of like to get to the
bottom of who is actually responsible for the letter with Trevor Major's name
attached.
It would also be nice to get some opinions from others as to whether the
letter with my name, the letter with Trevor's name, both, or neither
represents what Bert Thompson, Ph.D. is determined to describe as a "feeble
attempt at a response".
Lewis' biography is a testimony that the sick-bed, Psalm 8:8 story is bogus.
He never mentions it, but less endorse it, and neither do other legitimate
and competent biographers (several have been written).
rlb...@webtv.net
rlb...@webtv.net
maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com (maff91) wrote:
>
> Why would anybody want to impress CRS?
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html
Dear Maff91,
I'll try my hand at the answer to this one. Anybody trying to make a name
for themselves in the "creation-science" movement would relish having "I was
published in the CRSQ, a 'peer-reviewed' journal" in their resume. Do I get
any points for this?
maff91
>In article <370f3fd9...@news2.newscene.com>,
> maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com (maff91) wrote:
>
>>
>> Why would anybody want to impress CRS?
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html
>
>Dear Maff91,
>
>I'll try my hand at the answer to this one. Anybody trying to make a name
>for themselves in the "creation-science" movement would relish having "I was
>published in the CRSQ, a 'peer-reviewed' journal" in their resume. Do I get
>any points for this?
Nope. Only morons in Bible belt would want to do that! It doesn't
impress the scientific and business world.
<http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
rlb...@webtv.net
maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com (maff91) wrote:
> On 4 Apr 1999 14:56:54 -0400, rlb...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Dear Maff91,
> >
> >I'll try my hand at the answer to this one. Anybody trying to make a name
> >for themselves in the "creation-science" movement would relish having "I was
> >published in the CRSQ, a 'peer-reviewed' journal" in their resume. Do I get
> >any points for this?
>
> Nope. Only morons in Bible belt would want to do that! It doesn't
> impress the scientific and business world.
> <http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
Dear Maff91,
While I would not have put it the same way you did, I think you have accepted
my answer and I deserve at least partial credit.
Todd S. Greene
<7e65hm$au2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>):
>In article <3705c814....@news.usxchange.net>,
> tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
>
>>On a related topic, do you consider yourself a young-earth creationist,
>>and old-earth creationist, or a theistic evolutionist?
>
>No. I would like to see those issues resolved, but realize I am not going to
>do and the folks fussing about it haven't resolved the differences. My
>experience shows that many of Bert's misguided defenders have sought to get
>my opinions exposed as though they are ready to pounce upon me, inquisition
>style, and so further divert attention away from those public issues I have
>tried to address. Don't you kind of figure he has representatives lurking on
>this board to see what develops?
>
>[snip]
>
>Sincerely,
>Robert Baty
>e-mail: rlb...@webtv.net
I understand your point. But...
Remember, I was that position several years ago. But I took the truth,
and damned the torpedoes! Many of the issues have indeed been resolved,
and the young-earth creationists lost a long time ago, as I learned. It
is those who claim to be followers of the truth, who yet spit in the
face of truth, who need to be pointed out as the hypocrites they are.
If you do a little research on DejaNews, you'll see that I bring up the
supernova of 1987 in the Large Magellanic Cloud quite often. I bring it
up as an example of how today we directly observe events that took place
long before 6,000 years ago. (That's about 169,000 years ago in the case
of SN1987A. Events we see in the Andromeda galaxy took place about 2.2
million years ago. And these galaxies are two of the several CLOSEST
galaxies to the earth out of the millions of galaxies that exist in the
universe.) Even those who wish to maintain their belief in the Bible as
God's Word must accept the truth, and modify their biblical
interpretations accordingly, if they wish to make any legitimate claim
whatsoever to being truth-seekers.
The truth is the truth. Reality is what it is, and it does not care what
we wish it to be. Truth cannot contradict truth.
Those who interpret the Bible in such a way as to condemn all Christians
who would consider the truth that the universe and the earth are
billions of years old are the worst hypocrites of all. They have raised
up their own personal beliefs onto God's pedestal, and have thus made
idols out of their own human ignorance. Then they condemn those who will
not worship their idols. (And in their arrogance they make God out to be
like an ignorant human.)
I was in your position years ago. When I began to see clearly that I was
part of an institution that not only failed to promote reason and
rationality but condemned those who did, I realized that it was time for
me to depart. I discovered that the Church of Christ condemned, or, at
the least, passively supported those who actively condemned, genuine
truth-seeking.
I am pointing this out to you. Because if you are seeing this same
thing, then maybe you have reached the point of reevaluating what it is
you, as a Christian, really stand for. I realize that truth-seeking is
not all there is to a Christian life, but surely antagonism to
truth-seeking is antithetical to Christianity.
From being raised as a young-earth creationist in the Church of Christ,
through my studying and learning about creationism and then evolution
(and other scientific areas relevant to evolutionary ideas, such as
astronomy and geology), I became, first, a progressive creationist, then
a theistic evolutionist. Truth-seeking led me where I did not want to
go. But if I had walked away from the truth simply because I did not
like what it was, what kind of a Christian would I have been? Surely God
demands intellectual honesty as well as spiritual wisdom? What kind of
integrity can you have as a Christian if you turn your back on
intellectual honesty?
I was there, Robert, so I'm speaking from my own experience. I left the
COC because it was apparent to me that truth-seeking, while preached
frequently from the pulpit, was simply not tolerated in real life. The
utter, fundamental hypocrisy was simply too much for me.
Bert Thompson does not care one whit about the truth. He is too enamored
by his own personal beliefs that he has made out to be divine. You have
seen this, up close and personal. But he is not fundamentally different
from other COC leaders. As I have mentioned before, where in the COC is
the outcry against the dogmatic false beliefs of the young-earth
creationists in the COC, represented by not just Thompson and Wayne
Jackson, but dozens, no hundreds of others, preachers and elders and
other influential church leaders, all condemning anyone who would dare
diverge from the young-earth creationism doctrine?
I never, NEVER saw any such an outcry. I never even saw a quiet, humble
criticism.
It is this quiet acquiesence that, to me, makes the COC self-condemning
with respect to genuine truth-seeking.
I'm sorry, Robert. Don't think I'm taking it out on you. I'm not. I just
want you to see that when you say, "Don't you kind of figure he has
representatives lurking on this board to see what develops?" I just want
to grab you by the shoulder and ask, "Where are your priorities, man!"
You should be following the truth, and you shouldn't be allowing genuine
truth-seeking to be scorned by the intimidations and ravings of some
idolatrous Pharisees. If you are more concerned about truth than you are
about what some Pharisees think about you, and you know you are indeed
doing the right thing with respect to truth-seeking, then you should be
ignoring these Pharisees, not heeding them.
Do you see what I'm saying?
_______________________________________________
rlb...@webtv.net
Dear Todd,
I think I gotcha. I don't mind voicing my opinions concerning how "creation
science" has been discredited (I now have my own experiences to validate the
complaints).
It is just that in the context of my interest in trying to promote an
informed discussion of specific matters and their implications, particularly
as to how the churches of Christ have been adversely affected by this
movement, I don't want to be the object of a diversionary effort.
So, what are your further opinions concerning my experience with the Creation
Research Society Quarterly, its editor Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D., and, of course,
the Thompson/Major connection?
Personally, I think the Maury legend/statue matter is comparable to the
Darwin sick-bed conversion story, but folks just haven't seemed to be as
interested in doing for the Maury legend what has been done with the Darwin
legend. I'm still prompting though.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
e-mail: rlb...@webtv.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
rlb...@webtv.net
>
>
> Do you see what I'm saying?
Dear folks,
I sent a response to this, but I haven't noticed it posting yet. This is
just a test. Seems DejaNews has been slow in posting lately, or is it me?
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
e-mail: rlb...@webtv.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
rlb...@webtv.net
rlb...@webtv.net wrote:
> In article <7djlpl$mf7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> rlb...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > Well, now he (Bert Thompson, Ph.D.) has done it again. It is on the bulletin board
> > (http://oakcrestcoc.org) of the OakCrest church in Oklahoma City (if they
> > leave the note up).
>
> It has now come to my attention that Bert Thompson, Ph.D. is distributing
> this "cheap shot" around the internet and who knows where else. I hope you
> will bear with me here. Since he has made my personal and irrelevant
> experience at McLoud a matter of public discourse, and has falsely
> represented it, I am going to take this opportunity to post my notes of that
> meeting here.
To whom it may concern,
The above message included the notes of the meeting. It now appears that the
recent internet posting by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. concerning me (including
false and misleading claims) may be deleted (the Oakcrest messages were
previously deleted), causing interested folks to be disadvantaged. So, from
the http://www.pblcoc.org bulletin board I here give the text of the comments
made by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
On or about March 27, 1999 Bert Thompson, Ph.D. wrote:
"Dear Friends at Palm Beach Lakes:
For quite some time now, Robert L. Baty of Oklahoma City has been posting
attacks upon me and my work on the guestbook at your Web site. I am terribly
sorry that the readers of the guestbook have been subjected to Mr. Baty's
vicious, ongoing personal vendetta against me, but, of course, I have no
control over where his messages are posted, the false allegations they may
contain, or their harsh nature.
I spoke by phone with the Palm Beach Lakes pulpit minister, Dan Jenkins (who
is a dear personal friend of mine), about this matter in order to solicit his
advice, and he has urged me to post the following explanatory response so
that readers of the PBL guestbook will know the rest of the story,' and
perhaps thereby better understand Mr. Baty's negative attitude and derogatory
remarks.
Several years ago (in 1992), at the invitation of the elders of the McLoud,
Oklahoma Church of Christ (which at the time was Robert Baty's home
congregation), I presented one of my "Science & Nature: Two Votes for God"
seminars on science and the Bible. Both during and after the lectures, Mr.
Baty took strong exception to a number of points that I made (e.g., certain
scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, the concept of a young Earth, etc.).
Eventually, he even went so far as to join with agnostics and atheists on the
Internet in order to publicly berate and belittle me (and numerous other
members of the church nationwide with whom he frequently disagreed on a
variety of subjects). Because his caustic criticisms were vented in such
highly visible venues (e.g., on the Internet and via the World Wide Web),
because his attitude became increasingly belligerent, and because he had
brought public disrepute on the McLoud congregation as a result of his
statements and actions, the elders of that congregation met privately with
Mr. Baty and disciplined him--instructing him to 'cease and desist'
immediately his public campaign against me and other Christians whom he had
continued to attack.
Shortly thereafter Mr. Baty left the church in McLoud and moved his family
elsewhere (those who are so inclined may feel free to contact the elders of
the McLoud congregation, or the minister, Wayne Price, to confirm the
accuracy of these dates and facts (P.O. Box 760, McLoud, Oklahoma 74851;
405/964-3370).
Since that time, Mr. Baty has not ceased to 'major in minors' in his
criticisms of certain statements that I made at McLoud well over
half-a-decade ago. In one of my lectures, I made reference to Matthew
Fontaine Maury (1806-1873). In addressing Maury's multiple contributions as
a scientist to the field of oceanography, I discussed certain aspects of his
life, including the various accolades afforded him as a result of those
contributions and his strong reliance on the Bible as the inspired Word of
God. Much of the information I presented had been gleaned from widely
published, duly recognized accounts of Maury's life and times (e.g., A.O.
Schnabel's 1974 book, 'Has God Spoken', Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego,
California, p.38, to name just one)--accounts whose veracity I had no reason
whatsoever to doubt.
A short time after I returned home, Mr. Baty wrote me at the offices of
Apologetics Press (for which I serve as Executive Director) to take issue
with with one or more points of my McLoud lectures. I shared Mr. Baty's
criticisms with Trevor J. Major, our Director of Scientific Information, who
then spent several months thoroughly researching these matters. Upon
learning that certain of the statements in one of my lectures were, in fact,
incorrect, we then published the corrected version of the Maury account not
only in the monthly journal of which I have served as editor for the past
nineteen years ('Reason & Revelation', 15[5]:39-40, May 1995), but also in a
lengthy, peer-reviewed scientific article in the 'Creation Research Society
Quarterly' (32[2]:882-87, September 1995).
Interestingly, the CRSQ editor even published Mr. Baty's feeble attempt at a
response (accompanied by our counter-response; CRSQ, 33[1]:22, June 1996).
As far as we are concerned, since that time the matter has been a non-issue.
The original erroneous statements made in McLoud were neither deliberate
falsehoods, nor some kind of 'dark side' of my life's work (to use Mr. Baty's
own words from a recent attack on me via a nationally known Web site operated
by atheists and evolutionists). Furthermore, the errors were correctly
publicly (something Mr. Baty has refused to accept, and continues to ignore).
As links to our articles on our own Web site from atheistic/humanistic
organizations (e.g., www.infidels.org; www.secular.org) document all too
well, we are not averse to correcting popular misconceptions regarding
Bible/science matters.
My suspicion is that, likely, very few people will have any interest in Mr.
Baty's life-long hobby of pursuing and attacking me. However, I felt the
need to respond to his false allegations.
Should anyone desire further information, they may feel free to contact our
offices at: Ma...@ApologeticsPress.org, or visit our Web site at
www.ApologeticsPress.org.
Dr. Bert Thompson
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117-2752"
That's it!
Similarly, "I felt the need to respond" by now posting this text here for the
record. I also posted a brief response on the guestbook at
http://www.pblcoc.org if anyone cares to tune in and check it out.
--
Mark Nutter
Greene) wrote:
>I was there, Robert, so I'm speaking from my own experience. I left the
>COC because it was apparent to me that truth-seeking, while preached
>frequently from the pulpit, was simply not tolerated in real life. The
>utter, fundamental hypocrisy was simply too much for me.
Wow, deja vu. I "went through" the Church of Christ experience
myself, though I was a convert rather than having been raised in it.
I was originally attracted to the denomination (ack, the "D" word!!)
because of their emphasis on restoring the 1st century practices, and
on the Bible as the *sole* authority for Christian faith and practice.
Unfortunately, being a convert, I had not had the opportunity to pick
up all the traditions that make the Church of Christ what it is
(though of course they would not admit to having any traditions, just
like they don't admit being an denomination). Instead, I took them at
their word, and began believing and practicing exactly, and only, what
I found in the New Testament. No instrumental music in worship?
Well, ok, I had some problems with that because instrumental music was
OK in the Old Testament, but I guess I could see that. But by the
same token, the same Bible that said "sing" instead of "play" also
said that the collection was to be given to specific individual
believers (ministers, and the poor), and said nothing about spending
any of it on congregationally-owned real estate. If you can't have an
organ in your church building because the NT doesn't authorize it,
then by the same principle you can't have the building either.
Needless to say, I got to listen to a lot of lectures about "necessary
inference" :-)
We left the Church of Christ eventually, even though we still agreed
with a lot of their fundamental doctrines, because we came to realize
that even though their stated goal was to do Bible things the Bible
way, they had some pretty fixed and inflexible traditions regarding
exactly what "the Bible way" had to be. I have subsequently come to
realize that a lot of the problems of that sort that arise in
conservative/fundamentalist denominations are really inherent in, and
the inevitable consequence of, the doctrine of sola scriptura. If you
take sola scriptura and boil it down to its pragmatic essence, what
sola scriptura says is, "Nobody can tell me my interpretation of
Scripture is wrong." Sola scriptura means that every man believes
whatever interpretation is right in his own eyes, and no mere human
sinner can authoritatively declare their interpretation to be
incorrect. Someone might try to argue with you and perhaps persuade
you to change your mind about what seems right, but ultimately,
according to sola scriptura, you always define Christian Truth in
terms of whatever interpretation seems right in your own eyes.
This, IMHO, is the root of all fundamentalist intolerance, and
paradoxically is also the root of liberalism and moral relativism
(i.e. things fundamentalists tend to lament and to try and blame on
evolutionism). By divorcing the Scriptures from the Church and from
the Church's Tradition, and making the "true" meaning of Scripture a
matter of individual (i.e. personal/subjective) interpretation, the
Reformers essentially guaranteed that there would be as many different
forms of "Christianity" as there are different ways of looking at the
world, none of which would have any objective means of determining
whose interpretion of Scripture was the actual, authoritative
Christian understanding. If you want to know why modern Western
culture seems to have lost the "moral compass" that conservative
Christians think it should have, don't shake your finger at Darwin,
point it back at Luther and his crowd.
And that's my sermon for the day... ;-)
Michael Painter
The first one wanted the church to get it's act together.
The middle one (after gaining power?) supported sola scriptura.
The end one said:
"I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels.
He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved"
He out-poped the pope.
Mark Nutter <mnutte...@fore.com> wrote in message
news:3715e86e....@news.supernews.com...
>On 6 Apr 1999 00:20:43 -0400, tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S.
>Greene) wrote:
>
>>I was there, Robert, so I'm speaking from my own experience. I left the
>>COC because it was apparent to me that truth-seeking, while preached
>>frequently from the pulpit, was simply not tolerated in real life. The
>>utter, fundamental hypocrisy was simply too much for me.
>
Mark Nutter
<mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
>The finger could only be pointed at the "middle" Luthor.
>The first one wanted the church to get it's act together.
>The middle one (after gaining power?) supported sola scriptura.
>The end one said:
>
>"I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels.
>He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved"
>
>He out-poped the pope.
Anyone who consistently applies sola scriptura will almost inevitably
do the same. If you claim to follow Scripture only, then you can
admit neither inaccuracy nor uncertainty in your doctrine without
implying inaccuracy and/or uncertainty in the Scriptures themselves.
If you admit the possibility of inaccuracies in your doctrine but deny
that they come from the Scriptures, then you can no longer claim to be
following the Scriptures only, since those inaccuracies must have come
from somewhere, and if they didn't come from the Scriptures, then you
must be following something else in addition to (or instead of) the
Scriptures.
That's why people who claim to follow the Bible (in the sense of sola
Scriptura) tend to be so intolerant: in order to admit the
possibility that their views might be mistaken, they have to either
admit that the Bible might contain mistakes, or else admit that
they're not really following sola Scriptura. Neither alternative is
particularly palatable, and thus they would rather denounce those who
disagree with them.
Not that this would necessarily apply to anyone in *this* newsgroup,
right? :-> :-> :->
rlb...@webtv.net
> rlb...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > Well, now he (Bert Thompson, Ph.D.) has done it again. It is on the bulletin board
> > (http://oakcrestcoc.org) of the OakCrest church in Oklahoma City (if they
> > leave the note up).
Dear interested readers and lurkers,
Well, it looks like my last note posted in response to the false and
misleading tirade of Bert Thompson, Ph.D., posted on the guestbook at
http://www.pblcoc.org has disappeared (Bert's tirade remaining). So, I feel
again compelled to post the text of the missing message here.
Here it is:
"Dear Readers,
An 'open, honest' review of the facts will reveal that Bert Thompson, PH.D.
is the one making false claims against me. His note is basically a repeat of
what he posted at http://www.oakcrestcoc.org. I would recommend a review of
that bulletin board while we await a public accounting from Wayne Price and
the church at McLoud. If anyone knows of a forum where we can get Bert to
actually carry on a dialogue about his public errors (including false
statements about me) I am open to suggestions. That he has had his
invesigators feeding him false information about me and my experience at
McLoud does add an interesting twist to the tale (How about we ry o hed a
little light on the matter? If you don't like where I discuss these matters,
just provide a better forum (which promises 'open, honest' discourse and
which has Bert Thompson, Ph.D. in attendance)."
That's it.
--
rlb...@webtv.net
rlb...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Well, it looks like my last note posted in response to the false and
> misleading tirade of Bert Thompson, Ph.D., posted on the guestbook at
> http://www.pblcoc.org has disappeared (Bert's tirade remaining).
Dear whoever,
I think DejaNews has changed again and my last note I have not found posted.
I try again here before the thread expires.
I contacted the Palm Beach Lakes leadership directly, the McLoud leadership
directly, and Wayne Price indirectly. None have responded concerning the
false statements posted on the guestbook at www.pblcoc.org by Bert Thompson,
Ph.D. concerning me and his problems with promoting false history and
science.
Having allowed enough time for response, and receiveing none, I posted
another note to the guestbook. It mysteriously disappeared after a couple of
days or so.
In order to have some record of the event, I would like to record that note
here. Here it is:
"In his message below, Bert Thompson, Ph.D. stated, "Interestingly, the CRSQ
editor even published Mr. Baty's feeble attempt at a response (accompanied by
our counter-response; CRSQ 33[1]:22, June 1996)". That statement is false
and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. knows, or has reason to know, that it is false. He
has repeated it here anyway. The "letter to the editor" mentioned was not
written by me. Other falsehoods and misrepresentations are contained in the
note to this guestbook made by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. The Palm Beach Lakes
leadership has had ample opportunity to remedy this problem. Tch! Tch!"
That's it. My efforts to set the record straight are apparently unallowable
on that site, while Bert's false statements continue to be posted even though
the owners of that board have been put on notice. More empirical evidence in
my life experience, I guess, that the claims about the "creationists" and
their inability to engage in "open, honest" discourse are well founded.
--
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
e-mail: rlb...@webtv.net
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
rlb...@webtv.net
> Well, it looks like my last note posted in response to the false and
> misleading tirade of Bert Thompson, Ph.D., posted on the guestbook at
> http://www.pblcoc.org has disappeared (Bert's tirade remaining).
Dear interested folk,
As noted above, my response to the false claims of Bert Thompson, Ph.D. was
deleted from the www.pblcoc.org guestbook site while the false statements of
Bert Thompson, Ph.D. remained.
I made inquiry directly to those involved and indirectly to Wayne Price whom
Bert Thompson, Ph.D. indicated would support the false claims. No one
responded.
Having not received a response, I posted another note to the www.pblcoc.org
guestbook site where the false claims remain. That brief note was deleted
after a couple of days or so.
Therefore, for the record, I wish to post the text of that message here:
"In his message posted below, Bert Thompson, Ph.D. stated, "Interestingly,
the CRSQ editor even published Mr. Baty's feeble attempt at a response
(accompanied by our counter-response; CRSQ, 33[1]:22, June 1996)." That
statement is false and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. knows, or has reason to know,
that it is false. He has repeated it here anyway. The "letter to the
editor" mentioned was not written by me. Other falsehoods and
misrepresentations are contained in the note to this guestbook made by Bert
Thompson, Ph.D. The Palm Beach Lakes leadership has had ample opportunity to
remedy this problem. Tch! Tch!"
That's it. My experience with Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and his supporters at
Palm Beach Lakes and elsewhere (i.e. Wayne Price?) has provided convincing
evidence as to the problem (oft repeated on this and related forums) with
getting "open, honest" discussions about public issues of interest involving
errors of of the "creationist" kind.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Martyne Brotherton
They only want their side heard.
Hugs