I wonder what would happen if I wrote an article in which I expounded on the links between Hitler and Luther’s anti-Semetic views. And then I wrote about how most ODMs are “reformed” and hold Luther’s writings in high regard. Then, having done this, I made a statement about how related these two really are in that most ODM’s are facists, just like the Nazis!*
Why, I might just have a parody article like this morally bankrupt drek,
HT: CR?N
*My apologies to any Nazis offended by this example, as it was purely fiction for the purpose of demonstrating ad hominem Association Fallacy.
This entry was posted
on Monday, December 10th, 2007 at 4:54 pm and is filed under Commentary, ODM Responses, Original Articles.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
20 Comments(+Add)
And yet when we compare ceremonial Lutherans to Roman Catholics because of their similarities they are offended. To compare emergents with Mormons is like police who plant false evidence.
“To compare emergents with Mormons is like police who plant false evidence.”
And to compare ODM’s to Nazis is a bit harsh, I think.
And it makes for a sort of a strange parallel of ODM’s vs. Emergents. “Are you a Mormon or a Nazi?”
Historically they really have nothing to do with each other so it sounds funny.
And to compare ODM’s to Nazis is a bit harsh, I think.
Then you understood the point I was trying to make re: Association Fallacy…
Its an absurdity buffet. Only Chris L’s absurdity is intentionally absurd.
Chris L., I can see how you think the association between Emergents and Mormons is fallacious. From a browse of your site you seem to disagree that emergents are apostate. I would be guilty of a fallacy IF I HAD NOT qualified the association. But it seems you missed that.
Chris, I qualified my post to observations from our website. The relativism that mormon and emergent commenters share is easily seen and such a departure from other comments we receive. The striking similarity between the emergent “commentary” and mormon “interpretation” arguments is what I was addressing.
Jeff,
I don’t know what Mormons you are interacting with, but I find your portrayal of them as morally relativistic quite different from the Mormons I’ve talked to. Most of them are quite dogmatic (albeit wrong), and they won’t concede the smallest of points. Also, they are very evasive when it comes to identifying their actual beliefs. There may be some in the EC that come off as evasive, I suppose, but it is quite easy to find out what the different authors and speakers believe if you read their books. Good luck finding a nook by a Mormon author that openly identifies their beliefs.
The one thing I also find interesting is how quick folks in the Reformed camp are to label on apostate. Do you not realize that these are your spiritual sons and daughters? If these people are really apostate (which I don’t believe the majority are), then surely the present Church establishment is at least somewhat culpable.
But Jeff, you must then *qualify* “interpretation” so as to make it clear why it amounts to nothing more than “relativism.”
Otherwise, you’re guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. For instance, what if you and I agreed on every aspect of theology, but we disagreed on the precise function of deacons in our local church, taking slightly different interpretations of 1 Timothy 3: 8-13? To what would you ascribe our disagreement. And how would that differ from the kinds of interpretations offered by “emergents.”
It may strike you that mormons and emergents are exactly alike, but you have to then provide an argument why that’s the case! To use Chris’s example, it may strike me that fundamentalists and Nazis share certain personality traits, but, absent an argument, any simple comparison will be unfair and fallacious.
But then I think your mentality comes to light, doesn’t it? I suspect that in your eyes, my inability to see that emergents are just like mormons suggests that I’m unwilling to acknowledge absolute truth and therefore just another “relativistic” Christian.
And there is the internal contradiction of fundamentalism. In the absence of any central authority, fundamentalists must turn every opinion into dogma, lest they consider themselves subject to compromise or lack of doctrinal purity. Disagreement inevitably leads to condemnation. Acceptance of disagreement is even worse, leading to condemnation as a relativist, equivalent to mormonism.
Where is the wisdom? Can you really see no difference?
M.G. wrote: “But Jeff, you must then *qualify* “interpretation†so as to make it clear why it amounts to nothing more than “relativism.—
That’s simple and I’m more than happy to do that. I contend there is ONE interpretation of Scripture, since in fact to interpret means to make the the original language clear.
Now I do, however, concede there are some textual criticism issues with a number of passages which lend to a possibility for an unclear interpretation — therefore saying it means either this or that. But certainly not a personal “interpretation” producing thousands of varieties of meanings.
You also wrote: “It may strike you that mormons and emergents are exactly alike….”
You have read more INTO what I wrote than I was saying. I said the practice of some commenting on blogs is similar.
And you made this claim: “I suspect that in your eyes, my inability to see that emergents are just like mormons suggests that I’m unwilling to acknowledge absolute truth and therefore just another “relativistic†Christian.”
Again, you read more into what I wrote than is really there and have drawn a false conclusion.
I just went and read the article and found it to be a huge joke…
Though Rob Bell actually posted on it…
Now, as an emergent I find this accusation of “relativism” a bit outlandish and actually stupid as it shows the lack of true understanding of what most “emerging” and even “emergents” believe… we do not believe in relativism… we believe in truth… we do not see the need to go to Plato or modernist definition of truth and see the the biblical definition is more than sufficient.
Plato believed that “truth” was more true than reality… he taught that it in its abstract form more true than in the material form… that idea or knowledge was superior than material.
Also, the idea of “absolute true” is not biblical but a thought added later by modernist thinkers. Biblical “truth” is not an abstract thought, but the Person of Jesus Christ.
He is (if one must use the term) Absolute Truth Incarnate… though where the confusion is, is when we stated that there is no need for the qualifier of “absolute” as Biblical truth is true… regardless to the qualifier one puts in front of it…
Now what I see is that the issue arises by adding the “absolute” in front of Biblical truth then implies that there is lesser “truth” that is not absolute and then give the modernist thinker the issue of and default of
“relativist” truth. What I mean is those who claim e/e are relativist miss that it is out of their own paradigm of modernism that they come to relativism. In our view we see Truth as truth and anything lesser as simply a lie. Funny that seems so confusing to so many modernist, but I guess that is because they have (if they have read any at all) only read about post-modernism on a very superficial level and have missed that Platonist/modernism has poisoned their own view.
The point missed is that emerging/emergents hold to scripture and hold to its great value (though some may fall outside the bulk of us hold this as true) while Mormons have set aside the Bible for the new-new-testament… the book of Mormon.
BTW I see more merit in Hitler using Luther and even Calvinism (for I have read a Jewish scholar who wrote an article on this very topic and connected these very well) than I see any connection between the Mormon and emerging/emergent.
iggy
Phil wrote: “I don’t know what Mormons you are interacting with, but I find your portrayal of them as morally relativistic quite different from the Mormons I’ve talked to.”
Phil, I suppose it depends on what topic you are talking about with Mormons. One of my main apologetics, when witnessing to a mormon, is the contrast between LDS theology and biblical Christianity. The argument for many interpretations (one that is true for you and one that is true for me) often surfaces when I talk with them about the vast differences between what a mormon believes and what the Bible teaches.
My article didn’t really address personal witnessing encounters I have had. As not all latter day saints have responded in the same way on the streets as in the blogosphere. The blog post was responding to comments that seem to show up on our blog from mormons and the similarity to comments that seem to show up when we mention the name “Rob Bell”.
I have found major similarities in how Muslims will comment and how fundamentalists comment… hmmm must be a connection… I wont address the witnessing encounters I have had… but both end up going the same way.
LOL! It is true… so both must be followers of false Gods!
That is how ridiculous your assertion is Jeff… but again I think there is more to that that you would think!
iggy
Iggy,
What do you mean when you say “Though Rob Bell actually posted on it…”?
I went there and saw a Rob Bell post… though I just went there again and it was gone…
It stated:
“So you can post about me but will not let me comment. This is why I do not comment with people like you. You sir are a hypocrite.” Quoted as best as I can recall.
I am not sure it is authentic or not, but it is gone now…
iggy
Actually it did not sound like how i would imagine RB to sound like… So now i have my doubts it was really him… but if he was not allowed to post and it got through and then taken down again… I can see how he might be frustrated with the dishonesty of that site.
iggy
Though now Ken has through his nastiness in the ring again…
iggy
YAY!!!!
Another person who calls a group of people “emergents” when no one self-identifies as such…
Yay!!!!
There’s nothing like making snap judgements, painting broad brush and generally creating another boogey man so we can feel “right” and alive with purpose! all the while making sure we’re still not purpose driven!
Yay!!!!
On an ending note, Chris L., I want to commend you for your mention of logical fallacies and how they are used by some “discernment ministers” to make poor arguments! Thanks for using a portion of your website to pointing this out to other Christians.
Kyle
two books…
Classic Christianity by Bob George (which is a very simple read) and The Saving Life of Christ by Maj Ian Thomas… both are well worth the read on this topic.
Both these men brought me into a fuller understanding of grace.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Now Jeff says the IP doesn’t add up. Maybe Rob’s traveling? Maybe it’s his brother? Maybe it’s this Rob Bell. Either way that post and the comments that follow are silly.
I doubt it actually was Rob, these guys aren’t even a blip on his radar. It cracks me up how guys like Dave Marriott (Clearly), Ken and I imagine others think that Rob is somehow accountable to them. He’s not. It’s just that simple. He’s not.
I just realized I didn’t link to this Rob Bell. Maybe it’s this Rob Bell.