Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Sign in to follow this  
MamaJunebug

Astonishing arrogance!!! R.C.Sproul, Jr

Recommended Posts

MamaJunebug

Some time ago I bookmarked sites about the defrocking of R.C.Sproul, Jr., and was skimming through them. The arrogance of "HS" in the following carp against the owner of a website exploring the Sproul situation astonished me.

HS anonymously directs the owner (Karen Campbell, aka "thatmom") that she may only continue to post information about Sproul if she gets that information straight from Sproul himself. HS has already said that linking to primary-source documents online is not sufficient.

HS says:

May 21, 2008 at 10:59 pm

... Additionally, you’ll need documentation from RC and McDonald in order to hear their facts. Then you’ll be working from an unbiased and “fair†angle.

... you ought to know that we cannot possibly put all of our faith in one side of the story. In order to make objective and informed decisions, we must hear the whole side of the story.

If McDonald or RC won’t give their side of the story, then you’re obligated to drop it because you can’t state a case with only one side.

The comment is about 4/5ths of the way down the comments at thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/weeping-for-the-quenchers-r-c-sproul-jr-james-mcdonald-and-spiritual-abuse/#comment-1744

My reaction: astonishment !! Who really thinks that this is a valid method for examining or reporting on a situation?

How well would this work in a court of law? The plaintiff says that the defendant punched him. The defendant won't give his own side of the story, so plaintiff is obligated to drop it because he can't state a case with only one side.

What is this, some sort of mental and moral rope-a-dope? Even there, the fighter who cannily lets his opponent flail away his energy and then finally delivers a one-punch coup de grace, "states his case."

Reading further down the comments, it turns out that HS's brilliant idea is not new, but something called "doctrine over person" or "sacred science." IOW, the person who spouts the desired doctrine or theory is beyond reproach. S/he need not respond to any challenges or accusations, no matter how serious or well grounded, and the accuser and challenger must simply "drop it" because to continue would be to go against the doctrine.

I've seen this happen in secular life. I even was a challenger, once, and was blown off, but I was a 7th-grader questioning the school principal. I am astonished and dismayed beyond telling that this sort of thing happens between adults who claim to be Christian.

The arrogance!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uber frau

I think it's an extention of the usual fundie defensive tactics. If you're saying something negative about one of their sacred cows, they'll accuse you of having the problem-you must be bitter/unsaved/not reading your bible properly/whatever. It doesn't matter why or how, you're just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GenerationCedarchip

Linking to primary source documents is not sufficient? Hmm..investigative journalism and preparing legal cases would both be dead in the water if every writer and lawyer thought like this guy. Hearing from both sides would probably make for a very interesting story, but if one side has something to hide and their documents tell a story, sometimes that's what you have to go with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
debrand

MamaJunebug, these people don't want the truth. They have set up a system to reinforce their cherished beliefs. Something as silly as logic or truth can't be used against them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cordial

R.C. Sproul Jr. on Facebook: "The gospel's glory isn't that the Prince marries the beautiful but endangered princess, but that He marries, and beautifies, the evil hag."

OK, well. What he "means" here is that Christ was the Prince and the church was the evil hag needing beautifying. Fine.

Except that he's also of the belief that marriage is meant to be modeled after the Christ/church relationship. Men, love your wives as Christ loved the church, and all that. In that light, this is a disgusting thing to say. Church=evil hag=woman. All women.

The first comment might be worse:

"This is true true true. An thus men beautify your wives. Inside and out. A radiance set against Islam and towards the kingdom of beauty and of abundant life."

What the fuck? How can women hear these dudes say stuff like this and not run screaming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×