A Christian Bumpkin met a Lumpkin on the road to Oz
Said the Bumpkin to the Lumpkin, "Would you kindly pause?
Could you please explicate the meaning of exonerate?
So that the pounding in my pate, you may help alleviate?"
Said the Lumpkin to the Bumpkin, "Sir, I have no time.
A Caner said some silly things and some say it’s a crime.
For Caner I must formulate excuses they will tolerate.
Allowing us to obfuscate and forever more to exculpate."
And so the Bumpkin left the Lumpkin to find a better way
The Bible always speaks the truth, beating nonsense any day
(With sincerest apologies to serious writers of verse)
Until recently I have been a fan of Norm Geisler. His book, “Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics” is both extensive and helpful. His “Big Book of Biblical Difficulties was particularly helpful in answering questions that I had about hard verses in the Bible.. I would heartily recommend both books.
But, my opinion of Geisler has taken a nosedive in light of the Ergun Caner debacle. Geisler has written two letters on the subject and reportedly asked that they be widely distributed. Both letters were published on Wade Burleson’s site, Grace and Truth to You.
However, both letters can be read at Peter Lumpkin’s site and Norm Geisler’s Facebook page. They are reprinted here for your perusal. Please note that I have highlighted some words in bold.
“To Whom It May Concern:
I am familiar with the slanderous charges that have been made against Dr. Ergun Caner generated by some Muslim groups and other extremists. I have looked into the matter, talking with Ergun and other principal parties at Liberty, and am convinced that the charges are libelous. I am also convinced that whatever ambiguous or misstatement that may have been made, Dr. Caner has done nothing heretical, immoral, or illegal. I stand with him against these vicious attacks. He has taken a strong stand on important issues that stir up controversy, but to my knowledge has done nothing unorthodox or malicious. I urge all to consider him innocent unless proven guilty. He has welcomed an inquiry from the Liberty authorities. Let’s await their findings. Christians have a bad habit of shooting their wounded. Let’s pray for and encourage our brother.” Norm Geisler
"An extensive independent investigation has exonerated Dr. Ergun Caner of all the false charges made against him by extreme Muslims and others and has been retained as a Professor at Liberty University. In spite of a few misstatements (which we all make and he has corrected), nothing has diminished his testimony and orthodoxy as one of the great Christian voices of our time. I totally support him." Norman Geisler
Now, lets add a statement by Peter Lumpkins, an apologist for Caner who authors a site called SBC Tomorrow
“No matter how honest one may be with one’s words, some people will call you dishonest and a liar. They will ridicule, mock, and dismiss.
Great leaders make verbal errors, misspeak, convolute facts, and have memory lapse. No scholar, preacher, apologist, or pastor can stand publicly week-in and week-out without slips of the tongue, confusion of facts, wrong dates, wrong places, wrong timelines, etc. etc. It will never be done by anyone. Period. Some are more gross than others. Nonetheless, the best we can do is propose to be better, to be more careful, to be humble.
Standing on principle remains a non-negotiable aspect of my life in Jesus Christ. I absolutely refuse to cater to the herd mentality. Throughout this exchange, I continued to sing one single song—innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And, as I said earlier, on the one hand, Dr. Caner was fully vindicated concerning his life testimony. On the other hand, and far less significant, Dr. Caner was found guilty of verbal discrepancies–discrepancies for which he sincerely offered his deepest regret. The investigatory committee spoke, and I am publicly obligated to accept their findings”.
Since it seems cool to issue an open letter to…. whoever, here is my open letter to Geisler and Lumpkins.
7/3-I apologize for three minor errors that Junkster, an alert reader, pointed out. I have made some corrections demarcated in bold. I attributed one statement to Geisler that should have been attributed to Lumpkins. Two statements were attributed to both but both statements were quoted directly from Lumpkins. However these two statements were but also implied by Geisler.
I did, however, place the text of three statements from Geisler and Lumpkins at the start of this post. I apologize for the confusion and want to be sure that Peter Lumpkins gets all of the credit he deserves. But, the corrections in no way change one iota the statements that were made nor my assessment of them. I disagree profoundly with both gentlemen.
Gentlemen,
I have been an admirer of Mr. Geisler for many years. I have only recently begun to read Mr. Lumpkins thoughts. Here are a list of claims you have made and my responses.
1. You, (Geisler) claim that slanderous and libelous charges have been made about Caner from Muslim groups and other extremists.
I am a middle-aged mother who has lived a traditional and conservative Christian life. How shortsighted of you to call me, as well as others "extremists" before extensively investigating the backgrounds of those of us who objected to Caner’s lies.
I assume that you do not have a legal background and would suggest that you do not make legal judgments about those of us who made certain claims against Caner. The word slander means “ a false and damaging statement.” The word libelous means “false and harmful to somebody’s reputation”.(Word reference tools). Please note the word false is joined by the words "and damaging/harmful". This means that we said something that was not true. It means that we said something dishonest in order to damage someone’s reputation.
The only one who said something fallacious in this situation was Ergun Caner. Let’s get something straight, once and for all, CANER WAS NOT A JIHADIST, PERIOD!!!!!!!!!! What he said was not only false, but it was damaging to the faith. Why? Because the world watches this stuff and rejects us as a bunch of liars. Never forget that Satan is the author of lies and Caner's prevarications were doozies.
2. You (Geisler) said the following: "In spite of a few misstatements (which we all make and he has corrected), nothing has diminished his testimony and orthodoxy as one of the great Christian voices of our time".
Perhaps you are living in a different world than me. But I no longer trust one word that this man says. If he can’t get his own biography straight, how in the world can he convey the biography of our Lord? What does it matter if you get the theology straight when you don’t practice its precepts? Didn’t Jesus say “I am the Truth?” So do we tell the world that Jesus tells the truth but we humans kind of fudge it but that’s OK?
If a man who has lied about his past is “one of the great Christian voices of our time,” then the church is in real trouble. By the way, has he ever corrected the fact that he wasn’t a jihadist, after all? In fact, where has he extensively amended anything? Did he send a letter to the churches in which he spoke, clearing up the record? Didn’t he recently stand in classes at Liberty claiming he was innocent?
3. You (Geisler) claim that he did nothing heretical, immoral, illegal, unorthodox or malicious.
Well, I know you don’t beat your wife. Why do I bring that up? Does it have anything to do with my disagreement with your statements? Such a tactic is meant to change the subject so that the more awkward issues won;t be discussed.
You brought up the issues of heresy, orthodoxy and legality. These were not the concerns of those who were upset with Caner. They were irritated because he was telling false stories. I know that I am not a great Biblical scholar like you are, but I was taught that the Bible says that lying is a sin. Sin is immoral. Knowingly telling a lie can be construed as malicious unless the guy is mentally ill.
4. You (Geisler) ( Correction 7/3- Lumpkins) said ““No matter how honest one may be with one’s words, some people will call you dishonest and a liar.
Can you please tell me how hard Caner was trying to be honest? Please give me some examples. If his testimony as a jihadist is any indication of his veracity, I would say that Caner barely broke a sweat trying to be sincere.
5.(7/3 correction Lumpkins said ) but both of you implied that “Great leaders make verbal errors, misspeak, convolute facts, and have memory lapse”.
Are you really saying that Caner is a “great” leader?! Here is a list of some great leaders: Luther, Calvin, Polycarp, Wesley, Liddle, Graham, and Wilberforce. Are you actually implying that Caner measures up to these truly great leaders? If so, pack up the babies and head for the hills because Christianity is definitely on a downward slide.
If my child consistently forgot where he grew up and made claims that he was raised as a jihadist, I would seek help for him because he either had a brain tumor, was mentally ill or, even worse, a liar. Sir, this is not verbal error. It is a consistent misrepresentation of the facts that began, suspiciously, around the time of 9/11. Could it be the Caner was playing to our fears?
6. Both of you claim he was exonerated and fully vindicated by Liberty University and that he expressed his sincerest regret for his “verbal discrepancies ( 7/3 correction- or misstatements)
Are you both living in a different country than me? Where are his “sincerest regrets?” Were they sent to the churches and schools where he made these “ambiguities?” I know that a local school who hosted said former jihadist did not receive an expression of regret. They are waiting patiently.
A demotion is not exoneration. You both are guilty of doublespeak and so dishonor the transparency and forthrightness of our Lord. You both should be ashamed for calling honest brothers and sisters in the faith, “extremists”. You have diminished your good names in demeaning decent people and covering up for a one of your own. Are you both so used to deep sixing indiscretions that it has become second nature to you? Has the culture of Enron invaded the faith?
Both of you have left me most confused. Are you saying that I should not be concerned about someone who lies? You seem to be calling consistent falsehood, a minor misunderstanding. Are you saying that a great person (I guess if you say it, it must be true) should be allowed some latitude to tell tall tales so long as its in the service of our Lord?
This is why one of our readers, Lydia, admonishes all of us to read the Scriptures for ourselves. Something is very, very wrong in Christendom and I am rapidly losing my trust in you and others. I reject what you both have written as some New Age gobbledygook. However, there is One who will never fail me or lie to me. His name is Jesus.
I leave you with this quote by C.S. Lewis-"It matters enormously if I alienate anyone from the truth."
Sincerely
Dee for The Wartburg Watch Ladies
Dear Dee,
I’ve read this site frequently and have benefited from some of the posts published. At least I thought I had. Unhappily, I now will definitely add a measure of extra precaution in assuming that when one is quoted on this site, he or she is actually quoted accurately. The excessive confusion between Dr. Geisler’s email and my own thoughts is tortuous to read even if it is a little funny.
With that, I am…
Peter
To Peter Lumpkins from the Wartburg Bumpkins so glad to read you here.
We’re sad you find our comment rude and made you mad, we fear
Would you like to mediate or would you prefer to excoriate?
State your case, with some grace, and we will not prevaricate!
Dee,
I think Peter is referring to what is probably a typo in your point 4, where you attribute a quote from Peter to Geisler. Also, in point 5 you said “both of you said”, but then you quoted Peter. Point 6 could probably also be a bit clearer, as it refers to “both of you” when using a combination of words from the two (not clear which said which).
But this provides a great opportunity. You can directly and decisively correct specific details. And, if you feel it proper, you can issue a sincere apology for any mistakes made, and not retract or remove your comments a few days later. In short, you can demonstrate how these things ought to be handled, showing, by contrast, all that was wrong with how Caner handled his “misstatements”. What an opportunity!
I thought Dee was very clear about which was from Geisler and which was from you, Peter. And if someone was a little confused about who said what, she did include links to both Geisler’s e-mails and your blog, Peter, so people can look up to know beyond a shadow of a doubt who said what.
Also like the big words, Dee, especially obfuscate. Nice word of the day! 🙂
Junkster
As usual, I am indebted to you. Thank you for your alert reading. Please note that it was a simple matter of writing a name wrong and I had placed all statements at the top of the post. But, I did apologize and gave Peter full credit for what he said, twice.
Peter,
As you can see, I made a correction and I am sorry for the confusion. However, I did place your correct comment at the beginning of the post and it was my intent to give you full credit.
Elisabeth,
Thank you for your kind comment. It was my intent to give Geisler and Lumpkins full credit for what they said which I showed by placing their statements on the top of the page. I made a mistake as I then went back and forth between the letters. Still, their comments sound eerily similar.
I like obfuscate, as well. It seems to me that there is a whole bunch of that going on in this affair.
ear Dee,
Why thank you Dee for your apology. I do have a few things to say, however.
You wrote in your apology about the “three minor errors that Junkster, an alert reader, pointed out.” A) As you can see below, I don’t know if one can so easily categorize what you wrote as “three *minor* errors” B) there were really more than the three “*minor* errors” you mentioned C) it’s interesting Junkster is an “alert reader” for pointing out the obvious but when I (as author) pointed out some “*minor* errors” I received a non-serious reply.
Now as for the “three *minor* errors” let’s take a lookie-see:
Dee: “both letters can be read at Peter Lumpkin’s site” But Dee, both letters cannot be read at Peter Lumpkins’ site. Does that make you a liar? Is it a *minor* lie?
Dee: “Geisler has written two letters on the subject and reportedly asked that they be widely distributed (emphasis added). Incorrect. Unless there is a report about which I am unaware (and if you find it I’ll be glad to concede, Dee), your reference to “widely distributed” (for the record, not an exact phrase) came from an email I posted (with permission).Wrong again. That’s two.
Dee: “Now, lets add *a* statement by Peter Lumpkins…” (asterisks added for emphasis). Well, I would have liked it had you added *a* statement—at least a statement that made me appear a bit more coherent. The fact is, those are three unrelated personal lessons I learned from the entire ordeal with LU, Caner, and James White. You left the numbering out; nor did you include the normal ellipsis which alerts the reader the researcher is giving fragments (of course, by “fragments” I do not imply improper usage of the quote) of the quoted material. From my own experience this practice reveals sloppy handling of researched material (not that you have a habit of doing this, Dee; but now that I know you can be careless, that’s why I mentioned in my first comment, “I now will definitely add a measure of extra precaution in assuming that when one is quoted on this site, he or she is actually quoted accurately.”). Wrong again? I wouldn’t necessarily say “wrong” but certainly careless and skewed.
Dee: “You (Geisler) ( Correction 7/3- Lumpkins) said ““No matter how honest one may be with one’s words, some people will call you dishonest and a liar.” Thank you Dee for the correction on my end. But may I ask, did you not lie here? If Geisler didn’t say this but I said this, do you not owe Dr. Geisler an apology for *lying* about what you wrongly attributed to him?
Dee: “(7/3 correction Lumpkins said ) but both of you implied that “Great leaders make verbal errors, misspeak, convolute facts, and have memory lapse”.” I think you may have inadvertently left something out of this statement. It looks like you originally attributed these words to Geisler and then corrected the quote properly to me. However, you spoil your “correction” by rationalizing “but both of you implied…” Irrelevant. Either the quote was correctly or incorrectly attributed. If incorrectly attributed, did you not again place words in Geisler’s mouth he did not write? If so, twice now you have *lied* about Geisler, have you not?
Dee: “Both of you claim he was exonerated and fully vindicated by Liberty University…” No, I did not. Read the quote you rightly attributed to me in your OP (though it was somewhat botched). I never used “exonerated” and I only used vindicated in a very specific sense. Indeed I conceded LU found Caner guilty as charged on a number of factually-oriented discrepancies. So, wrong again.
Dee: “A demotion is not exoneration.” I agree….at least, in part, I agree. But who said Dr. Caner was demoted? The LU statement said no such thing. It gave absolutely no details as to why Caner is not dean. And, as I mentioned in my OP, he may have been demoted but we would have to know that from other means, not the LU statement itself.
Dee: ‘You both are guilty of doublespeak… You both should be ashamed for calling honest brothers and sisters in the faith, “extremists.”’ Perhaps I am guilty of “doublespeak” Dee. Unfortunately, you cite no examples for me to examine. On the other hand, I think you’ll look a while before you get me calling ‘honest brothers and sisters in the faith, “extremists.”’ That’s not a term I normally employ. And, since only Dr. Geisler used it, I’ll defer to him. On the other hand, do we have you wrongly putting words in my mouth again? Don’t you call that *lying* about somebody?
Now, not only are there several other issues I could have raised about your post, but also you have some great rhetorical questions at the end concerning which I would be delighted to respond given we go any further with this exchange. On the other hand, Dee, there’s far more wrong in your piece than “three minor errors that Junkster, an alert reader, pointed out.” Unless, of course, you think it’s *minor* to continually attribute words to one person which were actually spoken by another.
With that, I am…
Peter
P.S. Now, for the record. No, I do not think you to be a liar though you clearly bungled and wrongly attributed the words above. It was careless, sloppy, unfair, and totally inappropriate. And, in fact, you should apologize (and even do some more apologizing since you deeply botched Geisler as well). But I do not think for a minute you intended to be dishonest, Dee. I think you have a strong opinion concerning a matter and consequently wrote your piece with that in mind. The problem is, in the passion of the moment in communicating our views—especially strong views—we are much more prone to careless mistakes. You made careless errors, Dee. That’s a fact. Would to God we Christians would not be so easily tempted in calling their brother or sister a liar–one who intends to deceive–when no intention to deceive is obvious. Grace, Dee.
As you can see, Peter is the master of minutia. It is a clever tactic to distract from the more important and damning points of a topic. Some folks actually take him seriously and get lost in his minutia over and over. Peter seems to be the point man to go out and try desperately to ‘change the subject’.
But before you try to actually engage Peter, I would suggest watching some of his vlogs to see what you are dealing with.
Note, Peter thinks YOU should apologize to Geisler… who is either incompetent or a liar when it comes to Caner. Which is it?
I am in no way a fan of James White but his take on this entire Caner deal with Geisler has been correct.
But Peter is a classic example of the arrogance and deceit that has infested the SBC. The only thing that amazes me is that anyone takes him seriously.
Dear Peter,
Welcome to The Wartburg Watch!
Perhaps Sir Walter Scott’s rhyme best sums up the Caner Conundrum
“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.”
” Would to God we Christians would not be so easily tempted in calling their brother or sister a liar–one who intends to deceive–when no intention to deceive is obvious”
So, that is your definition of a real lie? Whether or not the person intended to deceive? How many Christians parents are going to believe that excuse when their kids lie?
And what about the Liberty Honor Code? Shouldn’t they change it to reflect whether or not a student “intended” to deceive when they lied? Or, is that only for those with lofty titles?
What does Caner’s “intentions” have to do with it? Facts are facts. And his lying over a long period about himself is a verifiable FACT. We do not need to speculate about intentions. We need to remember this took place during a 9 year period over and over. During that time, Caner was not convicted of his sin of lying about himself to thousands? That is very concerning. Perhaps it is a congenital problem?
What is even more concerning is that his “Christian” brothers do not seem to be concerned for his soul. (Revelation 21)
Great Scott, Lumpkins,
This is a blanket apology for my entire life. I am now in the mountains and about to do white water rafting which seems to be a perfect analogy for what I am experiencing from you.
I defer to Lydia who seems to understand u better than me. One thing I can say for sure is that u are really good at what you do. What that is I leave up to u to and to the readers to define because anything I say will be deemed in error.
Once again thank u for showing an interest in our thoughts.
Happy 4th
Dear Lydia,
Hello. To you I say the same as I did to Dee; that is, I have benefited from this site in the past and have enjoyed the usually good common-sense approach you guyz take. I also like the focus on the Bible you continually emphasize. Kudos! (Alas the caveat I made to Dee about the sloppy handling of quotes still haunts me, however).
At any rate, I’m confused about your immediate response. I attempted to be cordial, respectful, and keep things on theme. Yet I get a reply not to the words I wrote but about me personally:
–I’m a “master of minutia.” Whether this is positive or negative I cannot tell. From your overall comment, I’d guess negative but could be wrong.
–I cleverly distracted from the more important points. I suppose I intended to do so. But I only corrected false information, false information concerning the theme of the post. How is correcting false information distracting, especially since the false information dealt directly with the theme of the post? Again, are you disagreeing with Dee that Junkster was an “alert reader” in pointing out the same errors I did, or was Junkster acting as a “master of minutia” as well? Even more, if direct quotes were wrongly attributed, is this a *minor* thing to you?
–I am an alleged “point man.” Tell me, Lydia, “point man” for whom? For what? How do you know this? Do you have information–factual data–you can share with me and your readers? We may like to examine the data for ourselves to judge your assessment of the evidence. Some of us also like to “dissect” trends and alleged evidence.
–I try “desperately to ‘change the subject’.” Really? But, Lydia, the subject on this thread concerns my and Dr. Geisler’s words. Was not the OP directly addressing my words and Dr. Geisler’s words? If I am correct, could you please show me how my comment “changed the subject” of the OP? And, is it possible also demonstrate the clues in my comment which might reveal my alleged “desperation” in changing the subject on this particular piece?
–Apparently you think my “vlogs” pose a great contribution toward interpreting my words here. A) I’ve never made a “vlog” remotely similar to the subject on this post. If that is so, why my words here will not stand or fall on their own I have not a clue. Care to explain? B) While I am all ears for an alternate explanation, your wording appears to be suggesting something really negative about me personally. I’d hate to know that’s true for if we cannot have a genuine conversation without being insulting toward one another, I’m wondering how that’s not dishonoring to our Lord (and this goes toward me as well. If you find me insulting you, please be quick to point this out!)
–You rightly think I mentioned Dee should apologize to Geisler for wrongly attributing words to him. However, you quickly assert Geisler is either “incompetent or a liar” on the Caner issue and apparently think that should void out an apology. Yet, even granting the false dilemma in which you’ve neatly cast Geisler (e/o liar/incompetent), how does it morally follow that one should not rightly attribute words to an incompetent person or even a liar? Does his or her incompetence or even falsehoods free others to legitimately and morally create falsehoods concerning him or her? If so, I’d like to hear a biblical-moral explanation for this if you could.
–Now back to me personally: “Peter is a classic example of the arrogance and deceit…” How this addresses the words I wrote, Lydia, I am clueless. Perhaps your readers can enlighten me. And, of course, for me, this stands as the fundamental reason why I can have no genuine conversation here. Why? Because in the make-up of your community, I enter in as a deceiver. My words cannot be trusted. All I say is tainted by deception and dishonesty.
This really, really saddens me. The community here poses itself as a watchman on the wall, so to speak, a Christian community which “dissects” Christian trends. Yet, when I show up and log strictly appropriate comments–comments which are open for discussion and dispute–I am slammed as an arrogant deceiver.
No thanks, Lydia. The credibility for claiming to focus all things according to biblical revelation just took a serious nosedive–at least the way I see it. And, hence, as for taking me seriously, I understand a lot better now.
With that, I am…
Peter
Dear Deb,
A delightfully Christian welcome. Thank you for your hospitality.
With that, I am…
Peter
Dee,
And, to you a delightful trip. Wish I could experience the North Georgia mountains today.
With that, I am…
Peter
P.S. Passing the responsibility for your verbal transgressions onto another may work temporarily due to circumstances, Dee. However, when better circumstances arrive, it seems to me one really is obligated to personally deal with them–especially one who vehemently insists others personally deal with theirs…
Sorry, Lydia. I am uninterested in moving along too quickly. You dismissed my earlier comment by focusing on me as an arrogant deceiver among other things. You now want me to just ignore all of that and answer a question from you? That’s not how it works in my world, my sister.
With that, I am…
Peter
Dee,
You have inspired me with your poetic talent.
How about this nursery rhyme:
Peter Peter pumpkin blogger,
Scolded Dee to try to flog her.
He circled the wagons very well,
Keeping Caner in a protective shell.
Dear Deb,
I appreciate good humor. But it usually works best if someone continues to dodge issues, does not stay on topic, makes no valuable point, etc. It also works best between friends–or at least between pretty familiar persons (albeit internet familiars). This is the first time I’ve ever logged onto this site and attempted to engage on a subject I take seriously–the words I publicly write (I’m speaking only on my behalf, obviously). But then to be responded to by rhymes and funnies and not serious response confuses me. Is this the “dissecting” for which this community is desiring to be known? If it is, fine. I’d just like to know. Because if those who write words here, calling others into account, are not serious or are unwilling to be held accountable for their words, then I’d like to know that as well.
Thanks for a smile.
With that, I am…
Peter
My sincerest apologies for the misspelling in my rhyme. Sometimes technology is NOT at all helpful. Every time I type the word “Caner” on my Blackberry, it gets changed to “Cancer”. Sorry about that. I will correct it soon…
See how it works, folks? Peter inundates one with his verbose trivia then claims the moral high ground when one is not willing to get on his bizarre merry go round. (One could be here for days dealing with his minutia…that he hopes will make you forget Caner’s lying for 9 years.)
After being Lumpkinized, one walks away wondering what was the topic, again?
I am still trying to figure out how one can lie over a span of 9 years to thousands but it is ok because there was no ‘intent’ to deceive.
Me thinks they are going to have to change the Honor
Code at Liberty with an ‘intent to deceive’ clause. Then appoint an “intentions” judge. Because blatent lying is not damning anymore. (Wonder if they are adding that ‘intent to deceive’ clause when interpreting Revelation 21? Perhaps we should ask the “Christian” scholar, Geisler)
Peter gives a bad impression of an attorney arguing the meaning of a point. His is worse that Clinton’s “what the meaning of is, is,” which was really an accurate statement of what had happened that was interpreted as a lie but was not legally so, just misleading.
Caner lied repeatedly, intentionally, and without apparent remorse, for over nine years, to thousands of people, as the videos consistently show. It was an embellishment of what should have been a Christian testimony. And he has used it to put down the ministry of others, racial and religious minorities, and those who devote their lives to winning people of Islamic faith to Christianity.
Caner does not belong in the pulpit, except to repent and apologize. He does not belong in the classroom as a teacher. And he does not belong in leadership. The prerequisite to a return must be a confession, repentance, counseling, working under a Christian accountability group that will review every statement he makes about his life and background and compare it to the knowable FACTS, that is the documents and testimony of people who were present at those points in his life.
Peter needs to backoff comparing a misattribution or misquote (or even a typo) to the LIES of Caner. To continue to do so is to intentionally mmisrepresent (read LIE) about the seriousness of the Caner life of sin for the last nine years.
“below” should be “belong” Software problem.
Lydia,
After being courteous and respectful (at least I thought I was but am open to correction), you again take personal jabs implying my arrogance (‘moral high ground’) as well as explicitly offering up an insult (‘Lumpkinized’). Is there a reason you do not want to engage the actual words I write? Are you satisfied merely with this level of exchange? Getting really personal with people (in a demeaning way) rather than exchanging viable perspectives so real understanding potentially ignites?
Honestly, I’d like to know if you are, because, if so, I’ll wish you Godspeed and be on my way. There is nothing else for me to say.
Good evening.
With that, I am…
Peter
Arce,
Thanks for the advice. I will ask though, just where have I made this “comparing a misattribution [sic] or misquote (or even a typo) to the LIES of Caner”? In which comment of the above did I do so?
Thanks.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter and those within the Baptist Mafia;
I know someone that needs to get involved! You are a source of contention that my Ga friends, Doug and Doug, have fought for years. As a matter of fact, they – especially Doug Pittman, has been on this Caner issue and exposing it for several years before it was out to the world. I know he is out of town on vacation, but I am sure he will be interested in the Baptist Mafia’s response to the Caner issue.
I know I am sick of it.
In your repeated accusation that Dee “lied”. You are dispicable and do not deserve a further hearing. Please go away and please get right with your Savior.
Hi all
Just got back from river rafting where I attempted to drown myself in 8 inches of water. ARCE thNk u for your able defense. Deb u r getti g as crazy as me. Lydia, u r right on. More 2 follow tomorrow. Praise God 4a country that permits the little guy freedom of speech. Happy 4th
“Is there a reason you do not want to engage the actual words I write?”
Yes, I have already explained why. But for a graphic illustration of my reasons, I direct others to your 11 paragraph comment to me above.
I think folks make a huge mistake “engaging” you…on your terms.
“Are you satisfied merely with this level of exchange? Getting really personal with people (in a demeaning way) rather than exchanging viable perspectives so real understanding potentially ignites? ”
Oh Peter, you are always so edifying, yourself. :o)
I was under the impression, by your own words over the years, that you believe your own perspective is always the viable one. No matter how blind it might appear to others.
I started what I hope to be a tradition this year. Reading the Constitution every 4th of July to my kids.
Lydia,
Please begin with the Declaration of Independence, and then follow up with the Constitution, including the amendments thereto. And perhaps share that the religion clauses in the first amendment were placed there, at least in part, at the instigation of believers, Baptists in fact. It was their believe in soul competency — the freedom to choose to love God — that made them detest government interference in religion.
Arce, I quite agree. (When I say Constitution, I should be more clear that I include the Bill of Rights which I am so glad some held out for)
I also tell them there is NO wall of seperation wording in the Constitution so when they hear that proclaimed by so many, they know the reference is, instead, from a letter Jefferson wrote responding to the Danbury Baptists over their concerns about the Anglican church.
But I am not aware of any Baptists who participated in the Constitutional Convention. If you know of one, i would be delighted to hear about them.
Here’s an article about religion and the US Constitution, which makes references to the influence of Baptists on the Bill of Rights:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
By the way, what the Baptists and others were concerned about, and what the authors of the 1st amendment instead to address, was the establishment of a national religion. They felt that such matters should be left to the States, and each State could determine whether it would have any specific religion (by which they meant Protestant denomination) as their official State religion. It wasn’t until much later that the religion clause of the 1st amendment was applied to State and local governments also. Though I think it is best that no level of government establish or promote a specific religion, the U.S. Constitution is silent on that matter, and the Framers would likely be appalled that anyone would take what was intended to apply to the federal government and enforce it as applicable to the States.
But later, the Congress and the States adopted the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and the Framers of those amendments apparently wanted the protections of the Constitution, including the previously adopted amendments, to extend the residents of the states as against those State governments. Hence, the bar on States having established religions or religious preferences. The earlier controversies, between disestablishment and anti-disestablishment, are well documented by historians.
To the Readers of TWW,
Interesting to see how TWW (and it’s talented and diverse readers) dealt with the misleading words of a Baptist mafia hit man.
Fact remains that Caner lied and got what he deserved. Fact remains that Geisler and Lumpkins defended Caner’s deplorable behavior and that both of these fellows will have to tolerate the consequences of their words within the Christian community.
Truth is tough to stomach particularly for those whose hobby is to play games with words in order to obfuscate. Could this be the mark of a pseudo-intellectual(not to imply that of Lumpkins)?
Perhaps Mr. Lumpkins is just now beginning to hear that still small voice of TWW whispering ever so gently “cut the baloney”.
I would also suggest that Mr. Lumpkins consider changing his name to something that is harder to rhyme. Perhaps something like “Geisler” will do.
With that, I am…
Dr. Jon
(Sorry, I just couldn’t help it…)
Those within the Baptist Mafia are starting to see that they had better shut the “we run the show” down.
The Internet has ways to deal with ignorance and it is NOT pretty, right Peter….
True, Arce. I meant that the original Framers intended to limit the power of the federal government and allow the states independence in anything not specifically adressed in the constitution. The proper extent of the federal government’s power in relation to that of the states was one of the primary areas of conflict that led to the Civil War. After the Civil War, the power and extent of the federal government grew considerably.
And grew considerably beyond that intended by the original US Constitution’s framers.