I have criticized some folks who have attempted to defend Ergun Caner by attacking his critics. Sadly, yesterday I read of the story of a New Jersey man who decided to do something similar, but both literally and figuratively (link to story).
The man worked for a beer distributor, and he had been stealing and reselling beer. He went on a killing spree, for which he confessed before apparently committing suicide. In the moments after his killing spree, but before the police attempted to capture him, the man called 911 (and his mother) and tried to blame his killing spree on racial harassment. However, by remarkable coincidence, he had just been at a meeting where he was given a choice to resign or be fired based on his theft of beer, and where he had apparently signed a resignation form.
Instead of confessing that he was a thief who had been busted for stealing, the shooter attempted to smear those who were critical of his theft. Now, his supporters (such as his alleged "girlfriend of nine years") are suggesting that it was really supposed racial harassment that was the cause.
Furthermore, the gunman was part of a union. He had filed a complaint with the union about insufficient training (which shows he knew how to file a complaint), but according to the union he had never filed any claims for racial harassment.
Do I need to go on? The real reason for the criticism of the shooter's company is that he didn't like having to deal with the consequences of his sin. Instead, he viewed those who confronted him with his sin as basically haters who were out to get him. Sound familiar?
-TurretinFan
Friday, August 06, 2010
23 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
Yes that does sound familiar.
ReplyDeleteTF, what I'd really like to see is a post about Caner's (now long gone) statement he posted briefly back in February. Specifically, I think it is important to note that what many have called his "apology" was actually just another lie.
Defenders use that statement to say "he did nothing wrong and he apologized for it too, so drop it."
Ergun Caner claimed in that statement that he never intentionally misled anyone. That is another lie. That is not an apology. That is a lie. No honest person should ever refer to Caner's February statement as an apology. If you look at the evidence (which his defenders don't appear willing to do) it is clear that statement was another lie. If we are going to "drop" anything, let's drop the "he's already apologized" garbage.
I did one post about it some time ago (link to post).
ReplyDeleteCaner specifically says he never intentionally misled anyone. That's not an apology for lying, whatever else it might be an apology for.
-TurretinFan
Maybe he was drinking moonshine the whole time. :)
ReplyDeleteDeMarcus Sullivan seems to think the apology is enough, and that LU didn't even accept the apology. And he's an LU grad.
ReplyDeletehttp://demarcussullivan.blogspot.com/
The irony here for DeMarcus Sullivan is the fact that, even though some attribute the success of Liberty University's growth since 2005 to the gifts God has given to Dr. Caner, he has only gotten, to date, 19 signatures to his petition to restore Dr. Caner to his previous post. That fact doesn't reflect well for a knit of God's Love through Dr. Caner to the enrolled students past and present of Liberty University?
ReplyDeleteHmmmmmmm, what then caused the growth? Was it a bunch of lies? Was it God sending thousands to be equipped by the best Teachers and Preachers of our time?
As for the unfortunate circumstances at the brewery, there are two sides to every story, as humans, and only one side from God's point of view.
His side of the story can teach us all who view these things to view these things His way!
May the Good Lord, Who knows all the hearts of men, women and children, give comfort to those suffering loss because of the shooter's ability to cope with reality in a way that violates the Commandments!
This might be a good door opener to discuss and defend the Faith once delivered to the Saints by giving personally an accounting of the Hope that guides us?
If DeMarcus Sullivan can figure out what EC's apology means, he is more insightful than I. For instance: "For this unintentional but nevertheless horrible mistake, I repent for saying his name, and I ask the forgiveness of all those who heard it. Sin is sin, and if I am dumb enough to say something like that, I should be man enough to deal with it and aim to never make such a grievous error again."
ReplyDelete"Sin is sin:" to be sure. This statement is a tautology and thus necessarily true. But where is the "sin"? Can it be in the "unintentional...mistake"? But even toddlers, like Ergun was when he came to this country, know that it doesn't count if you didn't do it on purpose. But then why toss in a complete non sequitur like "Sin is sin"? "I repent for saying his name:" you don't "repent" for saying 'Washington' when you meant 'Jefferson,' though you might 'regret' it. Being "dumb" isn't a sin. So what is he asking "forgiveness" for? This statement goes round and round the mulberry bush, using the vocabulary of sin, repentance, and forgiveness, but offering no fit object for those things.
Turretinfan,
ReplyDeleteHi, in one of your debates you talked about God not giving Pharaoh
common sense to relent.Could that possibly be the case for Caners fervent defenders, in light of all the evidence?
Or am I going too far?
Fredericka,
ReplyDeleteYes, he mentions sin, but we can't figure out from his apology what sin he thinks he committed, if any. The sin of not being careful enough? Sort of a sin of negligence. That's my best best.
Helikaon,
I hope that's not the case here (for their sakes), but perhaps so!
-TurretinFan
No, it has nothing to do with the matter. You are essentially a hit man for James White and have no stake in the matter yourself. You have made your case repeatedly. LU has settled the matter to their satisfaction and everybody else has moved on. What have you done for the LORD today?
ReplyDeleteA.M.M.,
ReplyDeleteThanks for illustrating my point. Attacking the critics is Caner's supporters' stock in trade.
-TurretinFan
Caner's so-called "apology" is nothing but a sick joke. And so long as he is going around speaking at churches, conferences, youth camps, ect., it is EVERY Christian's responsibility to get involved in this.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, Mallett has no hesitation whatoever of adding his imput whenever it suits his fancy, even though he has no direct connection that I can tell with Caner, Liberty, the SBC, or anything else except the his Satanic contempt for the Reformed Faith, which is just another name for the fullness of Biblical Christianity.
Sorry for the couple of typos.
ReplyDeleteOn the so-called apology, I've posted a new item (link).
ReplyDeleteThanks for illustrating my point. Attacking the critics is Caner's supporters' stock in trade.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, Mallett has no hesitation whatoever of adding his imput whenever it suits his fancy, even though he has no direct connection that I can tell with Caner, Liberty, the SBC, or anything else except the his Satanic contempt for the Reformed Faith, which is just another name for the fullness of Biblical Christianity.
It would appear to be rather clear whose stock in trade is vested in attacks. On the other hand, you are still chewing up pixels on a matter that has already been settled and one in which you have no vested interest or say.
What have you done for the LORD today? (If you think the question is an attack, be content to state nothing.)
Mallett, because you are so committed to your man-centered humanism, you are asking the wrong question. The question is NOT, "What have you done for the LORD today?" But rather, "What has God done for us?" A person such as yourself in rebellion against the Word of God cannot begin to answer that question. ONLY the Calvinist can honestly, turthfully, and unequivocally say, "God saved me."
ReplyDeleteAnd, no, the Caner issue is NOT settled, despite your vain assertions.
And, yes, Mallett, your on-going rampage against the Reformed faith is Satanic in origin. Your Father, the Father of Lies, has always hated the truth of God's Word, and so do his offsprings such as yorself.
ReplyDeleteWhine about this "attack" all you want.
Thanks again, Mallett. It's much more persuasive when I actually have someone acting the way you're acting, then when I have to just say that it happens.
ReplyDeleteYour inability to distinguish between criticisms in general and ad hominem defenses is amazing.
-TurretinFan
Thanks for illustrating my point. Attacking the critics is Caner's supporters' stock in trade.
ReplyDeleteYour inability to distinguish between criticisms in general and ad hominem defenses is amazing.
TF, I suppose I should thank you for the amazing display of irony.
Tom, you are an idiot and THAT is an ad hominem.
Mallett, coming from a God-hating, man-exulting, rebel against Scripture such as yourself, I consider that to be the highest compliment someone of your ilk could ever give me.
ReplyDeleteSo, Mallett, you wrote: "LU has settled the matter to their satisfaction and everybody else has moved on." Yet you're here. You haven't moved on. Isn't that a little incongruous?
ReplyDeleteIt is no coincidence that Mallett’s principles put him in league with a proven liar and his most fanatical and ignorant defenders.
ReplyDeleteBut TF, he is after all, A.M. MALLET and he has a far more encompassing sphere to swallow!
ReplyDeleteWe strain with camels and he with gnats!
Go figure, if you want to, that is?
So, Mallett, you wrote: "LU has settled the matter to their satisfaction and everybody else has moved on." Yet you're here. You haven't moved on. Isn't that a little incongruous?
ReplyDeleteYes, you are right. Nathan should have kept his mouth shut .... I'll leave you to your devices.